Are most Catholics excommunicated?

[Little_Les]

Little Les;2959594:

Without error in terms of “that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation”. Yes. What’s your point?

Are you referring to historical errors? Give us an example of where scripture is “in error” in regard to truths relevant for the sake of salvation.

You’re changing the definitions to fit your assertions.

No. I’ve been very consistent in accurately quoting Catholic Church documents and defintions. If you are claiming otherwise, please precisely cite my error.

But I see you are now attempting the “sake of salvation” argument, an error which got caused the late Raymond Brown to lose credibility in his interpretation on Chapter 11 of Dei Verbum

All scripture is supposedly divinely inspired. Not just those portions that some want to argue are necessary for “the sake of salvation.” Using that argument one can always dismiss errors in scripture by claiming that those particular passages must not have been really nesessary for salvation to begin with.

Brown evidently overlooked the earlier portions of chapter 11.

Incidently, you can find a summation of the Catholic teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s section on the interpretation of scripture.

 

[Newbie2]

Whatever.

Believe what you want about the inspired nature of Scripture, the Church teaches that all of it’s inspired, whether you believe it or not.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to accomplish in this thread.

…and so I’ll leave it alone.

 

[Little_Les]

Little Les;2959594:

Without error in terms of “that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation”. Yes. What’s your point?

Are you referring to historical errors? Give us an example of where scripture is “in error” in regard to truths relevant for the sake of salvation.

You’re changing the definitions to fit your assertions.

Regarding the only for “the sake of salvation” ploy, there is this:

Dinino Afflante Spiritu, Pius XII, 1943, Para 1 “When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules."

 

[Little_Les]

Whatever.

Believe what you want about the inspired nature of Scripture, the Church teaches that all of it’s inspired, whether you believe it or not.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to accomplish in this thread.

…and so I’ll leave it alone.

If its all inspired, it cannot contain the slightest error.

Providentissimus deus, Pope Leo XIII, 1893
““For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.”

But there are many errors and contradictions in scripture. I presented one earlier. Perhaps you overlooked it.

Mark 2:25-26:
“ He said to them, “Have you never read what David did 15 when he was in need and he and his companions were hungry?
How he went into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the bread of offering that only the priests could lawfully eat, and shared it with his companions?” (NAB)

1 Sam 21:2-4
“David went to Ahimelech, the priest of Nob, who came trembling to meet him and asked, “Why are you alone? Is there no one with you?” David answered the priest: “The king gave me a commission and told me to let no one know anything about the business on which he sent me or the commission he gave me. For that reason I have arranged a meeting place with my men. Now what have you on hand? Give me five loaves, or whatever you can find.” (NAB)

Wrong priest. This was Abiathar’s father. According to the Church then, this scripture isn’t “inspired.”

 

[pnewton]

Mark 2:25-26:
“ He said to them, “Have you never read what David did 15 when he was in need and he and his companions were hungry?
How he went into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the bread of offering that only the priests could lawfully eat, and shared it with his companions?” (NAB)

1 Sam 21:2-4
“David went to Ahimelech, the priest of Nob, who came trembling to meet him and asked, “Why are you alone? Is there no one with you?” David answered the priest: “The king gave me a commission and told me to let no one know anything about the business on which he sent me or the commission he gave me. For that reason I have arranged a meeting place with my men. Now what have you on hand? Give me five loaves, or whatever you can find.” (NAB)

Wrong priest. This was Abiathar’s father.

If you read the first verse, it does not say that David went to Abiathar, but rather this event occurred when Abiathar was high priest, who was admired among the Pharisees. The phrase can also be rendered the great priest or it might refer to the time of Abiathar. In any case, the verse never says Abiathar gave him the bread. His son and successor was Ahimelech who would have been a priest before he was a high priest is the one who gave David the bread. Abiathar was still alive at this time and because of he was a model for the pharisees, it is his name that is used to date the occurance

 

[Little_Les]

If you read the first verse, it does not say that David went to Abiathar, but rather this event occurred when Abiathar was high priest, who was admired among the Pharisees. The phrase can also be rendered the great priest or it might refer to the time of Abiathar. In any case, the verse never says Abiathar gave him the bread. His son and successor was Ahimelech who would have been a priest before he was a high priest is the one who gave David the bread. Abiathar was still alive at this time and because of he was a model for the pharisees, it is his name that is used to date the occurance

No. You’ve got your actors mixed up.

You posted “His son and successor was Ahimelech”

You have it backwards. Ahimelech was the father, Abiathar the son and successor. See 1 Samuel, chapter 22, verse 20:

"20 And one of the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped, and fled after David.

Thus your counterpoint fails.

 

[pnewton]

Thus your counterpoint fails.

Where in Mark does it say that Ahimelech gave the bread? I might have gotten the actors reversed. It has been a while since I studied this. But the fact is there simply is no contradiction. If you see one, it is only because you want to. This just proves once again that your doubts are better addressed in the Apologetic forum. That is where issues like proving there is a God and the Bible is His word is properly addressed. By the way, were either called a high priest in the OT? I don’t think Ahimelech was even a high priest.

 

[catharina]

Actually, littleLes, you have your actors mixed up. Here is your post from the preceding page:

"

Fr. Andrew Greely, a sociologist by profession as well as a Jesuit, wrote an interesting book in the 1990’s titles "The Catholic Myth: the Beliefs of American Catholics.

He makes the key point based on his surveys that most Catholics remain Catholic because they like it, ie, their parents were Catholic, their friends are Catholic, etc.

It is not because they have rationally examined the belief system which few Catholics ever do, as Greely says.

“Would you accept that Scripture is the best that those people writing it could do in their attempt to reflect what God was trying to communicate?”

No. This is specifically contrary to Catholic doctrine.

"For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. "(Providentissimus)

Scripture is suppose to be dictated by the Holy Spirit, not created by human authors.

Or the Catechism of the Catholic Church

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”
“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”

For the record, Father Andy Greeley is a diocesan priest from the Archdiocese of Chicago. He was born, raised and ordained there. He has been assigned to Arizona for many years at his own request. He is not now nor has he ever been a Jesuit priest. He never sought to enter that Society and they never sought to accept him. He is a priest, a sociologist and the author of many popular romance/mystery novels. I have read none of his works for decades for obvious reasons. What Andrew Greeley believes and teaches from limited surveys he’s undertaken as a sociologist can’t possibly interest you since you clearly know nothing about the man. I think he would drop dead of shock and shame if he knew you were throwing his name around with glee and abandon. He’s created a number of conflicts and questions but He has never abandoned the teachings of the Church and he has never sought to lead people out of the Church. Maybe you’re delusional or maybe you simply like to invent “facts.” No can do, littleLes. No can do. Andy Greeley was an assistant priest in my neighborhood when I was a child and teen. You’re full of hot air.

 

[Little_Les]

Actually, littleLes, you have your actors mixed up. Here is your post from the preceding page:

"

For the record, Father Andy Greeley is a diocesan priest from the Archdiocese of Chicago. He was born, raised and ordained there. He has been assigned to Arizona for many years at his own request. He is not now nor has he ever been a Jesuit priest. He never sought to enter that Society and they never sought to accept him. He is a priest, a sociologist and the author of many popular romance/mystery novels. I have read none of his works for decades for obvious reasons. What Andrew Greeley believes and teaches from limited surveys he’s undertaken as a sociologist can’t possibly interest you since you clearly know nothing about the man. I think he would drop dead of shock and shame if he knew you were throwing his name around with glee and abandon. He’s created a number of conflicts and questions but He has never abandoned the teachings of the Church and he has never sought to lead people out of the Church. Maybe you’re delusional or maybe you simply like to invent “facts.” No can do, littleLes. No can do. Andy Greeley was an assistant priest in my neighborhood when I was a child and teen. You’re full of hot air.

Sorry, I thought he was a Jesuit.

Are denying that he claims his surveys show that people remain Catholic because they were born into that religion and like their Catholic culture? And not because of any study they have made about the validity of Catholic claims?

See his “The Catholic Myth: the Beliefs of American Catholics”

That was my point.

 

[catharina]

Sorry, I thought he was a Jesuit.

Are denying that he claims his surveys show that people remain Catholic because they were born into that religion and like their Catholic culture? And not because of any study they have made about the validity of Catholic claims?

See his “The Catholic Myth: the Beliefs of American Catholics”

That was my point.

I do not regard Father Greeley as an expert of any kind.
He lost a lot of credibility with many when he became a novelist.

He’s never been (or claimed to be ) a theologian or a Jesuit.

Your sources have messed up.

 

[porthos11]

Thats exacltly what Catholics were/are required to believe by the Papal Bull Exsurge domine.

Once again, the plain meaning of words:

“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.”

To remain Catholic, one had to reject the above belief. They were required to believe the opposite,“That heretics be burned IS the will of the Spirit.”

Actually, no. No Catholic believes that the burning of heretics is the will of the Spirit.

What we can and do believe is that the burning of heretics was NOT contrary to the will of the Spirit.

There is a reason why the line was formulated negatively. It does not affirm that God willed the execution of heretics. It did, however, admit that the execution of heretics was not prohibited under divine law.

In other words, it did not command the execution of heretics, but permitted it.

That, by the way, is not a problem, morally speaking (since heresy at the time had serious political and social consequences, and was therefore a civil crime as well) and may have had been necessary given the situation of the times. But that’s also why the execution of heretics was carried out by the civil government, since the Church had no death penalty.

Today’s times do not justify the execution of heretics, of course. But the bull clearly says that the execution of heretics was not an immoral act. It does NOT say that God commanded their execution as a matter of divine will.

Nevertheless, the bull was NOT infallible. It did claim the authority of the apostolic see, but did not solemnly “pronounce, declare and define” anything.

 

[Little_Les]

Where in Mark does it say that Ahimelech gave the bread? I might have gotten the actors reversed. It has been a while since I studied this. But the fact is there simply is no contradiction. If you see one, it is only because you want to. This just proves once again that your doubts are better addressed in the Apologetic forum. That is where issues like proving there is a God and the Bible is His word is properly addressed. By the way, were either called a high priest in the OT? I don’t think Ahimelech was even a high priest.

Once again, look at the passages themselves:

Mark 2:25-26:
“ He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions were hungry?
How he went into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the bread of offering that only the priests could lawfully eat, and shared it with his companions?” (NAB)

1 Sam 21:2-4
“David went to Ahimelech, the priest of Nob, who came trembling to meet him and asked, “Why are you alone? Is there no one with you?” David answered the priest: “The king gave me a commission and told me to let no one know anything about the business on which he sent me or the commission he gave me. For that reason I have arranged a meeting place with my men. Now what have you on hand? Give me five loaves, or whatever you can find.” (NAB)

I agree that Mark is in error when he says “when Abiathar was high priest.” Abiathar wasn’t high priest at this point. Mark is in (inspried) error here. That’s the point.

 

[Little_Les]

Actually, littleLes, you have your actors mixed up. Here is your post from the preceding page:

"

For the record, Father Andy Greeley is a diocesan priest from the Archdiocese of Chicago. He was born, raised and ordained there. He has been assigned to Arizona for many years at his own request. He is not now nor has he ever been a Jesuit priest. He never sought to enter that Society and they never sought to accept him. He is a priest, a sociologist and the author of many popular romance/mystery novels. I have read none of his works for decades for obvious reasons. What Andrew Greeley believes and teaches from limited surveys he’s undertaken as a sociologist can’t possibly interest you since you clearly know nothing about the man. I think he would drop dead of shock and shame if he knew you were throwing his name around with glee and abandon. He’s created a number of conflicts and questions but He has never abandoned the teachings of the Church and he has never sought to lead people out of the Church. Maybe you’re delusional or maybe you simply like to invent “facts.” No can do, littleLes. No can do. Andy Greeley was an assistant priest in my neighborhood when I was a child and teen. You’re full of hot air.

I was in error about his being a member of the Jesuits as I admitted. I must have him mixed up, with Fr. Darien.

But are you challenging my statement about his views on the main reason Catholics remain Catholic expressed in The Catholic Myth? That most Catholics really don’t consider the issues in Catholic teaching?

 

[Little_Les]

Actually, no. No Catholic believes that the burning of heretics is the will of the Spirit.

What we can and do believe is that the burning of heretics was NOT contrary to the will of the Spirit.

There is a reason why the line was formulated negatively. It does not affirm that God willed the execution of heretics. It did, however, admit that the execution of heretics was not prohibited under divine law.

In other words, it did not command the execution of heretics, but permitted it.

That, by the way, is not a problem, morally speaking (since heresy at the time had serious political and social consequences, and was therefore a civil crime as well) and may have had been necessary given the situation of the times. But that’s also why the execution of heretics was carried out by the civil government, since the Church had no death penalty.

Today’s times do not justify the execution of heretics, of course. But the bull clearly says that the execution of heretics was not an immoral act. It does NOT say that God commanded their execution as a matter of divine will.

Nevertheless, the bull was NOT infallible. It did claim the authority of the apostolic see, but did not solemnly “pronounce, declare and define” anything.

The execution of heretics because of thier beliefs is an immoral act as would the execution of a person for any other belief system.

Thesis 33 is clear in its meaning, It states that claim that burning of heretics is not against the will of the Spirit. This belief was condemned under a penalty of excommunication.

And Exsurge states “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…”

There are no precise wording that a pope must use in making an infallible ex cathedra statement. Your claim of requiring that it solemnly “pronounce, declare and define” anything is not suppoeted by Vatican I’s decree on papal infallibility.

There are no magic words or formula required.

"Condemn, reprobate, and reject " is also in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, and defines what Catholic must beleve.

No formula was prescribed for an ex cathedra statement by Vatican I.

 

[Little_Les]

I do not regard Father Greeley as an expert of any kind.
He lost a lot of credibility with many when he became a novelist.

He’s never been (or claimed to be ) a theologian or a Jesuit.

Your sources have messed up.

Are you seriously claiming that one should reject the nonfiction writings of all authors no matter how qualified if they dare to publish any fiction at all?

 

[Little_Les]

WHAT!? You think that evrything that happens is the positive will of God!?

You really need to brush up on free will and the difference between the active and permissive will of God.

Exsurges Dominus states that if you believe that the execution of heretics is ALWAYS against the will of God then you are excommunicated.

Nothing more, nothing less.

God Bless

No. That’s not what is says.

"33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

“Nothing more, nothing less.” Read the actual words. Do you see "ALWAYS anywhere?

 

[ontologysue]

Was the church’s complicity in burning Joan of Arc against the will of the Holy Spirit?

Can anyone provide an example of when it could be God’s will to burn someone for erroneous religious belief?

 

[porthos11]

The execution of heretics because of thier beliefs is an immoral act as would the execution of a person for any other belief system.

By whose authority do you make that claim? Heresy=treason in the olden days, and even today, treason is a death penalty offense.

As I said, heresy was also a civil crime, and carried a civil death penalty. The Pope merely said that such executions do not contradict God’s will. And he was right. He did not say that God commanded the execution of heretics.

Thesis 33 is clear in its meaning, It states that claim that burning of heretics is not against the will of the Spirit. This belief was condemned under a penalty of excommunication.

Yes. They were not contrary to the will of the Spirit. They were also not commanded by the Spirit.

And Exsurge states “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…”

There are no precise wording that a pope must use in making an infallible ex cathedra statement. Your claim of requiring that it solemnly “pronounce, declare and define” anything is not suppoeted by Vatican I’s decree on papal infallibility.

It does say, that it must define a truth to be believed. This bull does no such thing.

"Condemn, reprobate, and reject " is also in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, and defines what Catholic must beleve.

Here, you err. There is no definition.

No formula was prescribed for an ex cathedra statement by Vatican I.

Not word, for word, but again, it required a definition. There was no such definition.

Anyway, why does this line trouble you? It’s not politically correct, yes, but it nevertheless remains the truth.

 

[Genesis315]

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?

Read this article:

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109bt.asp

Notice, in Leo’s condemnation, he does not say all the propositions are definitively heretical, therefore it does not fall under papal infallibility. Since the Holy Spirit is the author of the OT, where heretics were commanded to be put to death, it would be scandalous to say this was against the will of the Spirit.

Likewise, the death penalty can be justified in some situations anyway. Heretics who were put to death were not executed for simply holding false doctrines, but rather because their teachings and actions were a threat to the just ordering of society–this is the justification for the death penalty that exists for all people who receive it justly.

 

[porthos11]

Was the church’s complicity in burning Joan of Arc against the will of the Holy Spirit?

Can anyone provide an example of when it could be God’s will to burn someone for erroneous religious belief?

Again, God does not actively will anyone’s death (e.g. “Burn him.”) It can however, be permitted by God (e.g. tolerated).

Joan of Arc was not a heretic; her execution was unjust, and was therefore contrary to the will of the Spirit. If, however, Martin Luther were arrested, convicted, and remained unrepentant, his execution would not have been contrary to the will of the Spirit, and may have been actually necessary. But no one can cite any example that actually has the Spirit say, “Burn the sucker.”