Are most Catholics excommunicated?

[Little_Les]

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 The fact is that it is no longer in effect and has no canonically value.

Really? When was it revoked? Keep in mind an infallible teaching is also “irreformable” ie., irrevocable.

 

[homewardbound]

I think some people just have a problem with accepting that the Church is not God. It is not perfect and it CAN make mistakes. God does His best to lead it in the right direction, but of course just as with the liberal entertainment show masses we have today, the burning of heretics was a mistake(yes maybe a bit more severe of a mistake, but one none the less ). At the time, it seemed to make sense. But hindsight is 20/20 right?

The OP obviously just likes to stir up trouble or they just really don’t like the Church and thinks they’re making a good point when in fact they’re just making themselves look foolish.

So, the Church messed up. Who doesn’t? Get over it.

 

[Newbie2]

Well, I don’t know about foolish, but certainly argumentative.

 

[pnewton]

Really? When was it revoked? Keep in mind an infallible teaching is also “irreformable” ie., irrevocable.

Any teaching involving excommunication (a disciplinary action) is, by its nature, disciplinary and thus canon law. Has been stated four times already, all previous canon law is null and void at the issuance of the newest code. I think the last one was in 1983. All previous canonical law is void.

 

[Little_Les]

Any teaching involving excommunication (a disciplinary action) is, by its nature, disciplinary and thus canon law. Has been stated four times already, all previous canon law is null and void at the issuance of the newest code. I think the last one was in 1983. All previous canonical law is void.

Not so. But let’s see your evidence for your assertion.

 

[Little_Les]

How about this one from the Council of Florence, Pope Eugene IV

“It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Was this an infallible teaching and hence irreformable?

 

[Little_Les]

Not so. But let’s see your evidence for your assertion.

And of course, you know that the Pope isn’t subject to Canon law, nor may his actions be judged by anyone.

He is, as it were, God on earth.

Don’t believe me, read what popes have declared.

 

[ontologysue]

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.

I understand, just haven’t been edified to see posts justifying the roasting of heretics as not necessarily against the will of God, given the tiimes. And, that the church would have been right to roast Luther if it had in fact accomplished that act. Can’t go there.

 

[pnewton]

Not so. But let’s see your evidence for your assertion.

As quoted earlier:

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;

I heard a different canon lawyers say this on CA Live, one of which was a bishop. You simply can’t take a statement 400 years old and use it like a law today. Canon law doesn’t work that way. You doubt? (of course you do ). Call in on the next “Ask a Canon Lawyer”, check the archives or ask one yourself. Now can you prove your absurd idea that this bull is still in effect?

 

[Little_Les]

As quoted earlier:

I heard a different canon lawyers say this on CA Live, one of which was a bishop. You simply can’t take a statement 400 years old and use it like a law today. Canon law doesn’t work that way. You doubt? (of course you do ). Call in on the next “Ask a Canon Lawyer”, check the archives or ask one yourself. Now can you prove your absurd idea that this bull is still in effect?

Does your claim apply to the commandments which a quite a bit older than 400 years.

One again. We are most definitely NOT dealing with any Canon law. What I’m quoting is not just a “statement” but a papal bull which meets the criteria for an infallible papal teaching. These are unchangable teachings regardless of their age.

I realize it must be embarrassing to those canon lawyers and that bishop, but Exsurge domine remains a fact of history.

 

[porthos11]

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.

How many times must we tell you? Heretics were not executed because they were heretics. Heretics were executed because they were a danger to society.

And excommunication is NEVER infallible. Excommunication is a disciplinary act, it can NEVER be covered by infallibility.

 

[porthos11]

Does your claim apply to the commandments which a quite a bit older than 400 years.

One again. We are most definitely NOT dealing with any Canon law. What I’m quoting is not just a “statement” but a papal bull which meets the criteria for an infallible papal teaching. These are unchangable teachings regardless of their age.

YES WE ARE DEALING WITH CANON LAW.

Canon 6 of the 1983 CIC abrogates all previous penal laws unless expressly re-stated.

It does not necessarily undo the TEACHING (i.e. that the execution of heretics is not against the will of the spirit). It DOES however undo the PENALTY.

I realize it must be embarrassing to those canon lawyers and that bishop, but Exsurge domine remains a fact of history.

Why should it be embarrassing? That bull is one of the better things that came out to respond to the Reformation.

 

[porthos11]

How about this one from the Council of Florence, Pope Eugene IV

“It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Was this an infallible teaching and hence irreformable?

This statement is NOT in itself infallible, but it DOES restate an already infallible teaching. This teaching still stands today, but reformulated in a more positive form. But yes, this statement is still to be accepted as it stands.

 

[pnewton]

Does your claim apply to the commandments which a quite a bit older than 400 years.

asked and answeredI

realize it must be embarrassing to those canon lawyers and that bishop, but Exsurge domine remains a fact of history.

No. There are plenty of non-catholics and anti-catholics out there. One more is scarcely an embarassment. There have been many others that publish there own unique version of history and its interpretation to try to discredit the Catholic Church. Yet 2000 years later, here we are and none has out-lasted the bride of Christ yet.

 

[valient_Lucy]

No. That’s not what EXSURGE says. Read the 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.”

The Bull states that all of the faithful must reject heresies. I see no problem here.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Hi, i don’t know if you know this (i am sorry if i am being patronising, i do not intend to be) but those …'s mean that a chunk of text has been removed. Without this text we can’t set the quote in context or arrive at its true meaning. It’s like saying “I really dont like cucumbers you know”, then someone quoting it as this: “I really dont like…you”. I may just be missing something here though

SNL did a skit where a political candidate was interviewed, and they showed them a quote that said, “I…want…to…kill…the…Jews.” I think it was SNL, don’t really remember.

 

[Little_Les]

How many times must we tell you? Heretics were not executed because they were heretics. Heretics were executed because they were a danger to society.

And excommunication is NEVER infallible. Excommunication is a disciplinary act, it can NEVER be covered by infallibility.

No. You continue to ignor the fact that a Pope can declare anything infallibly. A pope is not limited by Canon law or any law for that matter. He can behave as God on earth. In fact one pope just before the beginning of the 19th century told us he was.

“But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty…”

Encyclical Letter of Pope Leo XIII
June 20, 1894

And there is this,

Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII

“Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: ‘The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man’ [1 Cor 2:15]”

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

And from Pope Gregory VII’s Dictatus papae:

“That he himself may be judged by no one.”

A Pope isn’t limited by anything, certainly not Canon law, and cannot be judged by any one. Or so they tell us.

Moreover, anyone who did not support the pope can be termed a “danger to society.” Was that a moral justification for executing them in the most painful fashion? Is it today?

Can that be believed to be the will of God?

 

[Teflon93]

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?

Little Les, may I ask you to show us your valid Holy Orders for interpreting the writings of the Magisterium?

Absent such, I’m afraid your interpretation matters not one whit to Catholics.

You may want to look elsewhere for your anti-Catholic “gotcha”—this well-trodden ground invariably runs into the obstacle of authority.

But then again, non-Catholics often run into such obstacles. It is a consequence of proclaiming yourself Pope.

 

[pnewton]

No. You continue to ignor the fact that a Pope can declare anything infallibly. A pope is not limited by Canon law or any law for that matter.

This shows total ingnorance of infallibility. The Pope only declare infallible matters of faith and morals. Never can he make an infallible declaration on a discipline. I am no even sure that this is not a logical impossibility. Each Pope’s authority in matters of discipline ends with his death and is passed on to the next pope. One Pope can never hold his successor bound on any matter of discipline.

 

[Teflon93]

I suppose at its heart, this question revolves around:

1. Is the OP a correct interpretation of Catholic teaching?
2. Is the teaching itself considered to be binding upon the faith of all Catholics?
3. Do a majority (“most”) of Catholics disagree with this teaching?
4. Does disagreeing with this teaching result in excommunication immediately and by the act of disagreement itself under canon law, as, say, procuring an abortion or striking a priest does?

My own responses are:

1. Probably not.
2. Probably.
3. Don’t know.
4. Probably not; canon law doesn’t list it as such insofar as I can determine.

The last point is important because if mere disagreement doesn’t result in immediate excommunication, then under canon law we would expect to be notified of our excommunication, even as Luther was notified of his. If it hasn’t come in the mail, you’re not excommunicated, therefore the answer to the OP question would be, “No.”

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?