How is the "perpetual" excommunication of Acacius by Felix III currently understood in Catholicism?

Upvote:1

Perduring or Unending


First and foremost, it should be noted that Canon Law pertains to clerics, and only very rarely to the laity (and even then, I think only to those in some position of authority).


There is no specific penalty called "perpetual excommunication" in the current Code of Canon Law (1983). Generally speaking, mercy is of greater weight than justice, and a repentant person should never be so drastically punished in that way without there being some extraordinarily grave matter. This penalty has been either handed down (in the case of Acacius) or used as a dire form of oathmaking (in the case of two brothers going off on crusade). In the case of the latter, we can read their transaction, giving the Church their manor if they die while on crusade here. This particular phrase is of interest: "If, however, another lays claim to this gift, not only is it protected from that which is sought, but may he suffer every curse [malediction] and perpetual excommunication from God and the holy apostles for his sins, unless he recovers his senses."


Canon law does provide for "perpetually expiatory penalties", however. (These are mentioned in Book VI.) Josemaría Sanchis, in his Exegetical Commentary for Book VI, notes examples such as "dismissal from the clerical state or deprivation of office". An example of this sort of penalty was that imposed upon Mr Theodore McCarrick (formerly a Cardinal), who was laicised. Essentially he can no longer act as a priest. The penalty in this case is almost certainly perpetual because it is extremely unlikely that he will be readmitted to orders.


As regards Acacius specifically, it would appear from this article that he was quite the character. Reading between the lines in this article, I suspect that the excommunication was termed "perpetual" simply because Acacius was too dangerous in his behaviour to be allowed back.

More post

Search Posts

Related post