People in the middle ages who were wrongfully excommunicated by the pope , based off of something that was right and just but the pope at the time who might have been corrupt Did it to make that individual powerless against reforms in the church at that time. I just think that God would forgive them of their sins still when they ask for it because that individual is fighting for righteousness.
It would be hard to answer that question without knowing who the individual was, who the Pope was and what the circumstances were surrounding the situation.
It is a hypothetical situation. I probably should have mentioned that.
Even if it is a hypothetical question, there is no way anyone could know the answer to your question. There are too many ifs and we always have to keep in mind that the ends do not justify the means. I look toward Saint Francis of Assisi who did more than anyone to end the corruption of some of the practices that were going on at that time. He remained faithful and obedient.
It’s possible that it may have happened like that in a few cases.
The colossal background is:
- kings constantly aimed to pilfer church funds which were the social security of the time
- kings aimed to subvert prelates and recruit them to their own political causes
- the Black Death of 1347-9 wiped out more than half of the more educated kinds of clergy, and scholars in all fields so it’s no wonder there was a horrendous hiatus in reform impulses
- rows between Rome and some countries’ clergy about clergy stipends were a factor in residual discontent
I wonder about William of Ockham and Michael of Cesena. (Cesena fascinatingly has a history of several thousands of years of opposition to Rome in one way or another.) They were “Spiritual Franciscans” which means they had “foibles about private property” and then they tried to propagate their ideas through “philosophy”. Very intriguing!
Then multiply that umpteen times, around all the many “controversies”.
Another extremely important thing we should all remember is that the propaganda about the Reformation which we have all received was set in stone on “both” or “all” sides around 1550. It is very illuminating to research what the scene looked like to participants in the early stages. There were large numbers of fairly prominent people with moderate and nuanced agendas alongside all the “camps”, who have been airbrushed and declared “non persons” by “authorities” since around that date. I wonder what would have been the reform ambitions of Erasmus of Rotterdam, St John Fisher, Cardinal Pole? On the Protestant “sides” one can hop, with one’s search engine, from personality to personality which I found enlightening and perspective shedding.
From the old Catholic Encyclopedia:
An excommunication is said to be null when it is invalid because of some intrinsic or essential defect, e.g. when the person inflicting it has no jurisdiction, when the motive of the excommunication is manifestly incorrect and inconsistent, or when the excommunication is essentially defective in form … It is admitted by all that a null excommunication produces no effect whatever, and may be ignored without sin (cap. ii, de const., in VI).
I assume, rightly or wrongly, that the above would have applied during the Middle Ages.
Can you give at least one example?
Secondly, why is the middle ages time frame important to your question?
So say there is an individual such as a bishop, and say the pope of that time writes a certain document saying of agreeing to something. Now this bishop is like wait a minute this is wrong because maybe the pope is writing this to gain more power with various kingdoms. So basically if he can be that person whispering in the kings ear whether or not to start wars. So the pope would then be able to excommunicate such a bishop and leave him powerless. This is all in the middle ages of course.
With respect it sounds like it is in your imagination.
Could you please give a concrete example of this happening otherwise it is a hypothetical and i am wondering why you are setting a hypothetical in a certain period of time?
Why set the hypothetical question in say the 14th century and not the 9th century or the 29th century?
Remember that ex-communication is a separation from the church, not a damnation to hell.