I was reading into the history of the Society of Saint Pius X, and I came across a rather dense portion regarding the validity of their sacraments that mentioned that Reconciliation and Marriage specifically require canonical jurisdiction in order to be valid, yet the other sacraments do not. My understanding was that all sacraments are valid if performed by a priest, but not necessarily licit unless they had canonical jurisdiction (with the obvious exception of Baptism). As I am pretty sure that Holy Orders is still valid if done without approval, it just results in an automatic excommunication. So what makes Reconciliation and Marriage special that they are not valid unless done under proper jurisdiction? Does this mean Rome does not recognize there to be valid confessions and marriages in any of the apostolic churches not in communion with Rome (Easter Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, etc.)? Because I was under the impression that Rome did view all of their sacraments as valid in light of their apostolic succession. Or does excommunication invalidate the ability for clergy to perform those specific sacraments? If someone could explain the nuances to me that would be appreciated.

This relates to a discussion on another Question (which I won't link because I don't want to draw attention to the OP). The following is all hypothetical. (I, personally, am not Roman Catholic, nor do I have any plans of becoming so.) Let's say I engage in some practice which I believe to be beneficial to my health. (The specific practice is irrelevant.) Let's say, also, that the RCC forbids this practice. However, I believe that my health is more important than adhering to Catholic teaching, so I continue the practice in genuine belief that doing so is critical to my health and longevity. Could I be excommunicated for this? Does it make a difference if I was already Catholic, vs. if I converted with the intention of ignoring the RCC prohibition to refrain from this practice?

Can a member of the Ruthenian Catholic Church be automatically excommunicated for apostasy? As far as I know they can't be, as the *Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches* states: >"One who denies a truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or who calls it into doubt, or who totally repudiates the Christian faith, and does not retract it after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished as a heretic or an apostate with a major excommunication" (1436) Does this imply that the Church has to be officially involved in order for the person to be excommunicated?

On 5 July 2024, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) , in an "Extrajudicial Penal Process", simply declared Viganò as having incurred a *latæ sententiæ* excommunication , but was he even given a trial? Or does an "Extrajudicial Penal Process" mean he is sentenced as guilty without a trial?

Why is Abp. Viganò's (supposed ) excommunication for schism *latæ sententiæ* (automatic), not *ferendæ sententiæ* (declared juridical sentence )?

I heard that some things (like getting an abortion or attacking the pope) have the penalty of *latæ sententiæ* excommunication. What is that?

The singer Madonna Louise Ciccone has stated in various interviews that she's been excommunicated by the Catholic Church *multiple times*. > The best-selling female recording artist then revealed that she had > been excommunicated from the church three times. Corden, in disbelief, > questioned whether or not she was serious but she assured him that it > was true. > > **"The Vatican has excommunicated me,"** she said before the two of them > started belting out her hit song, "Papa Dont Preach" off of her third > studio album released in 1986, True Blue. > > Madonna Talks Being Excommunicated by Church, Desire to Be Nun on James Corden's 'Carpool Karaoke' and > “I’ve been excommunicated from the Catholic Church three times,” > Madonna joked to the crowd in Philadelphia. “It shows the Vatican > cares – deeply.” > > Watch Madonna Dedicate a Song to the 'Popey-Wopey' (A.K.A. Pope Francis) **Has she formally ever been excommunicated on *multiple* occasions (or if not, why does she think she has)?**

Is a Catholic who belongs to a political party that supports sins in its party platform excommunicated? Before Vatican II, a Catholic belonging to the Communist Party (or any other association machinating against the Church) was *ipso facto* excommunicated. 1917 Code of Canon Law : >Can. 2335— Those giving their name to masonic sects or other associations of this sort that machinate against the Church or legitimate civil powers contract by that fact excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See. 1983 Code of Canon Law : >Can. 1374— A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; one who promotes or takes office in such an association is to be punished with an interdict.

When the "bell, book, and candle " ritual was still used by the Catholic church, was it used in all *ferendae sententiae* excommunications?

Has any formerly excommunicated person who later repented been canonized as a saint after their death?

From what I gather, Nestorius rejected Mary as the *Theotokos* (which means "God-bearer") and proposed instead that she merely be called, the *Christotokos*; or rather, "Christ-bearer" because since Mary was a human being---God could never be born of a creature. Hence, (with some details omitted) this would necessarily imply that there were two distinct persons in the Incarnate Christ---one human and one divine accidentally united in one body (in violation of the dogma of *homoousios* defined at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325 that God the Father and God the Son are of the *same substance*). It is not clear whether or not Nestorius explicitly taught that there exists two natures in Christ, but his doctrine necessarily leads to that conclusion. Hence, with this heresy, it could neither be said that *God* was born, nor that *He* was crucified, nor that *He* died---and therefore, neither that *He* rose from the dead. And so, as the Holy Spirit tells us in 1 Cor. 15:17: *if Christ be not risen again, your faith is vain, for you are yet in your sins.* The First Council of Ephesus in 431 condemned Nestorius' teachings as heretical and deposed him from his See (Nestorius was the patriarch of Constantinople at the time.) Was Nestorius ever formally excommunicated by the Catholic Church? I have now noticed that this question seems to be somewhat connected with the one posed here: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/96605/proof-that-cyril-of-alexandria-is-a-saint-in-the-roman-catholic-church , for *Catholic Encyclopedia* in the entry for [Pope St. Celestine I](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03477c.htm) says (regarding St. Cyril of Alexandria): > Cyril having found Nestorius openly professing his heresy sent a full account to Celestine, who in a Roman synod (430), having solemnly condemned the errors of Nestorius, now ordered Cyril in his name to proceed against Nestorius, who was to be excommunicated and deposed unless within ten days he should have made in writing a solemn retractation of his errors. In letters written the same day to Nestorius, to the clergy and people of Constantinople, and to John of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Rufus of Thessalonica, and Flavian of Philippi, Celestine announces the sentence passed upon Nestorius and the commission given to Cyril to execute it. At the same time he restored all who had been excommunicated or deprived by Nestorius. Cyril forwarded the papal sentence and his own anathema to Nestorius. Nevertheless, it is not clear to me whether or not Nestorius had been officially excommunicated.

On my reading of a Anton Gill's 1989 book "The journey back from hell ", he speaks briefly about JWs in the concentration camps. According to Gill, one of the issues the Nazis had with this group was their unwillingness to do military service. Videos like this and this by Amnesty International indicates that they still rather suffer the consequences of prison and difficulties in finding employment than do military service, at least in South Korea. What would the consequences be for a Jehovah's Witness, from their religious organization, if they join a military? Would the person be excommunicated or disfellowshipped if this is found out? (In case it makes a difference, I am asking about a scenario where the person is unrepentant.)

Are there rules in place that a pope must follow when he wishes to excommunicate a bishop? If so, what are they; or where may they be found?

This question is motivated by one of the answers given [here](https://law.stackexchange.com/a/93770/24981) for the question [Is religious confession legally privileged](https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/93765/is-religious-confession-legally-privileged) . I am under the impression, correct me if I am wrong, that if a Catholic priest reveals anything that was told to him during Sacramental Confession---he is automatically excommunicated by the Church. QUESTION: If the penitent involved gives permission for that priest to reveal something from his confession, may the priest do so without ecclesiastical penalty? Or is he still bound to reveal nothing?

In the Douay Rheims, Galatians 1:6-8, for example, we read: >**6** I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. **7** Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. **8** But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. And, for example, the Council of Trent promulgated a list of "excommunicable offenses" according to Wikipedia's [List of excommunicable offences from the Council of Trent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_excommunicable_offences_from_the_Council_of_Trent) , all of which conclude with "let him be anathema". According to Catholic Teaching, are the terms "let him be anathema" and "excommunicated" synonymous?

Around AD 485, the patriarch of Constantinople, [Acacius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acacius_of_Constantinople) , was excommunicated by [Pope Felix III](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Felix_III) , in a dispute over both theology and authority. This excommunication, however, seems unique in that it was said to be "perpetual," as the *Catholic Encyclopedia* explains: > Acacius was branded by Pope Felix as one who had sinned against the Holy Ghost and apostolic authority (*Habe ergo cum his . . . portionem S. Spiritus judicio et apostolica auctoritate damnatus*); and he was declared to be perpetually excommunicate — *nunquamque anathematis vinculis exuendus*. ([source](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01082a.htm)) Wikipedia further indicates that Acacius was "irrevocably excommunicated," though I'm not sure if that's an accurate characterization, particularly in light of the [*Catholic Encyclopedia*'s article on excommunication](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm) , which does not seem to address the concept of a "perpetual" excommunication. After reviewing that article, I can conceive of a few ways that the perpetual excommunication of Acacius could be understood: 1. That this excommunication was simply a "reserved" excommunication, one that could only be absolved by the Pope, and the "perpetual" was an indication of the Pope's confidence that absolution would not be sought or given. 2. That this excommunication was of a special category not described in the *CE*, and that it truly was irrevocable, without any possibility of absolution. - If so, does this special category continue to exist today? 3. That Wikipedia and I misunderstand the term "perpetual" in this context and thus this isn't actually any different from many other excommunications (perhaps the adjective simply means "perpetual until absolution") **How does Catholicism today understand this excommunication of Acacius by Pope Felix?** Was it truly "irrevocable," and if so, can such excommunications be pronounced today?

I recently found out that my grandmother was excommunicated for having a (medically necessary) hysterectomy in the 70's. She loved the Catholic Church, but she never returned, and was never the same after this happened. She passed away some time ago, but finding this out has left me with many questions. Does this affect her afterlife? Does the Catholic Church keep a record of excommunications? It bothers me to think that there's some sort of black mark next to her name. If so, can this be reversed posthumously? I feel what happened to her was terrible and unfair, and even though she's gone, I'm just wondering if there is something I can do to right this wrong.

My understanding of history is that: - During the times of the early Roman Empire the stance of the persecuted Christians was that they recognize the authority of the State and the Emperor and obey them, with the only exception of when the State orders them to sin (ie renounce their faith and worship false gods). God's authority is above the authority of the State, however, whenever the authority of the State does not clash with the authority of God then the State must be obeyed. For this reason when the State was condemning early Christians to death for their religious obstinacy then early Christians thought they now had the duty to obey the order of the State, which was to let the executioners kill them; as doing so was not a sin (as opposed to themselves killing others or renouncing faith) early Christians were not even attempting to escape or to rebel, but were obediently letting the State kill them. (This is sometimes brought even in contemporary times by preachers who advocate the doctrine that all people must unconditionally obey secular powers at all times with the only exception of when the secular power orders them to sin.) - However, in Medieval times, the Pope had the authority to free subjects of a king from the duty to obey him by excommunicating him. Excommunication, as far as I understand, is a formal declaration that someone is outside of the Church. Thus, it would seem to me, in Medieval times the Church did not teach that all must always obey the State, however vicious that State might be; to the contrary, Christians had to obey kings only as long as the Pope recognized these Kings were in full communion with the Church. This seems contradictory to me. Am I failing to understand something? Or did the teachings of the Church on that matter indeed change in between of Ancient and Medieval times?

My father dodged the Vietnam War and we later found his whereabouts to be in New Zealand. My mother tried to get an annulment but was denied. She divorced for abandonment and said she was excommunicated. She must have told me this 50 times as it hurt her tremendously. She "secretly" attended and remained personally devout. Her second marriage was to a Protestant so I don't know if that played a part. My sister-in-law doesn't believe what my mom told me and thinks you can only get excommunicated if you committed a horrendous crime in a sane mind. Back in 1967, I think the Church was more cut & dry / strict, when it came to divorce. I know my mom had 'shopped' many other religions to appease her spiritually and for the need of community, to no avail. She was Catholic and there was nothing else! Please clarify this for me.

Not that I'm plotting anything heinous, but can one be excommunicated or have excommunication lifted during an interregnum? I think, but I'm not positive, that some offenses that carry excommunication can only be lifted by the Pope. So, in the absence of a Holy Father, who can lift excommunication or does someone just have to wait for a new Pope, even on the verge of death? On the flip side, it would seem to be an offense against charity to deliver [Latae Sententiae](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14846/what-is-latae-sententiae/14847#14847) excommunication without a possibility of repentance.