‘Witch hunts’ rooted in putting laws above God’s truth, pope says

[josie_L]

Yeah well the Sanhedrin didn’t execute Jesus either, they just handed Him over to the state to execute Him

But they knowingly knew He was innocent, and thereby sacrificed Him for the sake of “Israel”, i.e., there was nothing remotely palatable about what they did. Whereas the Church/State understood that heretics were a threat to the peace and stability of the state (just think of all the religious wars that abounded as a result of the multitude of heresies that flourished during the Reformation).

Thomas Moore was in charge of torturing confessions from heretics and then handing them over to the King’s men for execution. He was still part of that process regardless

And it was wrong of him to participate in the torture of another human being (although he rather made up for it with his own death/martyrdom), however, this was not something condoned by the Catholic Church per se.

The same was the case in the Spanish Inquisition. the Ecclesiastical court tried the person, and then handed the convicted over to the state for execution.

Yes, because believe it or not ecclesiastical courts were much more lenient/merciful and more thorough in their inquiries than state courts. That being said, Torquemada was a zealot who lost the support of the pope once he got wind of the torture being used to gain confessions/information.

The Church has evolve since then.

No, the world has a whole has “evolved”, yet you must also understand what was at risk during these times, i.e., heretics were a real threat to Christendom because they threatened to destabilize the state/society (held together by their faith), many heretics in fact would not honour or pledge allegiance to their rulers. Therefore, it is understandable why the Church and state did not think putting such “heretics” to death as immoral, they were considered treasonous or rather committing seditious acts.

As you well know we still put to death those who are treasonous.

p.s. I just think that the killing of heretics was much more palatable and understandable (for the times) than the witch hunts which were happening during and after the Reformation.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

josie L

But they knowingly knew He was innocent, and thereby sacrificed Him for the sake of “Israel”, i.e.,

Actually they didn’t know he was innocent otherwise they would’ve accepted Him for who He said He was, the Messiah, God among us.

And it was wrong of him to participate in the torture of another human being (although he rather made up for it with his own death/martyrdom), however, this was not something condoned by the Catholic Church per se.

Actually it was. Thomas Moore followed Church teaching on torture and execution of heretics to the letter…

Yes, because believe it or not ecclesiastical courts were much more lenient/merciful and more thorough in their inquiries than state courts. That being said, Torquemada was a zealot who lost the support of the pope once he got wind of the torture being used to gain confessions/information.

Again, it was all sanctioned by the Church. Also, apologists today refer to the documents in the Church Archives which Pope John Paul II opened up, to show that the Spanish Inquisition was not as bad as what we were taught in history class. However, not everything was documented, especially by the zealots like Torquemada who got their confessions before bringing the accuse before the Ecclesiastical Court, where the case was then documented.

No, the world has a whole has “evolved”, yet you must also understand what was at risk during these times, i.e., heretics were a real threat to Christendom because they threatened to destabilize the state/society (held together by their faith), many heretics in fact would not honour or pledge allegiance to their rulers. Therefore, it is understandable why the Church and state did not think putting such “heretics” to death as immoral, they were considered treasonous or rather committing seditious acts.

The Church evolves as well, otherwise it would cease to exist as all things that don’t evolve, come to their end.

We have a greater understanding of spirituality today than those 500 years ago. Even in St Teresa of Avila’s time, the great spiritual writings were banned. It was only through divine revelation to her and St John of the Cross, that they came to learn what contemplation was and were able to teach it. However, it wasn’t until recently that lay people were able to follow their teachings, as for most of the centuries since, contemplative prayer was confined to monasteries and convents.

Pope Paul VI was responsible for opening the rich tradition of contemplative practice to lay people, and he did this because young Catholics were leaving the church for religions of the East.

As you well know we still put to death those who are treasonous.

Not with Church approval. The Church today opposes capital punishment.

p.s. I just think that the killing of heretics was much more palatable and understandable (for the times) than the witch hunts which were happening during and after the Reformation.

Neither was justified and was done out of fear of losing power and control, rather than being centered on Jesus Christ.

BTW, we have witches and heretics today, but the Church is opposed to causing them any harm.

Jim

 

[JosieN]

josie L

Actually they didn’t know he was innocent otherwise they would’ve accepted Him for who He said He was, the Messiah, God among us.

The Church evolves as well, otherwise it would cease to exist as all things that don’t evolve, come to their end.

Jim

Can you be sure they would have accepted Jesus if they knew who He was? They read the scriptures and many of the prophecies in the scriptures foretold the coming of Jesus Christ, the true Messiah. Jesus often quoted the scriptures Himself.

"Jesus said to them, “Did you never read in the scriptures: ’ The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; by the Lord has this been done, and it is wonderful in our eyes’?” (Matthew 22:42).

I think they were afraid He was telling the truth and He was who He said He was, but did not like Him or His teachings. He was not what they expected or wanted and rejected Him. They could have believed the truth, but chose to believe a lie, the lie being that He was not the Messiah.

Also, I do not agree that all things that don’t evolve come to their end. The word of God in the Bible does not evolve and has not ceased to exist. Did Jesus not say His words would not fade away? “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” (Matthew 24:35). Truth does not evolve unless it is changed into a lie to deceive the people.

 

[Darryl1958]

“Better the one should die than the many”

The Jewish religious leaders made a considered political decision at that time.

It is very possible, even likely, and certainly the most theologically credible theory, that they fully understood who Jesus was too, just like Pharoah realized who God was, and then hardened his heart against Him.

Herod knew, and for that reason he ordered the slaughter of the innocents. He would do anything to keep from having his power usurped, even by the Messiah, even by God himself.

The one thing common with powerful people, from Pharoah, through Herod, and down through the Sanhedrin, is that they hate the idea of playing second fiddle to anyone, even God.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Can you be sure they would have accepted Jesus if they knew who He was? They read the scriptures and many of the prophecies in the scriptures foretold the coming of Jesus Christ, the true Messiah. Jesus often quoted the scriptures Himself.
.

We can’t be sure what they knew, but they were following the letter of the law for their time, probably using to maintain their power over the people. But this isn’t much different than what various leaders of the Catholic Church did over the course of history.

In fact, once Constantine legalized Christianity, the Church got in bed with the power structures of the time and so many times failed to follow the Gospel.

God in his mercy, gave us various saints who reformed the faith, but note how this was always done from the bottom up, not from the top down.

Jim

 

[Randolph]

Can you be sure they would have accepted Jesus if they knew who He was? They read the scriptures and many of the prophecies in the scriptures foretold the coming of Jesus Christ, the true Messiah. Jesus often quoted the scriptures Himself.

"Jesus said to them, “Did you never read in the scriptures: ’ The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; by the Lord has this been done, and it is wonderful in our eyes’?” (Matthew 22:42).

I think they were afraid He was telling the truth and He was who He said He was, but did not like Him or His teachings. He was not what they expected or wanted and rejected Him. They could have believed the truth, but chose to believe a lie, the lie being that He was not the Messiah.

Also, I do not agree that all things that don’t evolve come to their end. The word of God in the Bible does not evolve and has not ceased to exist. Did Jesus not say His words would not fade away? “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” (Matthew 24:35). Truth does not evolve unless it is changed into a lie to deceive the people.

 

[otjm]

Since he became Pope, I’ve never been able to understand why Francis so often speaks as if he believes the Catholic Church is dominated by traditional, conservative minded folks, when the reality is that liberal Catholics are now quite the great multitude.

Perhaps he and you are referring to different parts or aspects of the Church.

I suspect you are referring more to laity; he may well be speaking to clergy.

And keep in mind that the Church is not totally encompassed by what exists in the United States.

 

[otjm]

The existence of such sites doesn’t change the fact that virtually every survey of what Catholics believe shows a Church that increasingly rejects Traditional teaching on marriage, divorce, contraception, homosexuality, ordination of women, etc.

That is such a wide-open statement that it needs challenging.

What polls? And taken by whom? Those taken by non-Catholic (and often secular) groups?

Questioning whom? CINO’s? CE’s? Cultural Catholics? Sorted by age or lumped together (this goes to catechesis)? Skewed questions (designed to get an answer the poll taker wants)?

Sources, please?

 

[otjm]

Could you give a few concrete examples of this, and how the “havoc” these people create is having a negative effect on the Church to the extent that it warrants the constant ridicule of the Holy Father?

Meanwhile, the progressive side of the Church continues to win “victory” after “victory” with rarely a peep from the Holy See.

“Victories”? Such as…?

 

[josie_L]

We can’t be sure what they knew, but they were following the letter of the law for their time, probably using to maintain their power over the people. But this isn’t much different than what various leaders of the Catholic Church did over the course of history.

I believe that Jesus himself said that the darkest pit in Hell would be reserved for those Pharisees who took part in His death, because they did, in fact, know who He was and therefore jeopardized the salvation of the Jews. Here is Jesus speaking to the Pharisees of their condemnation, in Matthew 23:33:

"Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. 33"You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell? 34"Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city,

In fact, once Constantine legalized Christianity, the Church got in bed with the power structures of the time and so many times failed to follow the Gospel.

That’s not a very nuanced approach of the Church vis a vis the state, firstly, because caesaropapism affected the Eastern part of the Church rather than the West, secondly, because although the Church and State sometimes worked in tandem, there were many other occasions when they didn’t or couldn’t (and as a result reforms were issues, kings and emperors were excommunicated, popes were arrested, laity and hierarchy were killed . . .). Moreover, the Church was fully aware that it’s authority superseded that of the State because they dealt in spiritual as opposed to temporal matters, and this in itself was an issue, i.e., the State wanted control over both. In other words, it wasn’t an easy relationship between Church and State (struggles more than complicity defined their relationship).

God in his mercy, gave us various saints who reformed the faith, but note how this was always done from the bottom up, not from the top down.

Two words: Gregorian reforms.

 

[JosieN]

“Victories”? Such as…?

Tell me what you think of these
lifesitenews.com/opinion/priest-pope-francis-pastoral-revolution-goes-against-2000-years-of-traditio

 

[otjm]

Christians believe in sin, the Bible talks about sin, and we can talk about our sins but when Christians say homosexuality is a sin, they become bad people in many peoples eyes and are told they are judging them. What I do not understand is why the mention of sin is interpreted as hatred for them. No one hates them and we are not judging them, only God can do that, but If their sin is causing them pain and unhappiness, then Christianity, the religion of hope and redemption is needed for them to heal and give them hope. They can be healed by Jesus Christ by His forgiveness but I think they must realize it is a sin first.

People (and this is not limited to homosexuals) use the word “hate” as in “hate crimes” and “hate speech” because they do not wish to be confronted with any standard other than the one they desire. When desire becomes libertine, when it is unleashed with no boundaries of moral values, those who would promote moral values are seen as the “enemy”, and speech is used to defeat them.

And there is a vast difference between speech, and dialogue.

I am not suggesting that there is no such thing as “hate crimes” - there most certainly is. But the term gets dragged out (as does “hate speech”) by those who have no desire whatsoever to dialogue with others concerning libertine activities.

 

[otjm]

The “witches” in the Salem Witch Trials were not burned. They were hanged.

After they were subjected to the original water boarding, perhaps?

 

[otjm]

But in the case of the Salem Witch Trials, all were hung because they refused to confess to the crime of practicing witchcraft.

I have the belief from what I’ve read and seen visiting Salem, that there was some land grabbing scheme by those in power.

Under Commonwealth Law, even today, if you use land for 20 years and no one tells you to stop with a formal petition, the land becomes yours.

In Salem of that time, all you had to do is start farming the land of the owner who is now in the grave.

Jim

Adverse possession is still the law in much, if not most of the land. However, factually it tends to come about in less violent fashion.

 

[Randolph]

Also, I do not agree that all things that don’t evolve come to their end. The word of God in the Bible does not evolve and has not ceased to exist. Did Jesus not say His words would not fade away? “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” (Matthew 24:35). Truth does not evolve unless it is changed into a lie to deceive the people.

I agree with JosieN. The gospels and church doctrines have been, and always will be for all time. The church comprises of two institutions–human and divine. The human institution has its good and bad parts. Sins of all kinds have been exhibited there. But the divine institution, where church doctrines reside, has been unchanging and perfect. I believe many people misunderstood and therefore misrepresented the difference between human and divine. This is a source of confusion in the church in the current environment. Confusion is indeed a breeding ground where the works of the devil flourish. I would further venture to say that confusion is a primary source of failure in the church since Vatican II. For the record, I embrace Vactican II, which I firmly believe its richness is yet fully implemented.

To me, whenever I hear people say: “Christianity evolves”, “Evolution of doctrines”, or “Church must change with the times”, or “Must adjust to people where they are”. These phrases/sentenced are just store dressings for wanting to change church doctrines. They do so because they believe certain doctrines are irrelevant, no longer apply to them, or no longer fit in modern times. To this end, the church would no longer be Catholic, and therefore would just become another protestant church. These people always point to past sins of church officials to justify their position, rather than any actual changes in doctrines themselves, which could never be because the Holy Spirit protects it as promised by Christ Himself. Church doctrines are, in themselves, loving and merciful, The Catholic Church belongs to Christ, and is His bribe. It begins and ends with Christ. Doctrines are revelations from Christ to the Church, which has the responsibility given by Christ to proclaim them to the world.

 

[otjm]

Tell me what you think of these
lifesitenews.com/opinion/priest-pope-francis-pastoral-revolution-goes-against-2000-years-of-traditio

I have no clue who this priest is, or what his background is, and he is but one voice out there; the fact that it is published does not impress me particularly either.

I am far more trusting, if you will, in the opinion and commentary made by Peter Kreeft.

It would seem, from comments made by the Pope, that the priest who wrote this article is on his own venture, and may be so attuned to his own take on the issues that he is taking this to places where the Pope himself said it did not go: to wit - the Pope said this is not a Magisterial document. It is simply what it is - an exhortation in terms of practice, not in terms of doctrine.

Not all bishops in Germany are in danger of falling off the Left side of the Flat Earth. However, in the last three years, several seem to have had their toes (at least) over the edge.

And on the other side, not all Curial members are going to fall off the Right side of the Flat Earth. Several of them, likewise, seemed to have a prehensile grasp of the edge, however.

I am not a Canon lawyer, nor am I except very indirectly, involved with the Tribunal. It was my general understanding that Rome had spoken concerning what is referred to a s the Internal Forum, and my impression was that it was not recognized by Rome, and not to be used. On that, I may be =mistaken - or not.

However, it seems, between the lines, that there may be a possibility that the Internal Forum could be used in limited circumstances.

Or not. I am not trying to set off a debate; I don’t know Canon law, and except for those individuals in the forums who actually have a degree in it, I suspect that most others don’t know Canon law either, in spite fo the fact that some seem to quote it. That is a bit akin to quoting a civil statute, and ignoring both the history and the implementation of that statute by the courts and by administrative bodies.

In any event, it appears that the priest writing the article either missed or ignored certain matters.

Everybody has an opinion. Some have two or three, and perhaps all of them are wrong. The document is not written as a teaching memo to us pew sitters. It is written as a guide to deacons, priests and bishops. So the opinions of us pew sitters have zero value. And within the priesthood, there are a variety of opinions; but ultimately, the priests should be taking their marching orders, if any, form their bishop; not debating the matters in public forums.

 

[JosieN]

I have no clue who this priest is, or what his background is, and he is but one voice out there; the fact that it is published does not impress me particularly either.

I am far more trusting, if you will, in the opinion and commentary made by Peter Kreeft.

It would seem, from comments made by the Pope, that the priest who wrote this article is on his own venture, and may be so attuned to his own take on the issues that he is taking this to places where the Pope himself said it did not go: to wit - the Pope said this is not a Magisterial document. It is simply what it is - an exhortation in terms of practice, not in terms of doctrine.

Not all bishops in Germany are in danger of falling off the Left side of the Flat Earth. However, in the last three years, several seem to have had their toes (at least) over the edge.

And on the other side, not all Curial members are going to fall off the Right side of the Flat Earth. Several of them, likewise, seemed to have a prehensile grasp of the edge, however.

I am not a Canon lawyer, nor am I except very indirectly, involved with the Tribunal. It was my general understanding that Rome had spoken concerning what is referred to a s the Internal Forum, and my impression was that it was not recognized by Rome, and not to be used. On that, I may be =mistaken - or not.

However, it seems, between the lines, that there may be a possibility that the Internal Forum could be used in limited circumstances.

Or not. I am not trying to set off a debate; I don’t know Canon law, and except for those individuals in the forums who actually have a degree in it, I suspect that most others don’t know Canon law either, in spite fo the fact that some seem to quote it. That is a bit akin to quoting a civil statute, and ignoring both the history and the implementation of that statute by the courts and by administrative bodies.

In any event, it appears that the priest writing the article either missed or ignored certain matters.

Everybody has an opinion. Some have two or three, and perhaps all of them are wrong. The document is not written as a teaching memo to us pew sitters. It is written as a guide to deacons, priests and bishops. So the opinions of us pew sitters have zero value. And within the priesthood, there are a variety of opinions; but ultimately, the priests should be taking their marching orders, if any, form their bishop; not debating the matters in public forums.

I think opinions do matter and that is why I asked for yours. Here is the problem, priests will not take their marching orders from bishops or the pope if they feel this guide goes against the teaching of Jesus Christ. This life is only temporary, the next one is for eternity. They must ask themselves which one will take them to heaven, the bishops orders or the one from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I believe that Jesus himself said that the darkest pit in Hell would be reserved for those Pharisees who took part in His death, because they did, in fact, know who He was and therefore jeopardized the salvation of the Jews. Here is Jesus speaking to the Pharisees of their condemnation, in Matthew 23:33:

"Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. 33"You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell? 34"Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city,

.

And yet, from the cross Jesus said, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I think opinions do matter and that is why I asked for yours. Here is the problem, priests will not take their marching orders from bishops or the pope if they feel this guide goes against the teaching of Jesus Christ. This life is only temporary, the next one is for eternity. They must ask themselves which one will take them to heaven, the bishops orders or the one from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?

Then they’ll violate their vow of obedience.

Jim

 

[mikekle]

That’s not a very nuanced approach of the Church vis a vis the state, firstly, because caesaropapism affected the Eastern part of the Church rather than the West, secondly, because although the Church and State sometimes worked in tandem, there were many other occasions when they didn’t or couldn’t (and as a result reforms were issues, kings and emperors were excommunicated, popes were arrested, laity and hierarchy were killed . . .). Moreover, the Church was fully aware that it’s authority superseded that of the State because they dealt in spiritual as opposed to temporal matters, and this in itself was an issue, i.e., the State wanted control over both.

This is pretty evident today, I have mentioned before how strange it is, in our times, to see so many local churches get along so well with the city, state, fed govts, I have especially noticed this in my own city and the numerous churches here.

In fact, I cannot recall a time when either opposed the other, it seems like they are all in very good ‘friendships’ with the secular govts and vice versa…???

The only way this could come to fruition was if the church ‘settled’ or compromised on certain beliefs, or the secular govt did…somehow I doubt its the latter.

I think if our churches were truly healthy and preaching the correct doctrine, we would see city, state and fed govts arguing and fighting with them all the time, trying anything they can to get them out.

Has there ever been another time in history where nearly all the churches (all denominations) have been so buddy buddy with secular authorities?