Bows and Crossbows

  • Thread starter Thread starter rayman77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rayman77

Guest
The canon involving bows and Crossbows is stated below:

“1. We prohibit under anathema that murderous art of crossbowmen and archers, which is hateful to God, to be employed against Christians and Catholics from now on.”
  • Quoted from papal encyclicals dot net
    (Can’t include links yet)
    Now, I know that Pope Innocent II (or was it III?) had to do with this canon. But is something like this still canonically binding? Say someone broke into a hunter’s house and tried to kill them. The hunter shot the robber (who happened to be Christian) with his bow or crossbow that he owned, would he be excommunicated?
I’m just curious as to whether or not this canon is still in effect. Would it still be in effect because of papal infallibility, or would this canon not fall under that category? I’m just curious.
 
This ecyclical is not in effect so go to the Sport Shop and by away!
 
So, I read an article on encyclicals, which was not the clearest. Does an encyclical have the effect of a law within the Church?

Also, on the website you gave me, this phrase

“1 There are no surviving acts of the council and very little can be surmised from the records and chronicles.”

Does that mean that none of those are in effect now a days?
 
rayman77 said:
We prohibit under anathema that murderous art of crossbowmen and archers, which is hateful to God, to be employed against Christians and Catholics from now on.
Click to expand...
rayman77 said:
But is something like this still canonically binding? Say someone broke into a hunter’s house and tried to kill them. The hunter shot the robber (who happened to be Christian) with his bow or crossbow that he owned, would he be excommunicated?
Click to expand...
🤦‍♂️

No.

Even if it were, self-defense isn’t the same thing as military action.

p.s., can you even imagine a scenario in which a robber, intent on murder, would be effectively defended against via archery? (“Umm… please hold on a minute, Mr Robber, while I cock my crossbow! There we go… just a few more turns of the crank!” 😉
 
Last edited:
rayman77 said:
But is something like this still canonically binding?
Click to expand...
No.
rayman77 said:
But is something like this still canonically binding? Say someone broke into a hunter’s house and tried to kill them. The hunter shot the robber (who happened to be Christian) with his bow or crossbow that he owned, would he be excommunicated?
Click to expand...
No. And to be clear, the council was referring to warfare, not to your scenario. And in that day, the crossbow and archery were the only real distance weapons. So what was being prohibited here were warfare techniques that killed people at a distance giving them no ability to defend themselves.
rayman77 said:
’m just curious as to whether or not this canon is still in effect.
Click to expand...
No.
rayman77 said:
Would it still be in effect because of papal infallibility, or would this canon not fall under that category?
Click to expand...
No. This is not a doctrinal matter. It is disciplinary.
 
TheLittleLady said:
Encyclical, not a Canon
Click to expand...
Hi Little Lady.

This isn’t an encyclical. These are the canons of the Second Lateran Council. They are simply housed on a website called “Papal Encyclicals Online”. However, that site has more than just encyclicals, apparently.

The canons of a ecumenical council were in fact the basis of universal church law. And regional councils had canons that were binding on their territory (such as Council of Elvira that was binding in Spain).

The various councils issued decrees that were relevant to their time. Some superseded those that came before. Some didn’t. Canon law did not exist until the 1917 code came together, abrogating all the mish-mash that came before it and codifying everything into one book of law. The 1983 code did the same, updating and replacing the 1917 code.
 
No.

This had to do with the way archers were used in war.

The archers were far away, out of harms way, and would shoot their arrows at the incoming army. They would also, often shoot arrows that were on fire with tar.

It was often a slaughter, as the opposing infantry had no defensive against the arrows.

It would be akin to ordering an air strike or missle launch today on an opposing infantry charging on an open field.

I hope this helps.

God Bless
 
phil19034 said:
It would be akin to ordering an air strike or missle launch today on an opposing infantry charging on an open field
Click to expand...
Which would be a perfectly acceptable thing to do, if it’s a just war.
 
BoomBoomMancini said:
40.png
phil19034:
It would be akin to ordering an air strike or missle launch today on an opposing infantry charging on an open field
Click to expand...
Which would be a perfectly acceptable thing to do, if it’s a just war.
Click to expand...
I might be wrong, but I think this is a very gray area. I think Air Support is fine. But just picking off an infantry via the air while your infantry is just watching may be questionable - and is similar to the archery question.

God Bless
 
I don’t know of any obligation to be “sporting” in war. If you have air support and they don’t, well, sucks to be them. Long as you’re not bombing non-combatants or troops trying to surrender, bomb away.
 
BoomBoomMancini said:
I don’t know of any obligation to be “sporting” in war. If you have air support and they don’t, well, sucks to be them. Long as you’re not bombing non-combatants or troops trying to surrender, bomb away.
Click to expand...
Again, I might be wrong, but I think the Church has something against using “overwhelming force - unmatched force.” For example: your strikes should give the opposing side the ability to surrender. Not simply wipe them all out at once.

Again, it’s a gray area, and I might be wrong.

God Bless
 
Even if encyclicals WERE canon. Even if this encyclical WAS still in effect and relevant to today’s weapon technology. It’s really obvious from context that the Holy Father was talking about using cross bows on people, not elk.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top