Lutherans can't own property - Decet Romanum Pontificem

  • Thread starter Thread starter Novocastrian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bergon said:
This Bull is effectively still in force but it effect no longer has any force, if that makes sense. It was the second document by which Leo X excommunicated Luther. It won’t ever be lifted as far as I no because Luther is dead and the Church only removes excommunications from the living.
Click to expand...
I completely understand with regard to Luther. It does, however, mention the descendants, some of whom are presumably still living and still Lutheran.
 
Novocastrian said:
Two questions then.

(1) Doesn’t section X (the bit quoted above) claim that the Bull is irrevocable?
Click to expand...
Disciplinary matters are always temporary, even if they are in force for centuries. You have to remember that the Church doesn’t think in terms of decades but of millenniums.
(2) Do you think that the Roman Pontiff has the right de jure divino to deprive people of property?
Click to expand...
Within his jurisdiction, yes, he does. He even has the right to pronounce death sentences, although no pope has for some time now. 😉 At the time the Bull was written Europe was Catholic–all the nations had pledged their allegiance to the Pope. That’s no longer the case, so the pope’s jurisdiction has diminished to those who are still in union with him, be they countries or individuals.

I hope this helps you. I’m not an expert. I hope someone with more knowledge responds to your questions. God bless.
 
Novocastrian said:
Why would the source need to be Catholic? I can assure you that I’m not some sort of anti-Roman bigot!

No, my point about being addressed to all faithful Christians was a response to your earlier claim that it was probably written just to the bishops.

Could you tell me what you think the references to goods and property, pertaining to Lutherans, might mean if not private property, etc.?
Click to expand...
I think the reference is to ecclesial goods and properties, such as a Church building. The reason I think that is because of the nature of what an excommunication is and what it’s intended effect is. Also, I know of no Catholic Doctrine forbidding a Catholic from having any private dealings with anyone, whether Lutheran or otherwise, so an interpretation of this Bull being about “private property” makes no sense.

The reason I’d want to see an explanation from a Catholic source is because the orignial document in question is a Catholic one, written by a Catholic, from the Catholic perspective, with a Catholic understanding about a Catholic excommunication (what it is and what it is NOT).
 
Just as a side note…I say “such as Church buildings”. You have to remember that when this Bull was written , there were no “Lutheran” Church buildings. All the Churches were Catholic. There was not other Christian denomination or sect in Europe…only “Catholic”.
 
ahs said:
I think the reference is to ecclesial goods and properties, such as a Church building. The reason I think that is because of the nature of what an excommunication is and what it’s intended effect is. Also, I know of no Catholic Doctrine forbidding a Catholic from having any private dealings with anyone, whether Lutheran or otherwise, so an interpretation of this Bull being about “private property” makes no sense.
Click to expand...
With the exception, perhaps, of the text from the Gospels you cited earlier!

I repeat again, I don’t think ecclesiastical goods is a likely explanation, given the strong implicit reference to lay princes.
The reason I’d want to see an explanation from a Catholic source is because the orignial document in question is a Catholic one, written by a Catholic, from the Catholic perspective, with a Catholic understanding about a Catholic excommunication (what it is and what it is NOT).
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but I think a Roman would be better at finding one of those than me. I’d be very interested if anyone can point me in such a direction.
 
Novocastrian said:
With the exception, perhaps, of the text from the Gospels you cited earlier!

I repeat again, I don’t think ecclesiastical goods is a likely explanation, given the strong implicit reference to lay princes.
Click to expand...
And again, I disagree and think you are reading too much into it.
Fair enough, but I think a Roman would be better at finding one of those than me. I’d be very interested if anyone can point me in such a direction.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I’d be interested in seeing something as well.
 
ahs said:
Just as a side note…I say “such as Church buildings”. You have to remember that when this Bull was written , there were no “Lutheran” Church buildings. All the Churches were Catholic. There was not other Christian denomination or sect in Europe…only “Catholic”.
Click to expand...
I don’t know whether the like of the Elector of Saxony would have owned church buildings within his state. Presumably there were at least a few private chapels in Lutheran hands in the 1520s.

Secondly, I think the Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians, etc. would beg to differ with regard to your last point!
 
I’d simply note, regarding the end of the bull - this is standard Papal “boilerplate” for the period. It is forbidding anyone from altering the bull, but you’ll note that one pope has no authority to bind another. Leo’s authority to forbid ownership of property to Lutherans is the same as Francis’ (or any other pope’s) to allow it. I wouldn’t read too much into that.

Does Church law currently forbid the sale of property to or ownership of property by heretics (Lutheran or otherwise)? Clearly, not and that isn’t demonstrated by this Bull.

Does the Pope have authority to do this? At the time, yes. He was dealing with confessional Catholic states, with monarchs who had sworn to uphold the Catholic Faith against heretics. Leo was within his rights to do this. As were his successors when they allowed this to fall into the dustbin of history.

God bless.
 
PietroPaolo said:
Does the Pope have authority to do this? At the time, yes. He was dealing with confessional Catholic states, with monarchs who had sworn to uphold the Catholic Faith against heretics. Leo was within his rights to do this. As were his successors when they allowed this to fall into the dustbin of history.
Click to expand...
Do you believe that they had such authority from God or from man?
 
Novocastrian said:
Do you believe that they had such authority from God or from man?
Click to expand...
Are you asking whether the Pope has the authority to forbid Catholic states to allow heretics to hold property? I think that is obviously yes. The authority to do so comes with the office of Peter and his task to maintain unity in the Church, ergo the authority to do so comes from God, not man. Whether it is prudent to forbid heretics from holding property is, of course, another matter entirely.
 
“On all these we decree the sentences of excommunication, of anathema, of our perpetual condemnation and interdict; of privation of dignities, honours and property on them and their descendants, and of declared unfitness for such possessions; of the confiscation of their goods and of the crime of treason; and these and the other sentences, censures and punishments which are inflicted by canon law on heretics and are set out in our aforesaid missive, we decree to have fallen on all these men to their damnation.”

My question is why aren’t Lutherans still cursed, condemned, heretical, and damned? The RCC sure has changed its opinion of them.
 
Novocastrian said:
Decet Romanum Pontificem, Leo X, third section: Our decrees which follow are passed against Martin and others who follow him in the obstinacy of his depraved and damnable purpose, as also against those who defend and protect him with a military bodyguard, and do not fear to support him with their own resources or in any other way, and have and do presume to offer and afford help, counsel and favour toward him. All their names, surnames and rank—however lofty and dazzling their dignity may be—we wish to be taken as included in these decrees with the same effect as if they were individually listed and could be so listed in their publication, which must be furthered with an energy to match their contents.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t say that Lutherans can’t own property.

It says that Martin Luther and his followers and descendants are to have a “privation” of “dignites, honours and property.”

Privation is a state of absence or lack of something. The privation refers to the Catholic Church’s bestowing of honors, dignities and property and the document has to do with revocation of titles and faculties. If you read carefully the whole document it becomes clear that the term property refers specifically to Church property.

If you read the document carefully it says that the places these people visited are under interdict. It doesn’t say they are confiscated. The Church has no power to confiscate towns and cities.

The Church property these people presumed to “own” really belonged to the Church. They were using monasteries, abbey Churches, chalices and sacred books to say Mass and recite the Divine Office. The Church is telling them to turn over Church property, revoking their faculties, and excommunicating them. That’s all.

We have to understand that Luther was an Augustinian monk, a mendicant. He was under solemn vow not to own property. Anything he ever had was God’s and under control of the local community where he was a member. Luther broke this vow when he presumed to own property. He broke his vow of obedience to his superior as well. He broke his vow of chastity when he presumed to get married and fathered six children, all his “descendants”. For all of these, when he took his vow, he agreed to forfeit his soul.

All of this has nothing to do with someone who grew up Lutheran in modern times. The church knows it cannot confiscate private property. The Catechism acknowledges the rights of ordinary people to own property.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
 
Della said:
Since he was dealing with professed Catholics, over whom God has given him jurisdiction, then his authority in this matter came from God.
Click to expand...
Does the Pope, by virtue of your profession as a Catholic, have rights over your property?
 
Alizarin said:
"On all these we decree the sentences of excommunication, of anathema, of our perpetual condemnation and interdict; of privation of dignities, honours and property on them and their descendants, and of declared unfitness for such possessions; of the confiscation of their goods and of the crime of treason; and these and the other sentences, censures and punishments which are inflicted by canon law on heretics and are set out in our aforesaid missive, we decree to have fallen on all these men to their damnation."

My question is why aren’t Lutherans still cursed, condemned, heretical, and damned? The RCC sure has changed its opinion of them.
Click to expand...
The first few generations of Lutherans were Catholic who fell into heresy and schism by professing false doctrines and leaving the Church. They were formal heretics. Modern Lutherans, after 500 yrs of non-Catholic parentage, are still heretics, but only materially. Formal heretics are damned, material heretics are not.
 
Novocastrian said:
Does the Pope, by virtue of your profession as a Catholic, have rights over your property?
Click to expand...
The document speaks specifically about Church property.

Luther was under solemn vow not to own property or forfeit his soul. Everything he “owned” was property of his religious community by perpetual vow to poverty. Nothing he ever “owned” was really really his but belonged to the Church by solemn vow.

Just because he walked away from his vow doesn’t mean that it ends. God takes vows seriously and the Church asserts her rights over the property that he says he owns because it is the Church’s property by Luther’s own vow.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church acknowledges an individual’s right to own property as long as we recognize that everything is really a gift from God and as long as we are not under solemn vow of poverty.

-Tim-
 
Alizarin said:
"On all these we decree the sentences of excommunication, of anathema, of our perpetual condemnation and interdict; of privation of dignities, honours and property on them and their descendants, and of declared unfitness for such possessions; of the confiscation of their goods and of the crime of treason; and these and the other sentences, censures and punishments which are inflicted by canon law on heretics and are set out in our aforesaid missive, we decree to have fallen on all these men to their damnation."

My question is why aren’t Lutherans still cursed, condemned, heretical, and damned? The RCC sure has changed its opinion of them.
Click to expand...
Only those non-Catholics who die with full knowledge of the Catholic faith, fully understanding its teachings, and who reject it with full will are heretical and may be damned.

The Church does not declare any particular soul is in hell, for that judgment is for God only.

Lutherans, and indeed all non-Catholic persons baptized in the faith, are not formal heretic, but merely material heretics. They are united to the Church by their baptism, but are in imperfect union with her because of their differing beliefs or schisms.
 
Novocastrian said:
Does the Pope, by virtue of your profession as a Catholic, have rights over your property?
Click to expand...
Have you read the entire document? You ask whether Leo derived his authority to ban the ownership of property to Lutherans from God or man, yet Leo himself in Decet Romanum Pontificem says in the very first line;

“Through the power given him from God, the Roman Pontiff has been appointed to administer spiritual and temporal punishments as each case severally deserves.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top