Are most Catholics excommunicated?

[pete_29]

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?

This is drivel. Just another stupid argument so you can make yourself feel important.

 

[clmowry]

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?

And one who also does not believe in the inerrancy of scripture.

This makes for a very odd “Catholic” indeed.

In fact, I think the continued public assertion of such would make such a “Catholic” a heretic.

So perhaps this explains the concern expressed in the OP?

Chuck

 

[pnewton]

Is there such a thing as an anti-Catholic Catholic?

No, but there is such a thing as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. There is nothing to prevent an anti-Cathlic with an agenda from listing Catholic as their religion in order to try and establish credibility as an insider. Never assume one’s posted profile is true. Rather, let their posts speak for them.

 

[Teflon93]

Always sound advice–thanks pnewton and Chuck.

Is my interpretation of the question above sound, though?

On an issue such as this, would some sort of excommunication notification happen, or would one instantly be excommunicated if propositions 1 and 2 were correct and one disagreed?

 

[pnewton]

Is my interpretation of the question above sound, though?

On an issue such as this, would some sort of excommunication notification happen, or would one instantly be excommunicated if propositions 1 and 2 were correct and one disagreed?

Yes, i believe you are correct in your reasoning. When there is no penalty of automatic excommunication, something would need to happen to demonstrate obstinance.

 

[Teflon93]

Yes, i believe you are correct in your reasoning. When there is no penalty of automatic excommunication, something would need to happen to demonstrate obstinance.

So to be clear, it is not disagreement in itself which results in excommunication in such cases, but in one engaging in some act of disobedience stemming from such disagreement (say, scandal) and obstinately refusing correction on the matter. Is that correct?

 

[Little_Les]

asked and answeredINo. 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.

Really?

What about Judaism (4000 years old +) and Hinduism (6000 years old +)? Aren’t they two and three times older than Christianity?

 

[pnewton]

So to be clear, it is not disagreement in itself which results in excommunication in such cases, but in one engaging in some act of disobedience stemming from such disagreement (say, scandal) and obstinately refusing correction on the matter. Is that correct?

That is my understanding. Again, this would be a good question to put to the CA Live Canon Lawyer.

Hey, you know what I just snapped to? I have listened to CALive for a while because our catholic radio went off the air. I can actually start again now that I have high speed internet.

 

[Little_Les]

This is drivel. Just another stupid argument so you can make yourself feel important.

“Drivel?” Isn’t this a recognized Papal Bull? Or do you consider them to be just “drivel”?

 

[Little_Les]

And one who also does not believe in the inerrancy of scripture.

This makes for a very odd “Catholic” indeed.

In fact, I think the continued public assertion of such would make such a “Catholic” a heretic.

So perhaps this explains the concern expressed in the OP?

Chuck

Another poster broached the subject but unfortunately did not pursue it, namely the similarity between claims of infallibility or the Church and inspiration in scripture.

Both teachings on it own infallibility and the inspiration of scripture are based on the premise that these must be true because of the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Traditionally it has been the Church’s teaching that all scripture is directly inspired by God who is its true author (see Councils of Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II, Also ProvidentissimusDeus (1893), Spiritus Paracletus(1920), Divino Afflante Spiritis (1943), and Dei Verbum (1965)) and, since God cannot affirm error, all scripture must be inerrant. Moreover, divine inspirations extends to all scripture “without the slightest exception” (Spiritus Paracletus), not just matters of faith and morals. Included in this inerrancy is “the domaine of physical sciences and history.” (Divino Afflante Spiritis, paragraph I (1943).

But more recently, there has been an attempt to restrict inspiration to only portions of scripture deemed “necessary for our salvation” and not, as formerly, to all of scripture.

 

[Teflon93]

Really?

What about Judaism (4000 years old +) and Hinduism (6000 years old +)? Aren’t they two and three times older than Christianity?

So are you planning on becoming Jewish-Hindu or Hindu-Jewish?

A happy Diwali-Hannukah to you nonetheless!

 

[pnewton]

Really?

What about Judaism (4000 years old +) and Hinduism (6000 years old +)? Aren’t they two and three times older than Christianity?

I have never met or heard of a Hindu or Jewish anti-Catholic. Just like Catholics do not try to re-write the history of Hinduism and Judaism for these groups. That sort of attack has always come from some fellow Christian.

 

[Little_Les]

I have never met or heard of a Hindu or Jewish anti-Catholic. Just like Catholics do not try to re-write the history of Hinduism and Judaism for these groups. That sort of attack has always come from some fellow Christian.

Never heard of a Jewish anti-Catholic? Have you ever read the New Testament?

 

[pnewton]

Never heard of a Jewish anti-Catholic? Have you ever read the New Testament?

I said met or heard of one. Obviously that is a contemporary statement. Yes, there were Jews that persecuted the Church in the first century.

 

[ontologysue]

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.

I realize this thread is about the present efficacy of a 400 year old Papal Bull, I’m not particulary interested in that debate, however, posts referring to the justification for the initial “bull” in its historical context…definitely attract attention.

The line bolded represents what was far too regularly used as a justification to murdering innocent people who were simply having struggles with conscience. These people were not guilty of treason, just of questioning out loud.

Our Lord, Himself, was convicted and crucified as a blaasphemer and a “theat to society,” It was not God’s will that these innocents, including, for example, Joan of Arc, be burnt at the stake for being “heretics and dangers to socity.”

Short of an act of treason, I don’t think we, His desciples, should be justifying anything by that justification.

 

[Teflon93]

ontologysue:
I realize this thread is about the present efficacy of a 400 year old Papal Bull, I’m not particulary interested in that debate, however, posts referring to the justification for the initial “bull” in its historical context…definitely attract attention.

The line bolded represents what was far too regularly used as a justification to murdering innocent people who were simply having struggles with conscience. These people were not guilty of treason, just of questioning out loud.

Our Lord, Himself, was convicted and crucified as a blaasphemer and a “theat to society,” It was not God’s will that these innocents, including, for example, Joan of Arc, be burnt at the stake for being “heretics and dangers to socity.”

Short of an act of treason, I don’t think we, His desciples, should be justifying anything by that justification.

That is simply not true.

Name one person burned for heresy who did nothing more than question out loud. Evidence, please.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Off topic posts have been deleted.
MF

 

[porthos11]

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.

No, I ignore it because a Pope CANNOT declare just anything infallibly. That is a false premise that YOU alone are holding on to, despite the fact the infallibly covers only DEFINITIONS on matters of FAITH and MORALS. It never covers DISCIPLINE. You are the one insisting on your erroneous definition of infallibility.

Discipline can always be changed. Excommunication is discipline and can NEVER be infallible. There have been unjust yet binding disciplinary actions by the Church in the past.

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

True. That’s why we obey the Pope even in matters of discipline. Even when the discipline is later found to be unjust.

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.”
**

Make no mistake. THIS is infallible.

And from Pope Gregory VII’s Dictatus papae:

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

Re-stated to cover the entire Roman See in the 1983 Code of Canon law. This is true.

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

Yes, this is true, including Canon Law. This does not mean that Canon Law cannot abrogate previous law. In fact it did and we showed it to your face. Clearly, the Pope by his authority promulgated the law that abrogated the Exsurge penalties. It does NOT abrogate the Exsurge doctrinal declarations.

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?

Not today. But yes, it was in the past. There was no “enlightened” separation of Church and state: the two were one.

It may not have been ideal or even contrary to modern sensibilities, but their execution was not an immoral option according to the times.

Can that be believed to be the will of God?

Not necessarily. It may, it may not. But it cannot be believed to be AGAINST the will of God either and that’s the whole point.

 

[jemfinch]

Virtually all Protestants are baptized into the Protestant Church

You say this as if there’s such a thing as “the Protestant Church.”

Jeremy

 

[Mannyfit75]

Execommunication has never been nor proclaimed by the Mother Church as infallible. Execommunication falls under discipline, it is brand that brings disciplinary action against disobedient Catholics.

Infallible is unchanging. While execommunicate has been redeemed in the past as null in void by Pope.

For example, The Catholic-Orthodox Joint Declaration of 1965 was read out on 7 December 1965, simultaneously at a public meeting of the Second Vatican Council in Rome and at a special ceremony in Constantinople. It **withdrew the exchange **of excommunications between prominent ecclesiastics in the Roman see and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1054. It did not end the East-West Schism but showed a desire for greater reconciliation between the two churches, represented by Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I.

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.