Is the bull ExSurge Domine still standing today?

[JimR-OCDS]

I'm sorry. I am not sure exactly what you are quoting here.

I took the quote from the Papal Bull the OP wrote about,
Exsurge Domine


Jim

 

[SolomonVII]

I took the quote from the Papal Bull the OP wrote about,
Exsurge Domine


Jim

Exsurge Domine
Oh, okay.

Thanks then.
I just had to make sure what was being said.

So, if I am understanding correctly. the papal bull condemns as error the burning of heretics?


That ought to be a relief to most Catholics, right? This is something that we all actually want to be standing today, right?

The OP gave the impression that this was a bad thing that this was still standing, but defining burning people as being an error seems to be a good thing.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

SolomonVII;

So, if I am understanding correctly. the papal bull condemns as error the burning of heretics?

That's how I read it.

That ought to be a relief to most Catholics, right? This is something that we all actually want to be standing today, right?

Well we don't burn heretics anyway, so its not concern to me.

The OP gave the impression that this was a bad thing that this was still standing, but defining burning people as being an error seems to be a good thing.

I think the OP misread the document.

Jim

 

[Fish and Bread]

The error condemned is saying that burning heretics is against the will of the spirit. So, in essence, the bull is pro-heretic burning, or at least taking a neutral stand (i.e. saying that God doesn't will for them not to be burnt).

The key is to read it carefully, in context. The paragraph before the list specifically says it is a list of errors being condemned. Also, if you look at some of the other areas, they are specifically expressing Protestant positions and disagreeing with the Catholic positions -- it is a list of things the Pope is saying people *should NOT* believe. So he's saying they should not believe that heretic burning is against the will of the spirit.

Read it yourself:

Exsurge Domine

The original poster is reading the document correctly.

This is undeniably a tough one for modern Catholics. I don't think the answer is just denying that the document says what it says, though. One has to acknowledge it for what it is, and then move forward from there and consider the times, the circumstances, and whether the document is really saying affirmatively that this should happen, or just that God doesn't will against it (Which is a different thing, albeit subtlety different). I do think time and place are important to consider -- this document is clearly about a particular time and a particular place, and not everything is necessarily going to have universal perpetual application.

 

[Davidnic]

It is sometimes tricky to gauge the force of authority in old bulls. 99.9% of theologians will say that almost all of them are not infallible at least not taken in total. And if you are talking about following the criteria for invoking the keys in union with the Bishops of the world or proclaiming a clarification of Dogma then they are right.

As with any old bull there are things that are eternally true and things that are cultural and time period reflections. This would be of the latter. Kind of like where people in the OT could have multiple wives but that is not the norm. Part of the evolution of the human moral compass where it intersects with the Church. There are things that are true because of the force of Scripture and Tradition and things that are reflections of what we can handle at the time moving forward. Like Christ's answer about Moses and Divorce.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

The error condemned is saying that burning heretics is against the will of the spirit. So, in essence, the bull is pro-heretic burning, or at least taking a neutral stand (i.e. saying that God doesn't will for them not to be burnt).

The key is to read it carefully, in context.

It's important to read the following part of the document (which I will underline) to get the true context:

Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures. Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church.

Basically, the document contrasts what a heretic deserves with how the Church chooses to imitate Christ in showing mercy. The document shows mercy even to Luther, one of the biggest heretics in the history of the Church. So to answer the OP, yes, the Catholic Church still condones showing mercy for heretics rather than giving them what they truly deserve.

 

[Magnus Maximus]

being a heretic was agianst the the civil law at the time
the Church was supporting rights of the civil government

we can say that it is no longer needed, but we should not say that the Church made a mistake

It is dangerous to think that the church doesn't make mistakes. The principle of infalliablity only pertains to matters of faith. The church makes plenty of mistakes in matters in the civil world.

If the church didn't err on civil matters there would have been no counter reformation. There were and sometimes still is mistakes and abuses in the church. Only God is perfect.

 

[QuantaCura]

As some of you may now, the Exsurge Domine is a papal bull written in the times of the Reformation. It contains a number of condemned affirmations. One of those **condemned** proposition is number 33.

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

Questions:
1.- Do you think the bull is still standing?
2.- Do you think that means that Church, at least, condones the burning of heretics?
3.- Do you think Inquisitors sinned when they following due process in law condemned people to be burned for heresy?

Yes, it still stands as a condemnation of an absolute principle (in other words, it condemns the fact that the death penalty can under no circumstances be applied for heresy--it doesn't assert that it is justified in all circumstances). The death penalty can be used in just circumstances. Contextually, the kind of heretic that was put to death was one that did great damage to the very fabric of a society by inciting the people to rebellion against both the Church and state. They were so harmful to the common good of such a unified society--especially when all other remedies were tried and failed--that capital punishment could be justified. Likewise, this error can also be offensive to pious ears since the Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures, including the Old Law, provided for the death penalty in regards to heretics among the Jews.

Here is a good chapter from Bishop Von Kettler's 19th century work on Religious Liberty that explains how and why the practices are no longer justified given our particular circumstances, but how they could be justified in the circumstances in which the practice was administered.

Opuscula: Religious Freedom (Part III)

 

[SolomonVII]

Well, if I originally read the Bull wrong, to answer the OP, in the modern context, burning of heretics is not something that the Church believes in doing. The Church has come out quite strongly against any form of capital punishment for any reason as being unnecessary for modern societies. One should presume that this would also include the burning of heretics.
I tend not to judge what has been done historically, for unless we lived in those times, we lack the proper context, just as the people back then lack our 20/20 hindsight of where such policies would lead. Moreover, the very decadence of our own society provides a very soft grounds on which to make proper judgment

As far as taking a a similar strong stand against cruel and unusual punishment, such as burning to death or stoning, today's Church has been a little bit slower to take any stance on these things than on capital punishment in general.

 

[ViribusUnitis]

This argument originally appeared on GT, and it needs a rock solid answer if not to convince everybody (well... ...) at least to present a reasonable argument to the onlooker

 

[LivingWordUnity]

This argument originally appeared on GT, and it needs a rock solid answer if not to convince everybody (well... ...) at least to present a reasonable argument to the onlooker

I gave you a rock solid answer in post #26. If you choose to ignore it then you aren't looking for an answer but only to set up a straw man to argue against. The document that you cite is a fine example of the extraordinary mercy of the Catholic Church.

 

[ViribusUnitis]

I gave you a rock solid answer in post #26. If you choose to ignore it then you aren't looking for an answer but only to set up a straw man to argue against. The document that you cite is a fine example of the mercy of the Church.

OK, I have just posted it on GT.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

OK, I have just posted it on GT.

Thanks for this link

 

[Colin]

For pity's sake , let's put the papal bull on the fire and leave the heretics free to live , which is their God-given right , regardless of what any bull says .

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

For pity's sake , let's put the papal bull on the fire and leave the heretics free to live , which is their God-given right , regardless of what any bull says .

http://www.christianforums.com/t7448114-12/#post54283622

 

[Virgil the Roman]

For pity's sake , let's put the papal bull on the fire and leave the heretics free to live , which is their God-given right , regardless of what any bull says .

Or we can burn them both? It would "kill" two birds with one "stone."

 

[Colin]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7448114-12/#post54283622

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I need to catch up on my study of "bulls"

http://www.christianforums.com/t6486531/#post55429274

 

[LivingWordUnity]

For pity's sake , let's put the papal bull on the fire and leave the heretics free to live , which is their God-given right , regardless of what any bull says .

As I pointed out in post #26 of this thread, there is nothing wrong with the papal bull. And the bull allows for the heretics to live.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

As I pointed out in post #26 of this thread, there is nothing wrong with the papal bull. And the bull allows for the heretics to live.

Whew....that is a load off my mind