Are most Catholics excommunicated?

[Little_Les]

If execommunication is infallible, then the Church would not withdrew. In time, there will come a day when both East and West will be united.

I’m afraid you are confusing the matter of dogma proclaimed by the Pope which seems to be infallible with the penalty ascribed to those who didn’t believe it.

The doctrine declared untenable was that it was against the will of God that heretics be burned at the stake. The penalty for not believing this - or the discipline if you like - can of course be reversed. But not the doctrine if it were infallably proclaimed.

But don’t just take my word for it.

"It is interesting to see how fluid and inconsistently applied is the idea of ex cathedra statements. Today, most followers of the pope today insist there are only two papal statements that were made ex cathedra and that are, therefore, infallible. But this was not always the case. In a book published in 1954 by Fathers Leslie Rumble & Charles Carty (of the Radio Replies series, the best-known Roman Catholic apologists of the 1940s and 1950s), That Catholic Church: A Radio Analysis gave the following list (reformatted for readability but otherwise unchanged) of papal statements regarded as ex cathedra (on Question/Answer #314 on page 80):

Leo X 1520 Exsurge Domine Condemning the Errors of Martin Luther

This article can be found at:
geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/trv_infallibility.html

 

[Little_Les]

Perhaps of interest:

Rev. William G. Most

The Hierarchy of Truths and the Truth

"Before continuing, let us note that word definitive. It means a teaching that is presented as final, with no change possible. But there is nothing in Scripture or Tradition that specifies what wording the Pope must use in order to make a teaching definitive. All that is needed is that in some way, whatever way he may choose, he makes clear that a teaching is definitive. So this section of the new catechism does not add the words “ex
cathedra”.

“To sum up what we have achieved thus far. The Pope can even define acting all alone. He can do it also with a Council. What is required is no set form of wording - all that is required is that in some way he makes clear that the teaching is definitive. Then it is infallible.”

Thus,

" With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…" (ED)

 

[porthos11]

I’m afraid you are confusing the matter of dogma proclaimed by the Pope which seems to be infallible with the penalty ascribed to those who didn’t believe it.

The doctrine declared untenable was that it was against the will of God that heretics be burned at the stake. The penalty for not believing this - or the discipline if you like - can of course be reversed. But not the doctrine if it were infallably proclaimed.

The doctrine was not infallibly proclaimed by Exsurge, but is nevertheless binding, and requires acceptance. As far as I know, it has never been reversed.

So what’s the problem. If it is just because it doesn’t make you comfortable doesn’t make it wrong. It doesn’t make me comfortable either, but that’s the doctrine. God does not will the death of heretics, but it is not contrary to his will that they die either, and that’s what Exsurge says.

Heretics have caused the Church so much harm and damage, much of it probably irreparable, that their deaths would have been a small price. I can understand why God would not oppose the death of heretics, especially the dangerous ones like Luther.

Even today, I silently pray that God silence, by death or some other way, the dangerous heretics here in the Philippines who are preying on poor gullible people.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The doctrine was not infallibly proclaimed by Exsurge, but is nevertheless binding, and requires acceptance. As far as I know, it has never been reversed.

So what’s the problem. If it is just because it doesn’t make you comfortable doesn’t make it wrong. It doesn’t make me comfortable either, but that’s the doctrine. God does not will the death of heretics, but it is not contrary to his will that they die either, and that’s what Exsurge says.

Heretics have caused the Church so much harm and damage, much of it probably irreparable, that their deaths would have been a small price. I can understand why God would not oppose the death of heretics, especially the dangerous ones like Luther.

Even today, I silently pray that God silence, by death or some other way, the dangerous heretics here in the Philippines who are preying on poor gullible people.

You have heretics in my homeland? Oh no. Pray for their conversion.

 

[porthos11]

You have heretics in my homeland? Oh no. Pray for their conversion.

You’re Fil-Am?

Yeah, we have heretics aplenty. Heard of the INC? Or this new “Son of God” Quiboloy who’s spreading his wacked-out claims among the younger generation starting in Davao. If there’s anyone I want God to strike, it’s him first.

 

[ontologysue]

Heretics have caused the Church so much harm and damage, much of it probably irreparable, that their deaths would have been a small price. I can understand why God would not oppose the death of heretics, especially the dangerous ones like Luther.

Danger to society? Basically that means a threat to my (the church,) wealth and power. Luther was certainly that! Somehow I think Our Lord has been a more kindly judge to this soul who courageously wrestled with his own conscience, inspite of his human failings.

 

[porthos11]

Danger to society? Basically that means a threat to my (the church,) wealth and power. Luther was certainly that! Somehow I think Our Lord has been a more kindly judge to this soul who courageously wrestled with his own conscience, inspite of his human failings.

Nope, when I said danger to society, I meant danger to society, not just to the Church. Just look at the sectarian wars that flared up as a result. The Church may have had wealth and power at some time, which it no longer has now, but the Church is still here.

Certainly God is merciful, even to men like Luther, and I do not presume to know his fate. But the fact is, he rebelled and asserted his own authority. He had valid concerns, and was right to speak out against abuses. But in the meantime, he let himself impose heretical doctrines and when it didn’t suit him, left the Church.

He should have recanted, but if for some reason the civil government executed him for heresy, then I can’t say I would have blamed him. In fact, it may have prevented more bloodshed.

 

[Little_Les]

The doctrine was not infallibly proclaimed by Exsurge, but is nevertheless binding, and requires acceptance. As far as I know, it has never been reversed.

So what’s the problem. If it is just because it doesn’t make you comfortable doesn’t make it wrong. It doesn’t make me comfortable either, but that’s the doctrine. God does not will the death of heretics, but it is not contrary to his will that they die either, and that’s what Exsurge says.

Heretics have caused the Church so much harm and damage, much of it probably irreparable, that their deaths would have been a small price. I can understand why God would not oppose the death of heretics, especially the dangerous ones like Luther.

Even today, I silently pray that God silence, by death or some other way, the dangerous heretics here in the Philippines who are preying on poor gullible people.

Perhaps you are overlooking the requirement that heretics not only be excuted but burned to death. Are you seriously maintaining that is God’s will? Burned to death?

 

[ontologysue]

Nope, when I said danger to society, I meant danger to society, not just to the Church. Just look at the sectarian wars that flared up as a result. The Church may have had wealth and power at some time, which it no longer has now, but the Church is still here.

Certainly God is merciful, even to men like Luther, and I do not presume to know his fate. But the fact is, he rebelled and asserted his own authority. He had valid concerns, and was right to speak out against abuses. But in the meantime, he let himself impose heretical doctrines and when it didn’t suit him, left the Church.

He should have recanted, but if for some reason the civil government executed him for heresy, then I can’t say I would have blamed him. In fact, it may have prevented more bloodshed.

Well, I think you’re rationalizing a bit on the actions of the Church, for example, the church had as much to do with convicting heretics as did the civil authorities. As in Our Lord’s day the two factions worked rather well together to get rid of undesirables.

Luther was against insurrection and violence (Invocavit Sermons), the violence was percipitated by others on both sides who used his conscientious objections to cover their own agendas. One could certainly argue that the church’s sins of greed in selling indulgences etc were at least partially responsible for the entire cycle of violence, which eventually wrecked havoc on innocents on both sides of the division.

Yes, the Church is still here, and hell will not prevail against the mystical Body, but, the sins and corruption of the institutional church abide with her long history. And, as John Paul himself “testified” she needs to remember and humbly seek forgiveness.

Bottom line, since one of my posts was deleted on this subject as being off topic, I will agree to disagree.

God Bless!

 

[Little_Les]

The doctrine was not infallibly proclaimed by Exsurge, but is nevertheless binding, and requires acceptance. As far as I know, it has never been reversed.

QUOTE]

If the criteria established by the First Vatican Council was met by Exsurge, then it was an infallible ex cathedra papal teaching.

Let’s look.

Vatican I, Session 4:

“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.”

“” With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority(1& 2), we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth (3). By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected .(3) . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…" (ED)

Which of the three criteria “infallibly” decreed by Vatican I making this papal teaching an ex cathedra infallible statement do you claim is lacking?

Keep in mind that the Pope makes, but is not bound by, Canon Law.

 

[porthos11]

Perhaps you are overlooking the requirement that heretics not only be excuted but burned to death. Are you seriously maintaining that is God’s will? Burned to death?

Nope, and I never did. Only that burning them was NOT against God’s will either.

 

[porthos11]

Well, I think you’re rationalizing a bit on the actions of the Church, for example, the church had as much to do with convicting heretics as did the civil authorities. As in Our Lord’s day the two factions worked rather well together to get rid of undesirables.

And I wish they still did, but unfortunately, we don’t do so anymore.

Luther was against insurrection and violence (Invocavit Sermons), the violence was percipitated by others on both sides who used his conscientious objections to cover their own agendas. One could certainly argue that the church’s sins of greed in selling indulgences etc were at least partially responsible for the entire cycle of violence, which eventually wrecked havoc on innocents on both sides of the division.

The selling of indulgences was wrong, and the greed was indeed there. Luther was right on those points.

Yes, the Church is still here, and hell will not prevail against the mystical Body, but, the sins and corruption of the institutional church abide with her long history. And, as John Paul himself “testified” she needs to remember and humbly seek forgiveness.

And she did.

Bottom line, since one of my posts was deleted on this subject as being off topic, I will agree to disagree.

God Bless!

The Church does not deny the blots on her history; she is, however and will always condemn Luther’s doctrinal errors and his founding of Protestantism, which is, no matter what people say in today’s politically-correct world, heretical.

Strange that you would defend him, since the Russian Orthodox Church also holds such beliefs heretical as well.

 

[porthos11]

porthos11;2974484:

The doctrine was not infallibly proclaimed by Exsurge, but is nevertheless binding, and requires acceptance. As far as I know, it has never been reversed.

QUOTE]

If the criteria established by the First Vatican Council was met by Exsurge, then it was an infallible ex cathedra papal teaching.

Let’s look.

Vatican I, Session 4:

“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.”

“” With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority(1& 2), we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth (3). By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected .(3) . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…" (ED)

Which of the three criteria “infallibly” decreed by Vatican I making this papal teaching an ex cathedra infallible statement do you claim is lacking?

The definition.

Keep in mind that the Pope makes, but is not bound by, Canon Law.

So?

 

[Nicene]

The following papal Bull, originally directed at the supporters of Luther, is still “on the books” so therefore should be binding on all Catholics.

Exsurge Domine

Bull of Pope Leo X issued June 15, 1520

“With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…”

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

(This view is condemned meaning that Catholics must believe that it is the will of God that heretics be burned at the stake).

And doesn’t this pronouncement meet the criteria for an infallible papal ex cathedra teaching as decreed by the First Vatican ?Council?

Apparently you disagree with God, or do not believe the Holy Spirit to be God:

Rom.13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.

In the middle centuries, (and previous centuries) understanding the relationship between church and government, heretics were what we would call terrorists today. They burned churches, farms as well as destroyed public property and in many cases harmed peoples.

It was akin to the Oklahoma city bombing today or the world trade center. According to sacred scripture, it is God who institutes governments, and gives them the right to “bear the sword”. In Roman times it was by beheading, (in the middle centuries burning), which Paul also upholds in his own trial in Acts:

25:11 If then I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death; but if there is nothing in their charges against me, no one can give me up to them. I appeal to Caesar."

They didn’t have facilities as they do today in which it is much less necessary to prescribe capital punishment. However “Exsurge Domine” is correct. You may not like it but you do disagree with God as shown above in Romans.

Even the thief recognized the sovereignty of God executing the sword on the unjust by governments:

Lk 23:39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!”
40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.”

You don’t disagree with the Pope, you disagree with God. And as Paul reminds us concerning the sovereignty of God:

Rom 9:20 But who are you, a man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me thus?”

Capital punishment is is authorized by God, though today we have much less need of it than in previous centuries. The protesters of the mid centuries weren’t innocent lambs. Historically they were rioting, burning, killing (either by accident or in some cases design) and they were called heretics, which today we would call terrorists. Of course people like Osama bin Laden, (who would be termed a heretic in the mid centuries) under the modern guise, shouldn’t be brought to justice.

As Romans reminds us, God institutes governments to bear the sword, and the Holy Spirit is God. In order to uphold the false assumption proposed in the OP, one must project the 21st century onto all previous centuries, which is not only dishonest, it is errorious.

Personal opinion as an aside: I don’t really believe you to be catholic as the citations brought up seem to come from a background with a great deal of anti-catholic propaganda.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Teflon93]

Danger to society? Basically that means a threat to my (the church,) wealth and power. Luther was certainly that! Somehow I think Our Lord has been a more kindly judge to this soul who courageously wrestled with his own conscience, inspite of his human failings.

Ask the 100,000 German peasants slaughtered in the wake of Luther’s murderous little tract after they instigated a revolution against Luther’s secular buddies because they made the mistake of believing him.

I’d say that’s dangerous. And the threat was to Luther’s princely buddies, not to the Church.

 

[Nicene]

clmowry:

You should read the quote again. There is no “requirement” that heretics be put to death, by burning, or any other method.

Chuck

/Nod it doesn’t take brain surgery to figure that one out. The very same document, Exsurge Domine decrees:
:

We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication

According to Les they are required to be burned yet the document calls for excommunication (so much for the requirement baloney). As well, we find later in the very same document a call for Martin Luther to renounce his heresy and return to the church. If it is as Les interprets and projects into the document, it should be calling for the burning of Martin, yet it speaks of the opposite.

To read the burning of heretics is required is just plain dishonest. Violent heretics on the other hand, the mid century term for terrorists, each government did have the right to execute given them, as we can see in Rom 13, from God to “bear the sword” for the protection of the peoples.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thread has been pruned of 11 off topic posts. Please remain on topic or the thread will be closed.
MF

 

[SPH1]

But it is surely a curious Catholic who casts about for reasons to excommunicate the majority of Catholics. Is there such a thing as an anti-Catholic Catholic?

Apparently so, we’ve just met one in Little Less. I’d place many of the leftist Call to Action types in this category. But then, I don’t really consider them to be Catholic. They remain in the Church to undermine it and promote their own agendas.

 

[SPH1]

Little Less,

You’ve produced a laundry list of common “fundamentalist”, anti-Catholic attacks. Your fundamental error is not only applying your personal, private judgment to Scripture but to Church documents as well. In the end, it is the Church who decides what it’s documents mean.

BURNING OF HERETICS: Many have pointed out, rightly, that there is no REQUIREMENT that heretics be burned, or that any particular heretic be burned. Your repeated insistence of your literal interpretation leads to the absurd conclusion that all heretics MUST be burned … with no attempt to reconcile them. There’s a heretic, burn him, that’s it.

In many cases, heresy was equivalent to treason. The Church (and Scripture) tolerated capital punishment, but there is no REQUIREMENT that one cannot campaign to abolish capital punishment entirely.

SLAVERY: Same as above. Scripture and the Church apparently tolerated slavery, yet there was no REQUREMENT that one must have slaves. Nor do I see a requirement that one could not campaign to abolish slavery.

MIDIANITE ISSUE: You asked if God commanded genocide. Actually, God did not. If you read your own quotation more carefully, you’ll see that it was actually Moses who made that call.

 

[ontologysue]

Ask the 100,000 German peasants slaughtered in the wake of Luther’s murderous little tract after they instigated a revolution against Luther’s secular buddies because they made the mistake of believing him.

No, because they used his concientious objections to rationalize violence to satisfy their own agenda. Luther himself never encouraged violence, in fact, he did the opposite.

The fact that the Church could pronounce a Papal Bull that by logical implication states, even theoretically, it could be the will of God for a human being to be burned alive, is absurd. Sorry, I am Catholic but my higher conscience would object to that.

We should remember there were no “due process”, rule of law protections for people who had the inflammatory and deadly epithet of “heretic” pinned to them. Far too often innocent people who simply disagreed with or antagaonized church leaders, people who were “politically incorrect” in our own jargon, were horribly tortured and killed.

Left to the all too arbitrary judgement of man, there was little distinction between people who questioned church doctrine and people who participated in violence against society in general. Too often the church in conjunction with civil sycophants scooped up saints as well as sinners in their net of “heretics.” Would you have been there cheering as Joan of Arc was burned alive? She certainly was a danger to society with all that leading of armies…

A question for all you Catholics out there who unquestionably are ready to inflict the “guilloteen” on heretics in the name of a Papal Bull, what responsibility on the last day do you think Our Lord will require of the church whose corruption was the initial inspiration for decades of violence throughout Europe?

“Better to cast out the log in ones own eye before condemning the speck in another’s.”

Just like the witch burnings in North America, anytime an institution, civil or religious, decides to determine when it is appropriate to burn someone alive, sorry, but I’m going to distance myself from that entity as soon as possible for my own salvation.

Reading through the defensive and zealous justifications of that Papal Bull, which was so obviously stupid since the Church herself was placing souls in jeopardy by asking their assent gives one a definite impression of the dynamics of “mob rule.” The title of “heretic” in that day was not even remotely analygous to 9-11 conspiritor in our own. To justify the Papal Bull with that argument is simplistic and factually inaccurate.

Just because the Church was instituted by Our Lord to nourish and shelter souls in their journey toward heaven does not absolve each of us from consulting his own conscience and listening to the voice of the Bridegroom within. Most of the innovations, founding of new Orders etc in the Church have come as a result of individual souls, inspired by God, who at first seemed contradictory to Church teachings, until the Church came around to an understanding of what God was inspiring in that soul.

Generally, the church doesn’t appreciate her saints until after they are long.