Are most Catholics excommunicated?

[Pat_the_Cat]

“That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.”

Your Quote states that heritics being burned, is against the will of the Holy Spirit, which I think (most) Catholics would agree with. So, no we would not be excommunicated for that!

 

[Little_Les]

No, it is not intrinsically evil.

Again, you are quite mistaken.

And your evidence is?

 

[Little_Les]

Your Quote states that heritics being burned, is against the will of the Holy Spirit, which I think (most) Catholics would agree with. So, no we would not be excommunicated for that!

Read Exsurge domine.

For believing "“That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.” brings Catholics an automatic excommunication.

I agree that most Catholics would now accept this as true and hence are excommunicated.

 

[Little_Les]

Liitle Les, a little note:

Having read many of your posts I find nothing to convince me that you’re a Catholic of any kind within the Church.

But I am. Just not a gullible Catholic. Our numbers are growing.

 

[LilyM]

But I am. Just not a gullible Catholic. Our numbers are growing.

No, you’re either lying or grossly uneducated.

And you’re gullible enough to believe that ‘it isn’t against the Holy Spirit’s will that heretics be burned’ means the same as ‘the Holy Spirit requires all heretics to be burned’. Which belief defies both common logic and common sense.

 

[Little_Les]

Les, it seems to me that you are pointing out a teaching that seems troublesome and presenting it as if you were merely confused so that you can eventually progress to using that ‘confusion’ to argue that the Church is in error or illegitimate. Is that about right? Or have I misread both this thread and your thread on apparent contradictions in Scripture?

Don’t get me wrong, I really have no problem with people arguing these things here, that’s part of what the forum is about. But it is more productive, I think, to just say you think the Church is wrong and have at it then to come at it sideways for a few pages.

Anyway, this has been beat to death on a couple recent threads that directly address infallibility. I recommend the discussion on this thread that has beat infallibilty back and forth for 11 pages now. List of Infallible Teachings

No. Your list contains only two ex cathedra infallible teaching. There is also the infallibility of the extraordinary magisterium, ecumenical councils, and infallibility of the universal ordinary magisterium (what the Church has constantly taught).

Vatican I “infallibly” ruled that a papal ex cathedra teaching meets the following criteria:

“We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,(1) in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, (2) in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,(3) he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.”

Therefore, whenever these criteria are met, the papal teaching is infallible and “irreformable” ie. can never change.

Another example:

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. " (Unam Sanctam)

 

[Little_Les]

No, you’re either lying or grossly uneducated.

And you’re gullible enough to believe that ‘it isn’t against the Holy Spirit’s will that heretics be burned’ means the same as ‘the Holy Spirit requires all heretics to be burned’. Which belief defies both common logic and common sense.

Your claim, not mine. I merely quoted the infallible papal teaching contained in Exsurge domine.

see: papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

 

[Little_Les]

Liitle Les, a little note:

Having read many of your posts I find nothing to convince me that you’re a Catholic of any kind within the Church.

Then you are in error.

 

[LilyM]

Your claim, not mine. I merely quoted the infallible papal teaching contained in Exsurge domine.

see: papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

Quoted it but totally misunderstood what it means.

 

[Little_Les]

Little Les,

Furthermore, if the Church believed that it was the explicit and positive will of God - that is, a requisite command - that heretics be burned, then why did the Church not in fact burn the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of heretics that She had the power to do?

Perhaps you should look up what happened during the Inquisitions.

 

[Little_Les]

Firstly, this was not genocide, for the simple fact that it was not all of the Midianites. There were other Midianites whom were friendly with the Israelites and lived elsewhere. On top of this is the fact that Israel was again attacked by Midianites later on, so it couldn’t possibly have been genocide.

Secondly, this was not indiscriminant killing, it was capital punishment executed for capital crimes. I will provide a brief summary here, but please check the full, very detiled article out for a fuller grasp:

Yes. It was punishment which included women and male children . Only virgin females (who had not know man) were spared (and kept by the soldiers).

Was this really directed by God, or was “God’s will” used as a rationalization for genocide?

The reason was that genealogy did not pass through the female (as long as they were not pregnant). Destroy the males and pregnant females, and you destroyed the people.

 

[Little_Les]

I just read this whole thread, and I recommend that you take your own advice here.

I already have. We look forward to reviewing your evidence to the contrary. Or is your assertion without evidence?

 

[Little_Les]

Little Les,

The Catholic Encyclopedia is not a Church document. The Church documents condemning chattle slavery which I quoted earlier are.
.

No. You have yet to produce a Chruch document prohibiting slave ownership.

You’ve confused the slave trade (which met with some Church objection after about 1450) with slave ownership which was taught to be supported by scripture and the natural law until the 1900’s.

“It is certainly a matter of faith that this sort of slavery in which a man serves his master as his slave, is altogether lawful. This is proved from Holy Scripture. It is also proved from reason… All theologians are unanimous on this.”
[Leander: Quaestiones Morales Theologicae, Lyons 1668 - 1692,

"It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given. [Instruction Of the Holy Office, 1866]

 

[Little_Les]

Little Les,

To sum all of this up in other words, slavery is not intrinsically evil because it is not intrinsically evil that a person may have rights over another person for various reasons, the most obvious of which being that one may voluntarially give himself to another as a slave. However, in practice slavery is almost always immoral because we are a fallen race burdened by original sin, and so the respect of the dignity of the human person is always violated by the master thanks to the corruption of our nature.

QUOTE]

But starting in the 1900’s the Church NOW teaches that slave ownership is intrinsicatlly evil.

Veritatus splendor (1993)

"80. Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances…The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts:… slavery,

 

[Contrabass101]

This is one of the things that I find so appealing with the Catholic Church.

In a time when hardly anyone regarded slaves as more than cattle, popes and bishops spoke up against the unfair capture and inhumane treatment of blacks and indians. Then in a time when everyone had changed their minds and become Liberals, instead of speaking against slavery in theory (a man binding himself to a master for lifetime) like anyone else, they spoke against the real slavery of their time (a “free” man working 24/7 in a factory).

I have read the thread and come to agree with the Church on this - in 1500 as well as in 1800, 1900 and 2000

• CB

 

[Little_Les]

This is one of the things that I find so appealing with the Catholic Church.

In a time when hardly anyone regarded slaves as more than cattle, popes and bishops spoke up against the unfair capture and inhumane treatment of blacks and indians. Then in a time when everyone had changed their minds and become Liberals, instead of speaking against slavery in theory (a man binding himself to a master for lifetime) like anyone else, they spoke against the real slavery of their time (a “free” man working 24/7 in a factory).

I have read the thread and come to agree with the Church on this - in 1500 as well as in 1800, 1900 and 2000

• CB

Based upon the Church’s interpretation of scripture and the Catholic Church’s then interpretation of the natural law, the moral legitimacy of chattel slave ownership (in which the slave was heritable property and all children born were also slaves) was maintained until the 1900’s.

This formerly constant moral teaching (therefore infallible teaching?) was dropped and slave ownership became a sin (CCC#2414) and contrary to the natural law (Vatican II and Veritatis splendor) in the mid 1900’s after almost 2000 years of erroneous teaching.

 

[pnewton]

To strike at the very basis of the arguement, why is this considered to even be in affect? Is is because it was not rescinded? It never has to be specifically rescinded. Excommunication is a penalty of canonical law. Whenever a new code of canon law is published, it explicitly replaces all previous canon law. The church’s government is not like a secular government where each law has to be enacted and repealed individually. Rather, the whole canon law is updated in toto. This prevents interpretation over time twisting the law into something new. It also stops decrees like the one above from being taken totally out of historical contest and applied 500 years later.

 

[pete_29]

Based upon the Church’s interpretation of scripture and the Catholic Church’s then interpretation of the natural law, the moral legitimacy of chattel slave ownership (in which the slave was heritable property and all children born were also slaves) was maintained until the 1900’s.

This formerly constant moral teaching (therefore infallible teaching?) was dropped and slave ownership became a sin (CCC#2414) and contrary to the natural law (Vatican II and Veritatis splendor) in the mid 1900’s after almost 2000 years of erroneous teaching.

You’re so much cooler on line

 

[catharina]

Based upon the Church’s interpretation of scripture and the Catholic Church’s then interpretation of the natural law, the moral legitimacy of chattel slave ownership (in which the slave was heritable property and all children born were also slaves) was maintained until the 1900’s.

**This formerly constant moral teaching (therefore infallible teaching?) was dropped **and slave ownership became a sin (CCC#2414) and contrary to the natural law (Vatican II and Veritatis splendor) in the mid 1900’s after almost 2000 years of erroneous teaching.

Infalllible teaching of the Church is declared so at the time. The question mark you placed in the bolded-above indicates that you already know that. I’ve no idea who or what is influencing you but you’re on a dangerous path. The Church believes that Faith is a gift and a virtue. You are submitting your faith to attack. You might want to consider it in prayer and ask yourself why.

 

[TMC]

No. Your list contains only two ex cathedra infallible teaching. There is also the infallibility of the extraordinary magisterium, ecumenical councils, and infallibility of the universal ordinary magisterium (what the Church has constantly taught).

Vatican I “infallibly” ruled that a papal ex cathedra teaching meets the following criteria:

“We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,(1) in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, (2) in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,(3) he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.”

Therefore, whenever these criteria are met, the papal teaching is infallible and “irreformable” ie. can never change.

Another example:

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. " (Unam Sanctam)

I am afraid that you entirely misunderstood my post. The link is not to any list of mine, but to a long and currently active thread on this forum where some good discussion on infallibility is going on. The discussion has had some good points made both pro and con (and bad ones on each side to). My suggestion was that if you want to argue infallibilty you might find some good things to jump in on there. If you would rather do that here with your own pet ‘wrong infallible’ then by all means have at it.

To make this conversaion more productive can I ask what your point or position is? It makes it hard to discuss a topic when the other side is being cryptic about their viewpoint.

Here is mine – I believe in the theological concept of infallibility, but I think that the way it works is both more subtle and more limited than the way most Catholics understand it. The short version is that it is impossible for a contemporaneous recipient of an infallible teaching to discern what the boundaries of the infallible teaching are. As a result doctrines that seem infallible when announced are later understood to have not been entirely infallible, but to have included some infallible core that was not immediately recognized. As a result the doctrine has little to no day to day influence on most Catholics.

So what is your position?