A question from a friend

[Cruxis117]

Someone I speak to regularly on a chatsite about religion asked me about the 2nd Lateran Council and the 2nd Vatican Council, about how one speaks about how it is proper to use physical force to stop heresy, and that in the other council (Vatican II), physical force in religion is considered wrong. I’m trying to look up exactly where both councils state this, but he’s wondering why, if both are infallible, there is an apparent contradiction? (I don’t believe there is, I believe it’s a misunderstanding of what both were saying.) Any help on answering this question is appreciated.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

I’m sorry, but as I see it, there is a contradiction, period.
Either physical force IS acceptable, or it ISN’T, it is just that simple.
Now, there were times in history when physical force was UNAVOIDABLE,
such as the horrific Albigensian/Cathar heresy, but it is still not ideal, not acceptable,
even then.

Jesus NEVER told the apostles to go out and brutalize unbelievers and sinners.
That is not the Church’s mission.

The Council of Florence also made statements, about the damnation of nearly all
non-Catholics, that cannot be fully reconciled with the more broadminded salvation
offers proferred by the Second Vatican Council. One has to factor in the level of personal invincible ignorance about the Truths of the Catholic faith, on the part of non-Catholics, to reconcile Florence with Vatican II.

Jaypeeto4

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

In an age of massive firepower, we forget that there was a time when the strength difference between two opposing forces was based mostly on numbers. A heretic or criminal that rallied a group or mob had to be met with, not just equal force, but overwhelming force owing to the level of hysteria of the heretical group or mob. Mere protection was not the key but defeat, soundly and definitively, was necessary.

Jesus overturning the moneychangers tables in the Temple was an offense worthy of death, from the perspective of the occupiers, because of the possibility of starting a riot and turning it into insurrection.

If physical force is not acceptable, we need to empty the jails that are physically restraining people from free movement in society.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Someone I speak to regularly on a chatsite about religion asked me about the 2nd Lateran Council and the 2nd Vatican Council, about how one speaks about how it is proper to use physical force to stop heresy, and that in the other council (Vatican II), physical force in religion is considered wrong. I’m trying to look up exactly where both councils state this,…

Not your job. The first thing is always to get them to post the quote and the source, specifically.

You have nothing to say to him until you know his information is correct. He is making the assertion, he needs to back it up with facts. Once he does that, if he can do that, then you have something to put into context and see just what they did say - not what he says they said.

He has to give you a quote and a linked source with specific info like: “page 9, halfway down.”

What does not change in the Church is the Deposit of Faith. Individual interpretations of that and actions taken by various Popes and Bishops are something else. And, outside of the Deposit of Faith, you can’t exactly say anyone is following the dictates of a 1000 yr old council. Here’s a list from Wikipedia:

The most important results of the council included:

Canon 4: Injunction to bishops and ecclesiastics not to cause scandal by wearing ostentatious clothes but to dress modestly.
Canons 6, 7, 11: Repeated the First Lateran Council’s condemnation of marriage and concubinage among priests, deacons, subdeacons, monks, and nuns.
Canon 10: Excommunicated laity who failed to pay the tithes due the bishops,
Canon 12: Fixed the periods and the duration of the Truce of God.
Canon 14: Prohibition, under pain of deprivation of Christian burial, of jousts and tournaments which endangered life.
Canon 20: Kings and princes were ordered to dispense justice in consultation with the bishops.
Canon 25: Forbade any cleric to accept a benefice from a layman.
Canon 27: Nuns were prohibited from singing the Divine Office in the same choir with monks.
Canon 28: No church was to be left vacant more than three years from the death of the bishop; secular canons who excluded from episcopal election regular canons or monks were condemned.[1]
The council also may have banned the use of crossbows against Christians,[2][3] although the authenticity, interpretation and translation of this source is contested.[4]

Another decision confirmed the right of religious houses of a diocese to participate in the election of the diocese’s bishop.[5]

Srsly - how “modest” are those Bishops outfits?

You can also try this - found in a few seconds with Google:

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran2.asp

 

[Nita]

Someone I speak to regularly on a chatsite about religion asked me about the 2nd Lateran Council and the 2nd Vatican Council, about how one speaks about how it is proper to use physical force to stop heresy, and that in the other council (Vatican II), physical force in religion is considered wrong. I’m trying to look up exactly where both councils state this, but he’s wondering why, if both are infallible, there is an apparent contradiction? (I don’t believe there is, I believe it’s a misunderstanding of what both were saying.) Any help on answering this question is appreciated.

Not every statement from a council is infallible. The treatment of heretics that you mention would definitely be a case of a pronouncement that is not infallible. It refers to a regulation as to the form of punishment. Regulations, generally, are not infallible - that is, they can be changed. It is not unusual for Church regulations to change.

Here is Canon 23 from the Second Lateran Council that is being referred to:
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/LATERAN2.HTM
23. Those who, simulating a kind of religiosity, condemn
—1. the sacrament of the Lord’s body and blood,
—2. the baptism of children,
—3. the priesthood and other ecclesiastical orders, and
—4. legitimate marriages,
we expel from the church of God and condemn as heretics, and prescribe that they be constrained by the secular powers. We also bind up their defenders in the fetter of the same condemnation. {13}

 

[Phyllo]

Someone I speak to regularly on a chat site about religion asked me about the 2nd Lateran Council and the 2nd Vatican Council, about how one speaks about how it is proper to use physical force to stop heresy, and that in the other council (Vatican II), physical force in religion is considered wrong. I’m trying to look up exactly where both councils state this, but he’s wondering why, if both are infallible, there is an apparent contradiction? (I don’t believe there is, I believe it’s a misunderstanding of what both were saying.) Any help on answering this question is appreciated.

The Second Vatican Council was pastoral and not infallible.