Replies

Do I get excommunicated if I don’t accept pope Francis?

If so, you would be part of a large sect here. So many of your brethren have relegated pope Francis to be excommunicated (which officially would seem to require his sanction) that at one time the RM said being as "many other Catholic posters have proclaimed that the Pope is not Catholic, we will remove the Catholic Caucus label because this thread is about a non-Catholic."

However, as for your status, that depends upon who is imposing this sentence and your degree of culpability:

“Who can excommunicate? “ Excommunication is an act of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the rules of which it follows. Hence the general principle: whoever has jurisdiction in the forum externum, properly so called, can excommunicate, but only his own subjects. Therefore, whether excommunications be a jure (by the law) or ab homine (under form of sentence or precept), they may come from the pope alone or a general council for the entire Church; from the provincial council for an ecclesiastical province; from the bishop for his diocese; from the prelate nullius for quasi-diocesan territories; and from regular prelates for religious orders. Moreover, anyone can excommunicate who, by virtue of his office, even when delegated, has contentious jurisdiction in the forum externum; for instance, papal legates, vicars capitular, and vicars-general. But a parish priest cannot inflict this penalty nor even declare that it is incurred, i.e. he cannot do so in an official and judicial manner....

Hence arise various extenuating reasons (causæ excusantes), based on lack of guilt, which prevent the incurring of excommunication:....(There is a running joke among canonists that, since the requirements for imposition of a canonical penalty are so complex, and require so much knowledge on the part of the perpetrator, that the end result is that the only people who can be excommunicated are…canon lawyers.) - Am I Excommunicated? Sanctions, Part I http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2008/01/25/am-i-excommunicated/

The person committing an offense must be at least sixteen years old; must have full use of reason; must have full knowledge that there is a sanction attached to commission of that offense; must be acting with full freedom, i.e., without any outside force or compulsion of grave fear; and must not be acting in self-defense. If even one of these conditions is not met, a person does not incur the censure that is attached by law to a particular crime! - Is She Excommunicated? Sanctions, Part II http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2008/03/07/is-she-excommunicated-sanctions-part-ii/

However, the same canon law lawyer also statwes, Canon 751 tells us that schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him. And this is where sedevacantism fits into the equation.

As we saw in “What is the ‘Old Catholic Church’?” canon 205 tells us that a baptized Catholic is in full communion with the Catholic Church if he accepts the Catholic faith, Catholic sacraments, and Catholic governance—and it’s the issue of rejecting church governance that is the key problem with sedevacantism. If you don’t believe that this or that papal document was issued by a man who is/was really the Pope, then you naturally don’t intend to abide by whatever it says. A Catholic who thinks that all the Popes since St. John XXIII were invalidly elected is obviously not going to obey anything that these Popes have said. In other words, by refusing to accept the authority of the current Pope or his recent predecessors, a Catholic who’s a sedevacantist willfully puts himself into a state of schism.

Some of the specific positions advocated by various groups of sedevacantists might strike ordinary Catholics as funny, but schism is no laughing matter. Under canon law it is considered a crime against religion and the unity of the Church, and thus a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication (c. 1364.1). ..

But since sedevacantists tend to cite (incorrectly) a lot of canon law in support of their positions, it seems reasonable to assume that they are aware of both the Church’s position on the crime of schism, and the penalties that may accompany it.

There is nothing illogical about drawing this conclusion about sedevacantists. Think about it: how can you be in full communion with the Catholic Church, if you refuse to acknowledge the authority of the leaders of the Catholic Church? - http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2017/04/20/can-you-be-both-a-catholic-and-a-sedevacantist/

Canon 915 states:

Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or the declaration of a penalty as well as others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to communion.

But as with so much else in Catholicism, there is the issue of interpretation:

Albany Bishop Howard Hubbard says it is "unfair and imprudent" to conclude that Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his girlfriend, Sandra Lee, shouldn't receive Communion simply because they're living together. -- from the thread Bishop: None of your business (Hubbard rejects Catholic expert's criticism of Gov. Cuomo)

[Archbishop Timothy Dolan] also does not outright deny the sacrament to dissenting Catholic lawmakers, but he is seen as an outspoken defender of church orthodoxy in a style favored by many theological conservatives. -- from the thread US bishops elect NYC archbishop as head in upset (Catholic bloggers blamed)

"...there's a question about whether this canon'' – the relevant church law – "was ever intended to be used'' to bring politicians to heel. He thinks not. "I stand with the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world in saying this canon [Canon 915] was never intended to be used this way.'' -- from the thread [Archbishop] Wuerl: Why I Won't Deny Pelosi Communion http://www.canonlaw.info/2009/03/abps-wuerl-c-916-burke-cc-915-916-on.html

And in the medieval Catholic church to which so many TradCaths look to, the law required:

Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath. But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action. - Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3), 1215: (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp)

However, past canon law also stated

Can. 831 §1 Unless there is a just and reasonable cause, no member of Christ's faithful may write in newspapers, pamphlets or periodicals which clearly are accustomed to attack the catholic religion or good morals. Clerics and members of religious institutes may write in them only with the permission of the local Ordinary. - http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2P.HTM

And excommunicating each other happened during the schism of the 14th and 15th centuries, as Cardinal Ratzinger testified,

"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.“ "It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196). http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/06/13/whos-in-charge-here-the-illusions-of-church-infallibility/)