exsurge domine

  • Thread starter Thread starter katy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vames,

You’re misreading Pope Leo and failing to appreciate the historical moment. Heresy was a capital crime then in secular society. The Church has always held that capital punishment for capitol crimes may be moral in some circumstances. But Pope Leo isn’t even really saying it is moral for heresy anyway. He’s merely condemning Luther for not leaving the possibility open.

Here’s a paraphrase of the interplay:

Luther: “Burning heretics is always immoral.”

Pope Leo: “Not necessarily.”

The Pope is right here and Luther is wrong.
 
Heresy was a capital crime then in secular society.
Heresy was a capital crime precisely because the society wasn’t secular at all. Secular leaders indeed used religion and the “fight against heresy” as a convenient tool to preserve and expand their power, but heresy is a religious concept, not a secular one. Jan Hus or Martin Luther weren’t rebelling against secular authorities, but against the Roman Church. As for the morality of such punishment, Leo was merely following the traditional stance of the Catholic Church.
The burning of heretics was first decreed in the eleventh century. The Synod of Verona (1184) imposed on bishops the duty to search out the heretics in their dioceses and to hand them over to the secular power. Other synods, and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) under Pope Innocent III, repeated and enforced this decree, especially the Synod of Toulouse (1229), which established inquisitors in every parish (one priest and two laymen). Everyone was bound to denounce heretics, the names of the witnesses were kept secret; after 1243, when Innocent IV sanctioned the laws of Emperor Frederick II and of Louis IX against heretics, torture was applied in trials; the guilty persons were delivered up to the civil authorities and actually burnt at the stake.
newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm
 
Here is a key difference between our post-Enlightenment, secularist mindset and the worldview of the 16th century.

Imagine if someone really, genuinely had the ability to lead thousands of others into eternal torment. Wouldn’t that be worse than killing someone?

Luther did condemn the burning of heretics. But later, like all his contemporaries, he couldn’t get over the fact (from their point of view) that heresy entices people to hell, and is therefore the most dangerous crime.

Luther authorized the execution of Anabaptists for heresy. In doing so, he explained,
Although it seems cruel to punish them with the sword, it is crueler that they condemn the ministry of the Word and have no well-grounded doctrine and suppress the true and in this way seek to subvert the civil order.
Here, he is actually agreeing with Exsurge Domine #33, at least in part. He didn’t see the killing of Anabaptists as contrary to the Spirit of God. Quite the contrary.
 
As for the morality of such punishment, Leo was merely following the traditional stance of the Catholic Church.
The burning of heretics was first decreed in the eleventh century. The Synod of Verona (1184) imposed on bishops the duty to search out the heretics in their dioceses and to hand them over to the secular power. Other synods, and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) under Pope Innocent III, repeated and enforced this decree, especially the Synod of Toulouse (1229), which established inquisitors in every parish (one priest and two laymen). Everyone was bound to denounce heretics, the names of the witnesses were kept secret; after 1243, when Innocent IV sanctioned the laws of Emperor Frederick II and of Louis IX against heretics, torture was applied in trials; the guilty persons were delivered up to the civil authorities and actually burnt at the stake.
As was said before on this thread, you have to see these things in their historical context.

In the early Middle Ages, Western Europeans used Germanic customs to settle legal cases. This involved trial by ordeal – you have the accused endure some sort of pain, like walking a certain distance while holding a hot iron. If he survives unharmed, then that shows he was innocent.

In the eleventh century there was a renewed interest in ancient Roman civilization. Scholars rediscovered Roman legal procedures, which struck them as much more reliable and just than the Germanic practices. It involved gathering evidence and using that as the basis for the verdict. It also happened to involve using torture when gathering evidence, and burning at the stake for some serious crimes like treason and arson.

The Inquisition itself arose from this revival of Roman law. “Inquisition” literally means inquiry, as in a legal inquiry or inquest. If someone is accused of heresy, the thinking went, then let’s use the most methodical and evidence-based procedures available to us to investigate the charge.
 
Amen! We sadly are more cruel to our own children, and yet we have the pride to think that we’re better than those of the past.

I’m grudgingly now pro-life, and for 36 years on this earth I was pro-choice even though abortion touched my family when I was a child. I have seen what evil looks like - he’s a good looking six foot tall man with blue eyes and blonde hair and he has everything he could ever ask for. And for 36 years he looked back at me in the mirror without even having the decency to flinch.
I think if we all were as humble yourself we would all see the same thing you see. Beautifully written my friend. May God bless you.
 
It’s the condemnation of an absolutist statement, but it does not mean to assert the opposite absolute (ie that all heretics must be killed).

The fact is, it has been justifed at times for incorrigible heretics to be temporally punished, even with death and multiple ecumenical Councils have approved such penalties for certain heretics. St. Robert Bellarmine explains this here:

catholicism.org/de-laicis.html/21

Bishop von Kettler in the 19th century explains here why such penalties may have been justifed during certain past circumstances, but why they are not in contemporary circumstances:

opuscula.blogspot.com/2008/07/religious-freedom-part-iii.html

Archbishop Hughes of New York, in his 19th century debate with a Protestant minister explained why certain instances of the Church advocating the death penalty for heretics was not at odds with the Catholic doctrine of religious liberty (limited by the common good and objective moral order) (note, the “gentleman” referenced is his debate opponent):
Archbishop Hughes:
Let any man apply the doctrines of the Albigenses, simply on two points, viz. the tenet that the devil was the creator of the visible world ; and that, in order to avoid co-operation with the devil in continuing his work, the faithful should take measures by which the human race should come to an end ; and then say whether those errors were merely speculative. They were, on the contrary, pregnant with destruction to society. Was it persecution, or rather, was it not self-preservation, to arrest those errors? We shall see presently, however, that these men, like the Calvinists in France at a later period, took up the sword of sedition, and wielded it against the government under which they lived. We shall see, that long before the canon of Lateran was passed, their course was marked with plunder, rapine, bloodshed. And if so, it follows that their crimes against society springing from their doctrines, constitute the true reason of the severity of the enactment against them.

Their existence was known from the year 1022. If, then, the extermination of heretics had been a doctrine of the Catholic Church, why were they not exterminated from the first? If it was not a doctrine of the church in 1022, it was not a doctrine in 1215; for the gentleman himself admits and proclaims that our doctrines never change. Why then did not the Catholics exterminate them at once ? Is it that they were not able ? No : for at first the heresy had but few supporters. But why were they afterwards persecuted ? The reason is, that in the interval they had proceeded to sustain and propagate their infernal principles, by violence. They had placed themselves under the patronage of factious and rebellious barons, and had fought in pitched battles against their sovereigns. In the former controversy, the gentleman garbled the twenty-seventh canon of the third Council of Lateran, to show that these poor heretics were condemned to awful penalties, for nothing at all but protesting against the errors of the Church of Rome. This he did by quoting the beginning and conclusion of the canon, and, without indicating any omission, suppressing the crimes of these proto-martyrs of Calvinism. It was proved, by the very document from which he quoted, that these lambs of the Albigensian fold were “exercising such cruelty on the Christians, (ie. the Catholics) that they paid no respect to churches or monastaries, spared neither virgins nor widows, neither old nor young, neither sex nor age, but after the manner of pagans destroyed and desolated every thing.”
Luther protested the deaths of Wycliffe and Hus and repeated their errors which is what Leo X was condemning. But those two heretics professed doctrines with similar fruit as the Albigensians. Their doctrines of “dominion by grace” led to anarchy, pillaging, and violent chaos. As von Kettler explained in the link above, heresy in those days had the same destructive effect on society and lives as treason.
 
“It’s the condemnation of an absolutist statement, but it does not mean to assert the opposite absolute (ie that all heretics must be killed).”

Yep. Exactly. That’s the important point here. Katy’s original question about #33 of Exsurge Domine probably came from someone trying to use it to disprove papal infallibility. That’s how I have typically seen it used anyway. As I, Genesis315 and Akin (and others on this thread) have pointed out, though, it doesn’t even remotely relate to papal infallibility.

Another thing I’ve noticed about claims like this one is that people making them tend to conflate papal infallibility with excommunication, in the sense that they seem to think these two things are inextricably connected. Most often, they seem to think that every instance of the Pope’s exercise of his authority to excommunicate is an example of papal infallibility. Not so. Excommunication is a medicinal tool the Pope has at his disposal to try to convince someone to come back to the Church. However, its use is not limited to matters pertaining to faith and morals (which are the primary objects of papal infallibility). The Pope could excommunicate someone for wearing the wrong color pants at Mass if he wanted to (although some changes may need to be made to canon law for him to do so. Canon law currently appears to restrict excommunication to “graver delicts.” Although, that may apply here anyway depending upon the tackiness of the pants.). However, because excommunication is such a big step to take, he usually reserves it for really big problems, which generally involve faith and/or morals. So just because a Pope imposes excommunication on someone, that does not mean he is making an infallible statement.

One of the links TertiumQuid provided noted that #33 may be a combination of two statements made by Luther. While this is an interesting historical note, it has no impact whatsoever upon the question of the infallibility of Pope Leo’s condemnation (as others have shown, it was not infallible), or upon the infallibility of the Pope in general. Even if the Pope excommunicated you for wearing black pants when your pants were actually dark blue, that doesn’t mean the excommunication is invalid. Neither does it mean the Pope has made an infallible statement that black pants are against Church teaching.
 
If Mr. Akin’s position is misconstrued in the link provided, please explain how. You can also view Mr. Akin’s comments directly from Catholic Answers.

Fair enough?

JS
It is the anti-Catholic spin and bias in the article that should send up red flags. This article is under the heading “Jimmy Akin explains exsurge domine” and some of the “nuggets” are comments like “If ever I had to pick a lawyer to represent Luther, I would’ve picked Jimmy Akin.”

Especially cute is the writer’s hypothetical dialogue with Akin defending Luther from the Magisterium:

*"The Magisterium: Luther, we condemned you via the reasons put forth in Exsurge Domine.

Akin: Objection! Exsurge Domine was not an infallible bull, nor did Luther violate any infallible dogma.

The Magisterium: Luther, your writings are heretical or scandalous or false or offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds and in opposition to Catholic truth.

Akin: Objection! Exsurge Domine doesn’t say which is which, so it can’t be applied to my client, and the document doesn’t even infer all Luther’s writings condemned are false. In fact you haven’t specified anything, but have only put forth non-infallible vague statements about my client’s guilt. If this doesn’t make sense to you, you can call a staff apologist at Catholic Answers for further information."*

Why would anyone want to read this garbage. Akin explains his position well and the author (who was not identified that I could see) of this piece has nothing critical to say, rather he has to stoop to this. Its garbage.
 
It is the anti-Catholic spin and bias in the article that should send up red flags.
Why would anyone want to read this garbage. Akin explains his position well and the author (who was not identified that I could see) of this piece has nothing critical to say, rather he has to stoop to this. Its garbage.
Each person has bias, but that doesn’t mean that everything put forth by a particular person is “garbage.” That doesn’t follow logically. In my own studies, I’ve continually tried to learn the art of sifting. That is, I try to extract worthy points, and discarding what’s less helpful. For instance, even though I’m not Roman Catholic, I’ve benefited from Roman Catholic scholarship. Even on a popular level, I one time went to a lecture by a well-known Roman Catholic apologist, who does indeed at times say mocking or disrespectful things about Protestants. At this lecture, the man spoke about particular moral problems of worldliness in politics. I agreed with everything he said, and enjoyed the lecture very much.

Certainly there’s a bit of tongue-in-check in the blog entry, and it’s written for an audience that doesn’t believe Rome is the true church. However, it’s ironic that another Catholic Answers discussion at this very moment is discussing which contemporary apologist if possible, could go back and be part of the Luther problem. I would vote for Mr. Akin. In terms of Rome’s popular apologists, Mr. Akin is certainly one of the best.

What I’m interested in is if the thrust of the blog post is inaccurate. The blog post explains that Mr. Akin makes some of the following implications about Exsurge Domine:
  1. Luther was not condemned for violating infallibly defined dogmas.
  2. Luther was condemned by a whole series of propositions in globo. These propositions were [1] heretical or [2] scandalous or [3] false or [4] offensive to pious ears or [5] seductive of simple minds and [6] in opposition to Catholic truth. The Pope doesn’t say which proposition holds which characteristic. The Latin of Exsurge Domine makes it clear one cannot determine the kind of censure being applied to the individual propositions.
3)One cannot even infer that the pontiff’s mind was that all of the propositions were false. The censures “heretical” and “false” both imply falsity, but “scandalous,” “offensive to pious ears,” and “seductive of simple minds” do not.
  1. One can only speculate which censure should be applied to each proposition.
Now are any of these points misrepresenting Mr. Akin’s view? I think not. In fact, some similar statements were made in this very discussion by a Roman Catholic participant.

One of the other points being made in the blog entry is that Exsurge Domine isn’t any sort of infallible help in determining Rome’s dogmatic understanding of Martin Luther. In fact, the blog entry also quotes a Roman Catholic writer John Todd:
“The bull [Exsurge Domine] was contradictory,lacking in clarity, and incidentally far less effective than it might have been. It relied solely on Luther’s writings prior to the Leipzig disputation. Thus the bull had in it the notorious statement that it is heretical to say that ‘to burn heretics is contrary to the will of the Holy Spirit’ and the anomalous statement that it is heretical to say that ‘secular and spiritual princes would do well if they would put an end to mendicancy’.”
"Eck came into the committee [preparing Exurge Domine] half way through, much o Cajetan’s disgust., and was largely responsible for bulldozing a decision and the miserably incompetent text through the committee. Subsequently Eck himself said the bull was hopelessly inadequate and pointed out that in fact the committee knew very little about Luther’s ‘errors’. No attempt was made to refute Luther by reference either to the Bible or to the Fathers, a remarkable and unusual omission. "
Source: John M. Todd, Luther (New York: Paulist Press), 1964 p.166
To my knowledge, Rome has no dogmatic opinion on Luther, which is why Roman Catholic opinions on Luther run the entire gamut. what Exsurge Domine says or doesn’t say, in other words, really doesn’t matter. It isn’t infallible, and it isn’t even accurate.

JS
 
One of the links TertiumQuid provided noted that #33 may be a combination of two statements made by Luther. While this is an interesting historical note, it has no impact whatsoever upon the question of the infallibility of Pope Leo’s condemnation (as others have shown, it was not infallible), or upon the infallibility of the Pope in general. Even if the Pope excommunicated you for wearing black pants when your pants were actually dark blue, that doesn’t mean the excommunication is invalid. Neither does it mean the Pope has made an infallible statement that black pants are against Church teaching.
The blog entry states, “Despite being a papal document, I would argue Exsurge Domine isn’t really any sort of help. It certainly isn’t any sort of infallible help.” A relevant question though is the following: If at least 12 of the 41 propositions in Exsurge Domine are not accurate, are the 41 condemned propositions a fair summary of Luther’s teaching?

On the other hand, I appreciated the honesty of your comment: “Even if the Pope excommunicated you for wearing black pants when your pants were actually dark blue, that doesn’t mean the excommunication is invalid.” I’m not sure other Roman Catholics would agree.

JS
 
Katy’s original question about #33 of Exsurge Domine probably came from someone trying to use it to disprove papal infallibility.
Quite so. Things can get murky fast when one does not have all kinds of info ready to use for evaluating these things.
 
I personally prefer to take Elizabeth I’s route and just have them hanged for treason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top