Ad extirpanda was a papal bull promulgated on Wednesday, May 15, 1252 by Pope Innocent IV which authorized the use of torture to extract confessions from heretics. There were limitations imposed such as it did not cause loss of life and that it was to be used only once. However, today the teaching is that torture is wrong.Don’t know about that one Tom. I’ve never seen a “pro-torture” teaching. And the issue of “limitations” is just what makes distinguishing “torture” from “not torture” a bit difficult!
Could you post a link?Ad extirpanda was a papal bull promulgated on Wednesday, May 15, 1252 by Pope Innocent IV which authorized the use of torture to extract confessions from heretics. There were limitations imposed such as it did not cause loss of life and that it was to be used only once. However, today the teaching is that torture is wrong.
Here are a few:CCCCould you post a link?
I’ve only scanned this, but the Bull is not teaching - it is a set of administrative directions on actions to be taken in respect of heretics, one direction being that it requires that heretics be “forced to confess” (without killing or breaking bones, etc.).Here are a few:CCC
2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_extirpanda
documentacatholicaomnia.eu/01p/1252-05-15,_SS_Innocentius_IV,Bulla’Ad_Extirpanda’,_EN.pdf
rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html
You did the right thing by staying away from the sacraments but you didnt have to leave! You can still attend mass every Sunday and pray. Or come to eastern orthodoxy! Dont allow other peoples image of God affect your personal relationship with him.Contraception is only a sin in the eyes of the Catholic church. But the fact is that hardly any catholics take any notice of it. At least I left and didnt carry on receiving the eucharist as I was told on here that c I shouldn’t.
Sorry, just popping in here…I’ve only scanned this, but the Bull is not teaching - it is a set of administrative directions on actions to be taken in respect of heretics, one direction being that it requires that heretics be “forced to confess” (without killing or breaking bones, etc.).
So, if what you are saying is that the directions were (at least in some parts) counter to a teaching we have today, I agree with you. But did the Magisterium have any teaching in the 1200s on torture? I suspect they did not. I’m not sure torture was declared intrinsically evil before Evangelium Vitae (1993). As far as I know, teaching has moved to increasingly condemn it, but I am not aware that the Church ever taught that it is right and proper to torture anyone - though it (meaning in this case a Pope) may have directed just such an act. But that act does not reveal a moral truth - a personal belief perhaps, but no more.
Please elaborate, particularly on what constitutes Church teaching. If each (non-teaching!) act of a Bishop, even a Pope, does, then the Holy Spirit has certainly lost influence! Does a papal decision to go to war teach that war is a good, or does it reveal that in the circumstances at the time, the pope judged it was appropriate (or indeed, perhaps he simply acted with ill intent)? No cleric, nor Popes, are protected from sinning.Sorry, just popping in here…
This just seems like hair splitting to me. I think this is an interesting point. This, and the ABC issues have not been well stood for in this thread. I am traveling so I cannot really post in depth, but it would seem as if there are some valid points not being addressed and a failure of apologetic information on this thread.
Yikes!
The Eucharist is a challenge - but you have the words of Jesus.I was baptized, received communion, and was confirmed in the Church. I also went to a Catholic grammar school for eight years. To make a long story short, I “became” Protestant in my 30’s and remained so tor the next thirty years, only to return to the RC church less than a year ago. Perhaps because of this Protestant influence, although I attend Mass now on a regular basis, I have a very difficult time accepting or believing that Christ is “really” present (or more so) in the Eucharist, largely because I believe He is present and with me all the time, not just in a church or a wafer. I also have difficulty accepting the RC Church’s strong relationship with Mary. Yes, she is mother of Jesus, etc., but why should I pray to her for more than her intercession on my behalf when I have God always, and can go to God directly at any point? I also have a terribly difficult time accepting the need for annulment as required by the Church in so many instances, and I am unhappy about the fact that a church as rich as the RC church would not have all the staffing it needs to facilitate these annulments in a much faster manner than it does. Finally, the Church states that it is not a sin to be homosexual, but it is a sin to participate in homosexual acts or relationships. Therefore, my understanding is that God CREATED homosexuals–yet condemned them to a life without the warmth and joy of a loving relationship with a partner??? That just doesn’t make sense to me.
I disagree because in some dioceses, 95% of those who apply for the annulment end up getting it.The Church is not loaded with people with the skills and knowledge to manage the annulment process, and they are not easily produced.
That’s partially because there is an initial screening process and you are highly dissuaded from pursing an annulment if the initial priest/deacon does not feel you have a “good chance.” in my diocese.I disagree because in some dioceses, 95% of those who apply for the annulment end up getting it.
I agree about animals but I beleive that all good comes from God. So these animals inasmuch as they are good are really a projection of Gods goodness. So in this sense they will be with us as we come to know God closer. Regarding Vatican II. I miss the Latin mass and kneeling for communion. There was something mysterious and reverant about it. I wish they were more accessible on Sundays. As far as the death penalty, I feel like sometimes people deserve it, but then I remember that I’m Catholic and that means I have to put Gods will above my own.I struggle with the idea that higher animals like dogs do not have immortal souls, and therefore they more than likely do not experience life after death. I say this not because I “need” them, but for the animals’ own sake.
To me, it seems uncharacteristic of God to create a sentient being whose ultimate end is oblivion. When we respond that God will fulfill the joy we had in our pets, it comes as little consolation; with all due honor to God, the Beatific Vision is too abstract to be comforting. One Catholic blogger I once ran across snidely dismissed believing in animal heaven as “the fidoist heresy”. We’re supposed to bind up the wounds of the brokenhearted, not pour salt on them.
I also find the teaching on the death penalty hard to accept, since the Church used it so frequently before Vatican II, especially to get rid of politically inconvenient people like Giordano Bruno. It comes off as hypocritical of the Church to have such a rapid reversal of doctrine.
Also, when I hear of or think of people who hack, commit identity theft and cybercrime, and create computer viruses, the Church’s death penalty prohibition becomes VERY frustrating! Those who waste their talents ruining the lives of others are just… AAARRRGGGHHH!!! :takethat:
The issue raised was with length of time of the process Tom, not the outcomes.I disagree because in some dioceses, 95% of those who apply for the annulment end up getting it.