Hello PR and Smaneck
A bull is an ecclesiastical document promulgated by a pope. The range of subjects it can address is typically quite broad such as: dispensations, excommunications, apostolic constitutions, canonizations. Nevertheless they are very limited, usually in scope, that is they are generally limited to specific ideas in a defined context. Papal bulls are never in themselves solemn definitions. They are part of mutable canon law. However they can quite often contain solemn condemnations of points judged to be detrimental to Catholic truth. Such would be authoritative - even very authoritative - for their time and in relation to the very specific heresy or such addressed, until a subsequent canon law abrogated it unless of course an infallible statement was defined (generally though the church only accepts the Marian dogmas as occassions of singular papal infallibility).
Quite apart from the subject of the authority of the Papal Bull
Exsurge Domine itself, we should note what weight the Bull itself grants to the condemned articles from Luther:
There is not any solemn definition of dogma here. All it tells us is that the propisition in question, the condemnation of Martin Luther’s sentence about burning heretics being against the will of the Spirit, is among a loose set of other articles whose identity is
either ‘heretical’, por ‘scandalous’, or ‘false’, or ‘offensive’ or ‘seductive of simple minds’ and for all of these reasons the pope considers the statements as a whole contrary to sound Catholic truth.
The language does not tell us explicitly whether the propisition in question is “heretical”, “offensive” or simply “seductive of simple minds”. Clearly there are certain propisitions that the pope thought were heretical, others simply capable of wayleading Catholics and some he thought were simply offensive in nature. Obviously what is “offensive to pious ears” is a very specific, time-bound condemnation that has no authority or meaning for us today.
Therefore we can only discern for ourselves what category Leo placed the “burn heretics” condemnation under, using our sound judgement. There is are a few particularly minor condemned propisitions such as, “
Ecclesiastical prelates and secular princes would not act badly if they destroyed all of the money bags of beggary”. That is obviously not a matter of doctrine.
Given that it is a single bull, not ratified by any subsequent pope, directed towards a specific person’s writings and quoting sections from them that are deemed either heretical, offensive or such else, its authority is I suppose questionable. It certainly would have been taken seriously in its day, but as for any lasting effect its language is too imprecise. It doesn’t even specify which propositions it considers to be heretical, for example. Such imprecise language is not helpful nor clear enough to be meaningfully authoritative. It rather seems more like an immediate response to an urgent contemporary issue.
Since the pope only has jurisdiction in matters concerning “faith or morals” he cannot tell a secular authority authoritatively how to deal with a religious offense. He can condemn certain things as heresies, however the papacy has never had any authority over criminal jurisdiction. Even in the inquisition people were tried for heresy, condemned and then handed over to the state. The church did not itself execute people because it had no authority to do so. Indeed in the early middle ages, before the Cathar heresy which was viewed by both popes and kings as a threat to the social order, bishops often defended the very heretics they had just condemned.
Evidence leaning towards this assessment can be gleaned from the noble actions of churchmen, such as the Bishop of Orleans who in the 1022 incident, “protected the heretics against the efforts of the mob to lynch them; the burning occurred only after the king capitulated to popular demands” . Moore references four instances – Cambrai 1077, Soissons in 1114, Liege in 1135 and Cologne in 1147 – in which the contemporary records claim that convicted heretics were “burned by the ‘people’ after being found guilty by ecclesiastical tribunals but against the wishes of the clergy” . In summation of such evidence, Kinsman holds that “deep into the twelfth century” there were many clergymen who were attempting to “moderate the vengefulness of laymen towards heretics…[the] roots of the animosity [attacks on heretics] were neither intellectual nor institutionalized: the mob needed scapegoats”.
At various times in her history the church has had different opinions on what the state should do with heretics ranging from not handing them over to the state at all and considering it a purely religious offence which was punished therefore by an ecclesiastical punishment such as penance.
It is a variable thing influenced by the time period and not a doctrine. The doctrinal element only extends to whether something is heretical or not.
Obviously people know nowadays that people should not be punished by a secular court for “heresy”. At times popes supported this contention to, whereas in response to some heresies deemed threats to society they didn’t.
There responses however, some good by our modern standards and some horrid (handing people over to state authorities knowing the state or mob would probably have them burned or executed) is not binding.
