C
Caesar
Guest
You made your point.
But if we were to send a paper to the Holy See about how women should be priests or such nonsense, we would probably get an award…
- Status
But if we were to send a paper to the Holy See about how women should be priests or such nonsense, we would probably get an award…
B
batteddy
Guest
LOL! Maybe if the Pope were Pius IX…
No. I know that the current Pope wouldn’t support me. I know that the past 5 or 6 popes wouldn’t support me. BUT there have been about 260 who would have.
I think we might have previously discussed this difference between you “neo-conservative” Catholics and us traditionalists.
Neo-cons accept what the Church teaches…but judge the past through the lense of the present, and seem to give more authority to more current popes. They often find a need to “explain away” the past and if there is a conflict between the past and present teachings coming (non-ex-cathedra) from the vatican…they will usually choose the present teaching as thus more correct.
Good traditionalists accept what the Church teaches…but judge the present in proportion to the weight of the past, and on non-ex-cathedra matters give equal authority and consideration to the teachings of all popes throughout history. I don’t need to “explain away” or apologize for the past just because of the present “enlightened” liberty-worshipping paradigm in the world…and if there is a conflict between the past and present teachings coming non-ex-cathedra from the vatican…I will usually choose the teaching from the 1960 years of previous history over the 40 past years. Not that I don’t accept the present opinions and spins on things…but they are only 1/50th of christian history and I give them proportional weight accordingly. There have been many authoritative teachers throughout history, saints, bishops, and Popes most of all. And sometimes, when not speaking infallibly, they go directly against each other. It is my job to listen to this inter-centuries debate, weigh all the opinions and judgements, and come to a conclusion on such non-infallible things. I certainly do not give absolute defference to the current opinions of the current pope as if he is the do all and end all of everything. Because there have been Popes in the past of equal authority who have disagreed, and may be Popes in the future of equal authority who will disagree.
T
The_Augustinian
Guest
To be clear, you’re talking about *prominent *heretics, right? Like your Husses, Calvins, James Whites, etc. Persecuting the rank-and-file would only serve to inflame heresy, in my opinion. There’s nothing more convincing of one’s rightness than opposition by the State.
That being said, I don’t think executions are the answer. Heresy should be discouraged and gradually extinguished through evangelization, not through the stark reality of the gallows or the prison cell (in my opinion, executions are preferable to life in prison, which is just a sentence to death by old age). In the ideal Catholic Confessional State, the Church would have the pride of place in the commonwealth, and other faiths would be tolerated to an extent but not endorsed. Witholding of tax-exempt status and other methods would discourage heresy without forcing them to adopt Christianity.
Of course, it goes without saying that certain sects ought to be stamped out as a violation of public order, such as Rev. Phelps and his “GodHatesFags.com” crowd. But in general it is better to tolerate heretics instead of rigidly suppressing them.
That being said, I don’t think executions are the answer. Heresy should be discouraged and gradually extinguished through evangelization, not through the stark reality of the gallows or the prison cell (in my opinion, executions are preferable to life in prison, which is just a sentence to death by old age). In the ideal Catholic Confessional State, the Church would have the pride of place in the commonwealth, and other faiths would be tolerated to an extent but not endorsed. Witholding of tax-exempt status and other methods would discourage heresy without forcing them to adopt Christianity.
Of course, it goes without saying that certain sects ought to be stamped out as a violation of public order, such as Rev. Phelps and his “GodHatesFags.com” crowd. But in general it is better to tolerate heretics instead of rigidly suppressing them.
T
The_Augustinian
Guest
And to all the liberals (of both left and right) on the forums, I say: confessional states (adopting an actual religion, and not vaguely “religious” values) have been around since the dawn of man, and have not been challenged in the Western world until the French Revolution. In every human state, looking in all the four directions, there has always been an adopted official religion, although other faiths may have been tolerated. Even the United States allowed for state religions in the several states under the First Amendment, perhaps because the United States were, pre-Lincoln, not intended to be a unitary state like France. The liberal constitutions of the present age are not grounded in Christianity but the so-called Enlightenment, which was practically atheistic.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
The Holy See and the See of Los Angeles are not one and the same.
C
Caesar
Guest
Of course.
The question is, is it right to silence prominent heretics, and if so, how? The best way of going about this as batteddy as pointed out favors execution since we currently have no way keeping them in perfect isolation. The Church agrees with captial punishment only in a society unable to keep dangerous crimminals away from the people. In the case of heresy, we are currently unable to keep prominent heretics from courrupting the souls of our brothers and sisters.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
First, I doubt that the bulk of the popes back to Peter would agree with your idea of killing heretics. Or at the first few. So I reckon the last few have something with the first few (time lapse to an acqusation of “antiquarianism,” 5-4-3…). I’m okay with the last few popes agreeing with the first few.
Second, if you want to call me a Neo-Con and yourself a “good” traditionalist, I at least deserve the benefit of the doubt and thus the epithet of “good” Neo-Con.
Third, I’m not actually BEING a neo-con. It’s isn’t about believing the last 40 years posited against the 1960 before it. It’s about believing that the Church alone can determine what she believes, how she believes it, what it means THAT she believes it, etc., and not leaving that determination of what it means to be in line with that belief to people who about a decade ago were still figuring out how to go to the bathroom by themselves (honestly, I envision their parents treading on their Dungeon and Dragon bits in the dark, biting their lips, and praying for patience).
And in the conflict between the past and present, in this particular area, I’m perfectly comfortable with the concept that we’ve gotten beyond the idea of burning heretics. HH Pope John Paul II, of happy memory, did the faith immeasureable good (though I doubt you agree) with those apologies of the millenium (and I mean apology in the sense of sorrow, as opposed to apologia). You and Caesar won’t ACTUALLY damage the faith, since the Church herself would regard the concept you’re putting forth as being absolutely nutters. You might, however, prayerfully consider that positing such horrific absurdities my cause harm to the faith that might be growing in the people who are being gradually lead by the Holy Spirit into the fullness of the Truth that is in the Church. Hopefully, they understand that every faith, even the True One, has its lunatic fringe.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Absolutely. Couldn’t agree more. A state church isn’t a bad idea, provided it keeps it’s backbone, and if you’re going to have a state church, it may as well be the True Church. I just don’t happen to think that we should kill heretics.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I would look to my own soul, if I were you, Caesar, promoting ideas such as this.
M
mommyof4
Guest
You might, however, prayerfully consider that positing such horrific absurdities my cause harm to the faith that might be growing in the people who are being gradually lead by the Holy Spirit into the fullness of the Truth that is in the Church. Hopefully, they understand that every faith, even the True One, has its lunatic fringe.
Yea, Kirk!!! Whoo Whoo!!!
Yea, Kirk!!! Whoo Whoo!!!
M
MikeinSD
Guest
See, I think batteddy made some excellent points.
The main problem I see here is the conflict between the extortion of the Bible (Do not kill!) and the need to prevent heretics from corrupting souls.
Physical death lasts only a minute. Spiritual death lasts for all eternity.
__
Please be careful in the US about proclaiming yr ideas of heretics undergoing physical death in the name of yr god. If you issue yr fatawh against a specific individual, there can be a chance that he or she might own guns. And have friends with guns. And yr heretic might decide to go hunting.
Americans never cared much for throne and altar types. I doubt citizens pay much attention to fatawhs, Islamic, Christian, or otherwise. But issuing a public death threat to a specific person in our armed society can get you killed. And death threats are basically what you are talking about.
Good luck trying to install yr medieval throne and altar society in the US. So many heretics. With so many guns.
The main problem I see here is the conflict between the extortion of the Bible (Do not kill!) and the need to prevent heretics from corrupting souls.
Physical death lasts only a minute. Spiritual death lasts for all eternity.
__
Please be careful in the US about proclaiming yr ideas of heretics undergoing physical death in the name of yr god. If you issue yr fatawh against a specific individual, there can be a chance that he or she might own guns. And have friends with guns. And yr heretic might decide to go hunting.
Americans never cared much for throne and altar types. I doubt citizens pay much attention to fatawhs, Islamic, Christian, or otherwise. But issuing a public death threat to a specific person in our armed society can get you killed. And death threats are basically what you are talking about.
Good luck trying to install yr medieval throne and altar society in the US. So many heretics. With so many guns.
B
batteddy
Guest
I guess sort of. I mean…not just the “prominent” ones, but any who try to actively spread their opinion and advocate heresy publically. Those who try to seduce others to its wiles. Again from the Catholic Encyclopedia…just 90 years ago:
So…if they were ever Catholics, then they will at minimum be prosecuted simply for breaking the vows imposed upon them at baptism.
But if they were never Catholic in the first place, if they are merely material and not formal heretics…then, just like the Jewish or pagan communities in Catholic countries…we will leave them alone (although try to evangelize to them and, if that fails, socially isolate them) as long as they don’t try to proselytize.
But if you try to seduce any of our little ones…you’d better be ready for something worse than a millstone tied around your neck.
No. It is not a “fatwah” because I believe only the State would have such authority. Not individuals acting as free agents.
But the State DOES have such authority if it was brave enough to use it. Jesus told Pilate that Pilate did, in fact, have authority given from Above to execute the guilty. Pilate’s sin was not capital punishment (which Jesus explicitly recognized Pilate’s authority to meet out) but rather capital punishment issued against an INNOCENT man.
N
Nullasalus
Guest
I think both of you would do well to remember that you’re quoting Thomas Aquinas here, who certainly did make mistakes in regards to faith. He gets and deserves great respect, but he’s not a flawless source. So these mental associations that leads to capital punishment for heretics become (to me) less defensible if you start to question the axiom of ‘Heresy should be a federal offense’ (or the equivalent).
After all, if a heretic merits the death penalty, where does conversion enter the picture?
C
Caesar
Guest
I’m not suggesting we run out with torches and pitchforks and kill every protestant we find.
I am saying, that since it is acceptable to have the death penalty when it is not possible to keep someone from harming another’s mortal body. Is it not also acceptable to keep someone from harming another’s immortal soul?
I am saying, that since it is acceptable to have the death penalty when it is not possible to keep someone from harming another’s mortal body. Is it not also acceptable to keep someone from harming another’s immortal soul?
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
More proof-texting. Christ was as likely to have been telling him that he wouldn’t be doing anything that day that God Himself wasn’t permitting. You can’t make a case for capital punishment out of that.
B
batteddy
Guest
It’s not that he “merits” the death penalty (though he certainly does).
I’m not viewing it so much as a punitive measure, but as a protective one.
Again. I’d rather have them simply isolated or silenced, unable to spread their mind-virus, unable to commit anymore idea-violence, but still alive and so able to repent and convert.
But, like with murder, if there is NO OTHER WAY to restrain them and their violence against OTHERS…then the death penalty is certainly a perogative of the state to protect people.
I’d like to just keep a murderer locked up…but when this is not possible…then the disabling the body which harms others is certainly an option to protect society from their violence.
I’d like to keep a heretic simply silenced and unable to write anything. In confinement with other heretics, or in solitary confinement. But if there is no other way to stop the spread of the evil idea (and memes are much harder to control than physical violence), then the disarming of the brain propogating the thought-crime is certainly an option.
C
Caesar
Guest
We are reffering to stubborn, prominent heritics who pose a threat the souls of others. Heritics like Arius, Luther, Calvin, ect., whose words and actions can corrupt the souls of others.
We must hope and pray for the conversion of all. But we cannot stand by while souls are being corrupted by heresy.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
No.
This would do the faith actual harm, IMHO. While the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, we’re called to and by Love, not coercion. You’d have people who were or became Catholic not out of faith, but out of fear. AND the Truth never has MUCH competition from falsehood. Will some fall and fail? Yes, that’s the downside of the radical gift of free will. God should be the only One to make the call.
M
mommyof4
Guest
Batteddy, I’m emmigrating from your “state” and moving to a new land where there is religious tolerance, even for heretics. No killing heretics, no imprisonment of heretics, just love and peace prevailing. I think I’ll call it…???hum, Maryland!
B
batteddy
Guest
No. Christ usually called a spade a spade…even when the sin was “being allowed by God”.
I mean…he explicitly said that the one who handed him over to Pilate “had the greater sin”. You’ll notice that Jesus didn’t say, “well…what they did wasn’t that bad because its all part of God’s plan.” If Pilate had been commiting a sin by capital punishment in and of itself, Jesus would not have said, “You have this authority from God,” anymore than he excused Judas or the Sanhedrin.
- Status