Confused by text of "Exsurge Domine"

[Contrabass101]

Hi all,

I am reading the Papal Bull against Luther, Exsurge Domine, but I am unaccostumed to the way of writing. When the text lists the 41 points, how am I to understand it? All the negations and double-negations confuse me…

Examples:

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

1. It is a heretical opinion, but a common one, that the sacraments of the New Law give pardoning grace to those who do not set up an obstacle. - Does that mean it is wrong for a Catholic to hold that it is heretical to believe that the sacraments etc.?

1. To deny that in a child after baptism sin remains is to treat with contempt both Paul and Christ. **- Does this mean that it is heretical to hold that sin does not **remain after baptism?

1. The inflammable sources of sin, even if there be no actual sin, delay a soul departing from the body from entrance into heaven. **- Easier one, but just to make sure… this is the heretical **view, right?

…

1. It is a most truthful proverb and the doctrine concerning the contritions given thus far is the more remarkable: “Not to do so in the future is the highest penance; the best penance, a new life.”** - Which means that it is not **a truthful proverb, or…?

Is it a true understanding, that if someone professed any of these points as they are written, he would be in error, according to this Bull?

• CB

 

[Trishie]

Hi, I located the Papal Bull and will read it again tomorrow. I zoned out reading the document, but it’s getting on for midnight here. I agree that more explanation with some of the points would be helpful.

Maybe someone can direct you to a helpful book on the subject.

 

[Contrabass101]

bump

 

[ralphinal]

I sent an e-mail to a couple of Catholic Theologins/historians to get it explained. That was last week. I have not heard from anyone yet.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Hi all,

I am reading the Papal Bull against Luther, Exsurge Domine, but I am unaccostumed to the way of writing. When the text lists the 41 points, how am I to understand it? All the negations and double-negations confuse me…

Examples:

Is it a true understanding, that if someone professed any of these points as they are written, he would be in error, according to this Bull?

• CB

I made a thread on this very issue a year or so ago, the answer is many of those are hard to understand because of the double negatives and implied condemnation.

They should generally be read like this:

Ill give some a try:

1. It is a heretical opinion, but a common one, that the sacraments of the New Law give pardoning grace to those who do not set up an obstacle. - Does that mean it is wrong for a Catholic to hold that it is heretical to believe that the sacraments etc.?
   ERROR: The Protestant [Luther] is saying it is popular heresy to believe the New Covenant sacraments give grace to those who are open to receiving the grace (ie not pretending).

TRUTH: The New Covenant DOES give grace by the sacraments.
2. To deny that in a child after baptism sin remains is to treat with contempt both Paul and Christ. - Does this mean that it is heretical to hold that sin does not remain after baptism?
ERROR: The Protestant says if you dont believe sin remains in a Baptized child slaps Jesus and Paul in the face.

TRUTH: Sin does NOT remain in a Baptized Child, and it sure as heck doesn’t mock the teachings of Jesus or Paul.
3. The inflammable sources of sin, even if there be no actual sin, delay a soul departing from the body from entrance into heaven. - Easier one, but just to make sure… this is the heretical view, right?
ERROR: APPEARS TO BE that the Protestant is saying temptation/urges/concupisience delay a soul entering into Heaven.

TRUTH: That statement is false.
7. It is a most truthful proverb and the doctrine concerning the contritions given thus far is the more remarkable: “Not to do so in the future is the highest penance; the best penance, a new life.”** - Which means that it is not a truthful proverb, or…?
**I’m not sure what this is saying, but it appears that proverb is actually false, so yes, it is NOT a truthful proverb.

 

[Contrabass101]

Ah okay…

Thanks a lot.