Lutherans can't own property - Decet Romanum Pontificem

[Novocastrian]

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.”

But I’m being told by Roman Catholics that they have not so empowered the Pope. Am I to take the Pope at his word, or those in communion with the present Bishop of Rome?

 

[Alizarin]

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.

You’ve always got a good answer…I appreciate that.

 

[Novocastrian]

No. But I haven’t pledged my property to the Pope nor do I own or have any jurisdiction over Church property.

Seeing PietroPaulo’s post below, do you think the Pope does or does not have the authority de jure divino, even if it is not currently provided for in canon law, to punish you by confiscation of property.

 

[Novocastrian]

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.

Thanks, this is an useful distinction.

 

[PietroPaolo]

But I’m being told by Roman Catholics that they have not so empowered the Pope. Am I to take the Pope at his word, or those in communion with the present Bishop of Rome?

Roman Catholics do not speak for the Church, the magisterium does. You take the Pope’s word over Roman Catholics everyday of the week, we are not, after all, Protestants.

 

[Novocastrian]

Roman Catholics do not speak for the Church, the magisterium does. You take the Pope’s word over Roman Catholics everyday of the week, we are not, after all, Protestants.

So, without putting too fine a point on things, the Pope has certain ultimate rights (obviously not often exercised!) over all temporal property? Or are there exceptions to the authority claimed by Leo X in this bull?

 

[1ke]

Is this still the teaching/policy of the Roman Church today? That Lutherans (NB “and their descendants”) cannot own property?

This is neither a teaching nor a policy. It is a sentence declared upon a particular group of peple, a juridic act under the law. To understand it, one must understand the law then and now.

Is it still in force today? No, for several reasons:

1. The people upon whom the sentence was declared are dead.
2. The “descendants” are no longer Catholics, therefore juridic acts do not apply to them. At the time, historically, when this occurred, the children of the heretics would have still been considered Catholics and therefore subject to the law in force in Christendom. This is no longer the case.
3. Current canon law abbrogates prior laws.

(1) Doesn’t section X (the bit quoted above) claim that the Bull is irrevocable?

No. This is a misunderstanding of what the law says. The "no one"s referred to would be secular princes, bishops, or others of a lower rank than the Pope and contemporary to him. The Pope can always change the law, as can his successors. A Church council in union with the Pope can change the law. True then, true now.

(2) Do you think that the Roman Pontiff has the right de jure divino to deprive people of property?

Yes, he does. As has been pointed out, in today’s world where the Pope exercises no temporal authority that is not practical but it is certainly his right-- the secular government would be his agent… true in times gone by but not today. Although, Popes and Bishops still have the authority regarding ecclesial goods.

The current code of canon law speaks to the various penalties for delicts including the pretty much boiler plate items listed in Leo’s bull such as privation of offices, beneifces, etc.

But presumably Catholics would be bound by conscience to treat this as law if still in force, coming as it does from the Supreme Pontiff, and clearly addressed as it is to the Catholic Church.

Yes and no. Leo is no longer our supreme pontiff. Catholics would not be bound by conscience to treat this as a law, because it is not a law. It is a sentence, imposed for specific delicts agasint specific people. It woul be up to the current Pope to make any sort of decree regarding what, if any, action a Catholic should take in this matter.

whether it is still the position of the Roman Church.

Again, yes and no.

Yes, the Church and specifically the Pope has the authority over Catholics to deprive them of eclessial goods, property, offices, benefices, etc. Since the secular government is no longer an agent of the Church, it has no civil authority to deprive Catholics of other types of goods or honors. It is certainly the Church’s right, one which they cannot exercise at this day and time.

Current canon law outlines what punishments are currently in place for various delicts.

As regards non-Catholics, the current code of canon law makes no claim to have jurdisdiction over non-Catholics.

I fail to see how they could apply to anything other than private property. If you can point me in the direction of anything which would suggest otherwise, please do so.

Nor do I. It certainly does speak to private property. In essence, these folks have been declared outlaws in the Holy Roman Empire. If only those pesky Electors and Princes would have been sufficiently cooperative, the split might have healed and the heretical movement snuffed out and the heretics brought back into the fold. It was an effective threat in prior times, too bad for Leo this was not the moment in history to use the big guns in that manner. The Princes saw opportunity.

 

[PietroPaolo]

So, without putting too fine a point on things, the Pope has certain ultimate rights (obviously not often exercised!) over all temporal property? Or are there exceptions to the authority claimed by Leo X in this bull?

I refer you back to the preamble of Decet Romanum Pontificem, Leo answers this question himself and he is better equipped than anyone here to (unless Pope Francis happen to have a CAF account, unlikely at best).

 

[Novocastrian]

I refer you back to the preamble of Decet Romanum Pontificem, Leo answers this question himself and he is better equipped than anyone here to (unless Pope Francis happen to have a CAF account, unlikely at best).

Thanks very much, I’m glad we cleared that up.

 

[Novocastrian]

Yes, he does. As has been pointed out, in today’s world where the Pope exercises no temporal authority that is not practical but it is certainly his right-- the secular government would be his agent… true in times gone by but not today. Although, Popes and Bishops still have the authority regarding ecclesial goods.

Since the secular government is no longer an agent of the Church, it has no civil authority to deprive Catholics of other types of goods or honors. It is certainly the Church’s right, one which they cannot exercise at this day and time.

Nor do I. It certainly does speak to private property. In essence, these folks have been declared outlaws in the Holy Roman Empire.

Thanks for clearing up the above points.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The Decet Romanum Pontificem may be referring only to church property. When much of northern Europe became Lutheran, all the churches and church property of the Roman Catholic Church became the property of the national Lutheran churches. Practically every cathedral, for example that Lutherans own was once the property of the Church of Rome.

In that context, it is understandable that the Pope would try to stop Lutherans from merely changing the name from the Catholic cathedral of Our Lady to the Lutheran cathedral of Our Lady, for example.

In the U.S. the ELCA even goes to civil court to retain parishes that attempt to leave the Synod even though the members of a particular church remain Lutheran.

 

[Novocastrian]

The Decet Romanum Pontificem may be referring only to church property. When much of northern Europe became Lutheran, all the churches and church property of the Roman Catholic Church became the property of the national Lutheran churches. Practically every cathedral, for example that Lutherans own was once the property of the Church of Rome.

In that context, it is understandable that the Pope would try to stop Lutherans from merely changing the name from the Catholic cathedral of Our Lady to the Lutheran cathedral of Our Lady, for example.

In the U.S. the ELCA even goes to civil court to retain parishes that attempt to leave the Synod even though the members of a particular church remain Lutheran.

Hi!

As per above I’m aware that that’s a possibility, but it doesn’t seem to be the case with regard to the DRP.

I’d be interested to know who actually owned such churches. It seems unlikely to have been the Papacy itself. More likely, I imagine, they were owned by the diocese, with rights vested in either the Bishop or the Dean and Chapter.

 

[1ke]

I’d be interested to know who actually owned such churches. It seems unlikely to have been the Papacy itself. More likely, I imagine, they were owned by the diocese, with rights vested in either the Bishop or the Dean and Chapter.

Well, juridic persons have the right to acquire property. Note the juridic person is under the authority of the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff, so the Pope has authority even over those items owned by other juridic persons.

Can. 1254 §1. To pursue its proper purposes, the Catholic Church by innate right is able to acquire, retain, administer, and alienate temporal goods independently from civil power.

§2. The proper purposes are principally: to order divine worship, to care for the decent support of the clergy and other ministers, and to exercise works of the sacred apostolate and of charity, especially toward the needy.

Can. 1255 The universal Church and the Apostolic See, the particular churches, as well as any other juridic person, public or private, are subjects capable of acquiring, retaining, administering, and alienating temporal goods according to the norm of law.

Can. 1256 Under the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff, ownership of goods belongs to that juridic person which has acquired them legitimately.

Can. 1257 §1. All temporal goods which belong to the universal Church, the Apostolic See, or other public juridic persons in the Church are ecclesiastical goods and are governed by the following canons and their own statutes.

In the current canons, the Church is not speaking about a physical person’s private property, but rather juridic persons (Catholic dioceses, hospitals, universities for example) and their property.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Hi!

As per above I’m aware that that’s a possibility, but it doesn’t seem to be the case with regard to the DRP.

I’d be interested to know who actually owned such churches. It seems unlikely to have been the Papacy itself. More likely, I imagine, they were owned by the diocese, with rights vested in either the Bishop or the Dean and Chapter.

Yes, the difference today is that the Holy Roman Empire is now multiple nations and the separation of church and state is much more pronounced.

 

[TimothyH]

"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.

We have to understand how the Church uses the word heretic. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal refusal to believe some aspect of divinely revealed truth. Only Baptized Catholics can be heretics. That does not include modern-day Lutherans.

The “Lutherans” which you reference were Martin Luther and his followers. Luther was not only a baptized Catholic as was his followers, but was an Augustinian monk under solemn vows. Vows are solemn promises to God that if broken mean the forfeiture of one’s soul. Luther forfeited his soul when he broke his vows. He was automatically excommunicated when he married and had six children. This happened automatically when he did these things.

Luther was warned in Exsurge Domine (1520) that he was to recant. He did not. Decet Romanum Pontificem (2522) was a formal statement of what had already happened when Luther broke his vows.

The RCC recognizes that many people are Lutheran “Through no fault of their own” and has never said that these are heretics.

-Tim-

 

[Della]

You’ve always got a good answer…I appreciate that.

Thank you for the kind words. :tiphat: God bless.

 

[Digitonomy]

Is it still in force today? No, for several reasons:
3) Current canon law abrogates prior laws.

Just to expand on 1ke’s point, to determine whether Decet Romanum Pontificem was still in effect in 1916, it might take a real legal scholar and historian to comb through the successive hodgepodge of church legislation since it was issued. After 1917, however, the Code of Canon Law swept aside all prior Church law. The 1983 code had a similar effect, but was not quite as thorough in replacing all legislation since 1917.

2) The “descendants” are no longer Catholics, therefore juridic acts do not apply to them.

Is it true that non-Catholics are never bound by juridic acts? Certainly current canon law doesn’t seem to make any claim on non-Catholics, but I wonder if the Church has always taken the narrow view you stated. I assume the Pope exercised jurisdiction over non-Catholics in the Papal States, for instance.

 

[1ke]

.Is it true that non-Catholics are never bound by juridic acts?

It is true in the current code that non-Catholics are not bound by merely ecclesial law (divine law binds everyone):

Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

. Certainly current canon law doesn’t seem to make any claim on non-Catholics, but I wonder if the Church has always taken the narrow view you stated.

No, it hasn’t.

 

[Celtic_Maiden]

The Catholic source is Leo X’s own text! It seems addressed to all the faithful, per this clause in section 2: “and we hereby give solemn notice to all faithful Christians that these intervals have and are elapsed…”

I’m not making a contentious interpretative claim. The plain text of the document talks about the property of Lutherans. I don’t understand how you could read it as meaning otherwise.

the historic fact is that all these heretics looked to Luther for their way to reject some or all of the teachings of the Church that Christ established through St. Peter. An example, of this confusion is your classifying yourself a Lutheran, as opposed to a Roman Catholic. Of the following tenet of Luther, which do you accept as truth and which as heresy?

Quote:
The chief tenet of the Lutheran creed, that which Luther called “the article of the standing and falling Church”, has reference to the justification of sinful man. Original sin is explained as a positive and total depravity of human nature, which renders all the acts of the unjustified, even those of civil righteousness, sinful and displeasing to God. Justification, which is not an internal change, but an external, forensic declaration by which God imputes to the creature the righteousness of Christ, comes only by faith, which is the confidence that one is reconciled to God through Christ. Good works are necessary as an exercise of faith, and are rewarded, not by justification (which they presuppose), but by the fulfilment of the Divine promises (Apology Aug. Conf.).

There is no such thing as Catholic and Reformed, as Catholicism is pre denomination. We are the originals.

You are Anglican/ Lutheran . Having the Bible but rejecting the religion that produced it is like taking the writings of the Dalai Lama and following his writings but rejecting him and the Tibetan Buddhism sounds silly, If the writings are a reflection of religion but you reject the religion from which they came, you are left only with a reflection and this reflection is in all Protestant denominations - Anglican/Lutherans - who gave you the Bible in the first place do you think. Just because Martin Luther could not keep his vows and run away with a nun Our Lord did not give him a Mandate to start another religion one that was according to Luther.

 

[Elizium23]

I am going to guess that it evokes the common phrase “beyond the pale” which has its origins in an Irish term for the boundary of English dominion in Ireland.