Are most Catholics excommunicated?

[Genesis315]

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

In general, God does it–heresy is a damnable sin. But that is not the context of the document in question:

At that time, heretics acted as anarchist revolutionaries. They caused massive social disorder, upheaval and violence. They were grave threats to the common good. The death penalty can be justified for just such offenders–especially if other forms of correction fail over and over (such heretics were always given multiple chances to stop what they were doing).

Luther asserted that such movements were from God and therefore it was against the will of the Spirit to suppress them by force–since such movements, according to him, were inspired by the Spirit. That is the essence of the error being condemned, and rightly so.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

So - Les has made the claim that Catholics have to be in favor of burning heretics, or else they are excommunicated. The Catholic defense is basically, “No, you just can’t claim that burning heretics is necessarily against the will of God.” When I look at the wording of the Papal Bull, I think this defense works.

Now, my question is this. Suppose I am a Catholic, but I do think that burning heretics is against the will of God. Or what if I used to think that, but this thread has changed my mind? Am I then excommunicated? And if so, how do I get “recommunicated”?

Thanks!

 

[porthos11]

So - Les has made the claim that Catholics have to be in favor of burning heretics, or else they are excommunicated. The Catholic defense is basically, “No, you just can’t claim that burning heretics is necessarily against the will of God.” When I look at the wording of the Papal Bull, I think this defense works.

Now, my question is this. Suppose I am a Catholic, but I do think that burning heretics is against the will of God. Or what if I used to think that, but this thread has changed my mind? Am I then excommunicated? And if so, how do I get “recommunicated”?

Thanks!

First of all (disclaimer: I am not a canon lawyer), merely “thinking” stuff is not what gets one excommunicated. Assuming we’re talking about heresy, one has to obstinately and perceivably manifest it (Can. 1330). Moreover, Can. 6 states:

Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
…
3/ any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;

From my own layman’s understanding, the Exsurge penalties may have been abrogated by the 1983 CIC.

 

[pnewton]

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.

How do you know he wasn’t a high priest?

 

[pnewton]

So And if so, how do I get “recommunicated”?

Thanks!

I can see penance being given out where you have to go and burn at least one heretic.

Seriously, like porthos said, and I have said twice, this penalty is not part of the code of canon law. This whole thread is moot.

 

[porthos11]

Infallible teachings aren’t infallible. They change.

** Scripture isn’t divinely inspired. It contains too many errors and contradictions.**

Ah, so there’s much more to this thread than meets the eye after all.

 

[Little_Les]

Ah, so there’s much more to this thread than meets the eye after all.

It is perhaps inevitable that when infallibility becomes the topic, scriptural inspiration is next.

Both concepts are founded on the same reasoning. Namely, that the Holy Spirit directly guides the Church making any error on her part impossible.

What causes great concern is flip side… If error is present, than direct guidance by the Holy Spirit cannot be claimed.

 

[Little_Les]

I can see penance being given out where you have to go and burn at least one heretic.

Seriously, like porthos said, and I have said twice, this penalty is not part of the code of canon law. This whole thread is moot.

None of the Commandments are part of the Code of Canon Law either. Are they “moot” too?

 

[pnewton]

None of the Commandments are part of the Code of Canon Law either. Are they “moot” too?

The Ten Commandments are part of the moral law, not canon law. Canon law is strictly ecclesial and aimed at discipline. When a new edition of the Code of Canon Law, it is only previous canon law that is subplanted, not all moral law, doctine and dogma.

A new code of canon law also does not replace the Bible.

 

[ontologysue]

In general, God does it–heresy is a damnable sin. But that is not the context of the document in question:

At that time, heretics acted as anarchist revolutionaries. They caused massive social disorder, upheaval and violence. They were grave threats to the common good. The death penalty can be justified for just such offenders–especially if other forms of correction fail over and over (such heretics were always given multiple chances to stop what they were doing).

Luther asserted that such movements were from God and therefore it was against the will of the Spirit to suppress them by force–since such movements, according to him, were inspired by the Spirit. That is the essence of the error being condemned, and rightly so.

 

[bilop]

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?

You’re just flat out misreading this to make your own point.

As someone else pointed out, there’s a reason the statement is in the negative.

God Bless

 

[bilop]

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

Well, heresy is more that just belief, it is obstinate public persistence in belief once corrected.

An example I could think of would be the Albigensians.

They believed that the material world was completely evil and we should strive to leave it as soon as possible. As a result they would murder people coming out of confession, b/c they thought they would go to heaven. They also viewed all marriage, family and property as evil and acted violently against the Church and State.

If someone were preaching this type of doctrine and was convincing others to follow it, I could see an execution being in order.

God Bless

 

[catharina]

You’re just flat out misreading this to make your own point.

As someone else pointed out, there’s a reason the statement is in the negative.

God Bless

He’s flat out saying lots of things to build his case of spider webs. Like calling Father Greeley a Jesuit to make him seem more “quotable.” I’m bowing out of littleLes’s dilemma/drama since I’m certain he doesn’t want it solved - as in his last post to me, asking if I said (believe) something I neither said nor believe.

To any who are willing to encounter him still, especially the men, God be with you. Why he’s trying to separate himself from God, I’ve no idea.

 

[Little_Les]

You’re just flat out misreading this to make your own point.

As someone else pointed out, there’s a reason the statement is in the negative.

God Bless

Do you know what that reason is? Will you tell us? Or ios it a secret?

Is it sort of like:

Thou shalt not kill,
Thou shalt not steal,
Thou shalt not commit adultery.

 

[Little_Les]

Well, heresy is more that just belief, it is obstinate public persistence in belief once corrected.

An example I could think of would be the Albigensians.

They believed that the material world was completely evil and we should strive to leave it as soon as possible. As a result they would murder people coming out of confession, b/c they thought they would go to heaven. They also viewed all marriage, family and property as evil and acted violently against the Church and State.

If someone were preaching this type of doctrine and was convincing others to follow it, I could see an execution being in order.

God Bless

Yes, indeed. That has been the traditional Catholic practice.

Popular in the Crusades and Inquisition.

 

[Little_Les]

He’s flat out saying lots of things to build his case of spider webs. Like calling Father Greeley a Jesuit to make him seem more “quotable.” I’m bowing out of littleLes’s dilemma/drama since I’m certain he doesn’t want it solved - as in his last post to me, asking if I said (believe) something I neither said nor believe.

To any who are willing to encounter him still, especially the men, God be with you. Why he’s trying to separate himself from God, I’ve no idea.

Good bye, Catharina.

 

[bilop]

Do you know what that reason is? Will you tell us? Or ios it a secret?

Is it sort of like:

Thou shalt not kill,
Thou shalt not steal,
Thou shalt not commit adultery.

No secret. Because it changes the meaning; as I and others have pointed out.

The bull declared that it is excommunicable to hold that executing heretics is always against the Spirit; that’s what the negative construction means.

 

[ontologysue]

Well, heresy is more that just belief, it is obstinate public persistence in belief once corrected.

Our Lord also was “convicted” of erroneous belief (blaspheme, in fact) and of “obstinate public persistence in belief once corrected.” The “Church” played a similar role convicting and turning over to civil authorities to do the dirty deed.

Ok, I don’t see why this thread has to be so “irritable.” From an outsiders point of view, being Orthodox, I sense a bit of “mob mentality” on the side of you Roman Catholics, twisting yourselves into acrobatic postures just to defend the indefensible. The church “blew it” and many innocents died horrible deaths as a result at the time of Luther’s break with the Church. The Church itself has as much culpability as Luther because of its sale of indulgences, pilgrimages, and general grab for politial power and greed. This percipitated tortured souls like Luther to wrestle out loud with their conscience and get into big trouble with the Church. Luther, himself was against insurrection and violence ( Invocavit Sermons) but other violent radicals along with churchmen like Johann Tetzel, who called for Luther to be burnt within two weeks of the 95 Theses, spiralled it out of control. Ultimately Luther did accomodate the need of the laity to actually read the Gospels by his translations but he and the Church suffered irretreivable loss.

I think John Paul’s “Apology” for incidents in her past was a rational approach to this less than stellar history. Maybe the problem arises from not distinguishing the institutional church from the mystical body. To argue the institutional church has not made grievious errors is irrational and flatly disproved by history.

Little Les is definitely pushing buttons, probably because it’s so easy…just a little bit of acknowledging historical fact,along with a little humility and humor might make Les much less threatening.

The Papal Bull Exsurge Domine in regard to the sentence on burning heretics has nothing whatsoever to do with the Holy Spirit, only with the irrefutable fact that man is in desparate need of forgiveness!

Well, now I anticipate I’ve made everybody mad…

 

[pnewton]

Our Lord also was “convicted” of erroneous belief (blaspheme, in fact) and of “obstinate public persistence in belief once corrected.” The “Church” played a similar role convicting and turning over to civil authorities to do the dirty deed.

I would like to point that this is not about the sins of the Church but rather are not Catholics today are excommunicated becaause of this bull (I like the way that sounds). The fact is that it is no longer in effect and has no canonically value.

 

[Little_Les]

No secret. Because it changes the meaning; as I and others have pointed out.

The bull declared that it is excommunicable to hold that executing heretics is always against the Spirit; that’s what the negative construction means.

Once again, please show me the word “ALWAYS” in the condemned thesis listed below.

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

Executing heretics only because they are heretics would be murder and hence would be against the will of the Spirit. Thus holding this belief as a matter of conscience was grounds for infallible excommunication.