What it is and what it is not; who can be excommunicated and who cannot.

Excommunication is a legal censure used by the Roman Catholic Church by which one is excluded from the communion of the faithful, with the consequences which are enumerated in the cannons. It is also called anathema, especially if it is inflicted with the solemnities described in the Roman Pontifical.

Who can excommunicate?

The Church is a perfect society. This means that the Church has within Her power to do all those things that an organized society may do. As a visible society, the Church punishes only certain external transgresions which disturb the social order.

When we speak of `Church' here, we do not mean all the members of the Church, both clergy and laity. In this context, `Church' means those holding sacred authority: Pope and Bishops.

Therefore, those who have power to enact laws or to impose precepts can also attach penalties to the law or the precept. Those who have only judicial power can only apply according to law penalties lawfully established. (Canon 2220,§1).

Those who have legislative power can, within the limits of their jurisdiction, fortify a law with a suitable penalty or even make the legal penalty more severe, not only in the case of a law enacted by themselves or their predecessors, but also, if there is a special reason for such action, in the case of both the divine law and an ecclesiastical law enacted by a superior power and in effect in the territory. (canon 2221).

The sacred authority in the Roman Catholic Church is held by a legitimate Pope and legitimate Bishops in union with him. Imposters, usurpers _ even if they are validly consecrated are not considered as legitimate authority.

Only the Roman Pontiff can inflict or declare a penalty in the case of the persons mentioned in the Canon Law. These persons are: the heads of states, their sons or daughters or those who have the immediate right of succession (Note: This refers to kings as heads of state and only kings who are members of the Church), Cardinals, Apostolic Legates, and Bishops. All these are assumed to be members of the Church and who have not excommunicated themselves by falling into heresy or schism.

Unless expressly mentioned, Cardinals and Bishops are not subject to latae sententiae penalties of suspension and interdict. (Canon 227,§2). "Latae sententiae" is basically equivalent to "ipso facto" _ by the doing of the deed. There are other distinctions which we will not consider at this time, but which are extremely important.

Those who may have possessed legitimate authority, but have lost it by virtue of Church Law as expressed in Canon 188,§4 "if he has publicly fallen away from the Catholic faith" have no power to excommunicate.

Important note: Since the alleged-Popes succeeding Pope Pius XII have deviated from the Catholic faith, they had already fallen into heresy PRIOR to being elected to the office of pope. Their election was invalid and illegal.

By virtue of this law, such individuals _ even if they were validly and legitimately raised to an ecclesiastical rank _ are held by the Church to have tacitly resigned their position. No declaration is necessary.

Therefore, having fallen into heresy before or after being raised to an office, such individuals have no authority to excommunicate anyone, having been excommunicated from the Church themselves.

Who can be excommunicated? Who cannot be excommunicated?

Only members of the Roman Catholic Church can be excommunicated because they alone are subject to the laws of the Church.

An entire list of those crimes that incur the penalty of excommunication is found in the Code of Canon Law.

The Law covers everyone from Pope to peasant. Yes, a Pope can become excommunicated from the Church. This, of course, applies to a legitimate Pope. An antipope is not a legitimate Pope. Therefore, an antipope is not even considered here, because an antipope is already excommunicated under some other title.

Pope Pius XII, in his doctrinal Encyclical letter "Mystici Corporis" clearly states that there are three things required to be a member of the Roman Catholic Church This Roman Pontiff, acting as the Vicar of the Supreme Pontiff Jesus Christ, states:

Actually, only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

"For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered _ so the Lord commands _ as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

It is only too manifest that heretics and schismatics are the only ones who fail to see themselves in the true light of this doctrinal statement by Pope Pius XII.

Pius XII makes a three-fold distinction because it is from any one of these three categories that a person is excluded from the Roman Catholic Church.

It does not make any difference with how much vehemence and protestation that these heretics and schismatics obstinately refer to themselves as `Catholics,' They are not members either of the visible Church nor are they members of the invisible Church, since there can be no real distinction between the two.

Recently, the case of an alleged-priest of the Diocese of Rochester, NY fell into the clutches of the local press and television media. The individual in question, Mr. James Callan, ("ordained" according to the new rite by Matthew Clark, likewise "consecrated" according to the new rite after 1968), has obstinately fostered heresies in thought, word and deed.

He was subsequently declared "excommunicated" by the unofficial communication arm of the Diocese, namely, the Democrat & Chronicle, and the local Television stations. Hardly any intelligent Catholic bothers reading the "Courier Journal" _ once the Catholic paper of the Rochester Diocese.

What is typical of the apostate Church, there was never a single mention of the word "heresy." Callan was conveniently removed for being in "schism" with his local superior.

But, what else can be said when his superior, Rev. Matthew Clark alias "Bishop" Matthew Clark, is fundamentally guilty of the same generic heresies as Callan? The same may be said of "Pope John Paul II" who is equally guilty of heresy, even though he has not specifically gone as far as Callan. Callan may just be slightly off plumb; but he basically expresses the general mentality and "theology" of his peers and superiors.

Matthew Clark has already been excommunicated from the Catholic Church as all his clergy with him _ including those validly ordained priests who know better, but prefer earthly comfort to hardship for upholding the truth.

Why shouldn't Mr.Callan follow the bad example of his superior? It was his own superior who "appealed to a higher law of `charity'" when he ignored the directives of the Vatican by allowing girls to serve at the altar. Any number of priests throughout the United States are equally guilty by allowing Nuns and laywomen to "play priest" and distribute what might be perceived as "Holy Communion".

The problem with Callan is that he is either just plain stupid or his brain has become so paralyzed by the charms of his female priestesses that he no longer can distinguish what the Roman Catholic Church really is and his distorted myopic subjective fantasy.

Whatever the case may be, Callan and his followers ceased being Roman Catholics long ago. The bitter fruit is only now showing the tree from which it falls.

Matthew Clark and all his clergy are heretics. How many doctrines must a heretic deny or falsify before he can be termed a "heretic"? Apparently, those who associate themselves with heretics and are, according to the Laws of the Roman Catholic Church, subject to the same excommunication with heretics find no inconsistency in all this non-Catholic activity. After all, "John Paul II" has set the precedent.

And, admittedly, not too many people have the courage (or is it "foolhardiness") to call a perceived successor of St. Peter a heretic. It's really quite comical: A heretic becomes disobedient to his heretic superior, and then is cast away for being in "schism" with that same heretic superior who is himself in schism with the true Church.

The Church cannot be in heresy with Herself, nor can She be in schism with Herself. The Church, as the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ cannot be made up of heretics and schismatics. Sinners are not excluded from membership; but heresy and schism are sins of such a nature that they intrinsically and essentially place a Catholic outside the true Body and Spirit.

It makes little difference to the true Church if all those who have given themselves over to demonic influence rant and rave against the Church and Her legitimate authorities. Such rabid dissenters must find some way to express their deep inner self-hate. Where once they safely served God, now they can only spread the kingdom of hate _ Satanocracy among their victims.

Return to Contents

Return to Homepage.