Aquinas on heretics

[EvanISOT]

If I may use you briefly as an example of my beef with Aquinas: imagine you are a great philosopher (maybe you already are), and you’ve synthesized brilliantly systems of thought that have preceded you; influencing mankind for the better and leading to an ever more civilized understanding of God and man created by Him. But then, one day, you walk out your door and pop some poor guy in the face just because he disagrees with your faith (even if it is the Church). Or even worse, what if, in the context of your brilliance, you plant ideas explicitly rationalizing and validating would-be murderers in your own faith, who kill people of other (Christian, maybe even within the Church) persuasions for that fact alone, that they don’t buy the party line, THE party line. Wouldn’t you rightly be recognized only for this sin primarily, and then all your greatness as an afterthought?

As an Orthodox Christian, I want to like Aquinas (though not acknowledge his Saintliness), because many of my favorite authors (like Chesterton), seem quite fond of him. But how can they (or you Catholics) be so fond of a man who calls his fellow Catholics to be complete tools of a state run by religion, and through that, violate the commandment not to murder? Surely you modern Catholics don’t consider heresy a crime punishable by death.

Thanks,

Evan

 

[Julian0404]

if i may use you briefly as an example of my beef with aquinas: Imagine you are a great philosopher (maybe you already are), and you’ve synthesized brilliantly systems of thought that have preceded you; influencing mankind for the better and leading to an ever more civilized understanding of god and man created by him. But then, one day, you walk out your door and pop some poor guy in the face just because he disagrees with your faith (even if it is the church). Or even worse, what if, in the context of your brilliance, you plant ideas explicitly rationalizing and validating would-be murderers in your own faith, who kill people of other (christian, maybe even within the church) persuasions for that fact alone, that they don’t buy the party line, the party line. Wouldn’t you rightly be recognized only for this sin primarily, and then all your greatness as an afterthought?

As an orthodox christian, i want to like aquinas (though not acknowledge his saintliness), because many of my favorite authors (like chesterton), seem quite fond of him. But how can they (or you catholics) be so fond of a man who calls his fellow catholics to be complete tools of a state run by religion, and through that, violate the commandment not to murder? Surely you modern catholics don’t consider heresy a crime punishable by death.

Thanks,

evan

evan,

i cannot follow your arguement or locate the point you think you have made. Please be more precise and explicit.

 

[St_Francis]

If I may use you briefly as an example of my beef with Aquinas: imagine you are a great philosopher (maybe you already are), and you’ve synthesized brilliantly systems of thought that have preceded you; influencing mankind for the better and leading to an ever more civilized understanding of God and man created by Him. But then, one day, you walk out your door and pop some poor guy in the face just because he disagrees with your faith (even if it is the Church). Or even worse, what if, in the context of your brilliance, you plant ideas explicitly rationalizing and validating would-be murderers in your own faith, who kill people of other (Christian, maybe even within the Church) persuasions for that fact alone, that they don’t buy the party line, THE party line. Wouldn’t you rightly be recognized only for this sin primarily, and then all your greatness as an afterthought?

As an Orthodox Christian, I want to like Aquinas (though not acknowledge his Saintliness), because many of my favorite authors (like Chesterton), seem quite fond of him. But how can they (or you Catholics) be so fond of a man who calls his fellow Catholics to be complete tools of a state run by religion, and through that, violate the commandment not to murder? Surely you modern Catholics don’t consider heresy a crime punishable by death.

Thanks,

Evan

There are quite a few problems with your post, including a misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church thinks the ideal relationship between Church and State to be, but the main thing is that you do not understand the evil of a person who tries to draw people out of the Church. Christ said that people like that should have millstones wrapped around their necks and they should be dropped into the sea.

(Altho it’s interesting because we just read the Sermon on the Mount, and Christ mentioned burning trees that bore bad fruit, right after telling His followers to beware of those teaching false doctrine.)

 

[shaky]

If I may use you briefly as an example of my beef with Aquinas: imagine you are a great philosopher (maybe you already are), and you’ve synthesized brilliantly systems of thought that have preceded you; influencing mankind for the better and leading to an ever more civilized understanding of God and man created by Him. But then, one day, you walk out your door and pop some poor guy in the face just because he disagrees with your faith (even if it is the Church). Or even worse, what if, in the context of your brilliance, you plant ideas explicitly rationalizing and validating would-be murderers in your own faith, who kill people of other (Christian, maybe even within the Church) persuasions for that fact alone, that they don’t buy the party line, THE party line. Wouldn’t you rightly be recognized only for this sin primarily, and then all your greatness as an afterthought?

As an Orthodox Christian, I want to like Aquinas (though not acknowledge his Saintliness), because many of my favorite authors (like Chesterton), seem quite fond of him. But how can they (or you Catholics) be so fond of a man who calls his fellow Catholics to be complete tools of a state run by religion, and through that, violate the commandment not to murder? Surely you modern Catholics don’t consider heresy a crime punishable by death.

Thanks,

Evan

I wonder what Gods punishment for heresy is going to be.

 

[EvanISOT]

Hi Francis,

I understand that heretics do abominable things, although based on your response, I’m not sure you’re adequately acknowledging their humanity in that they may not explicitly know they’re teaching false doctrines, like your friendly neighborhood pastor, for instance. But I understand the difference between heretics and those who hold heretical ideas.

After all, I believe you hold heretical ideas, like the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility, for instance, but we Orthodox identify you as “heterodox,” not “heretic.” Either way, let’s take a real heretic, like a Catholic priest teaching that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, or a Nestorian heretic teaching that Mary ain’t so special after all, what are we to do?

“Altho it’s interesting because we just read the Sermon on the Mount, and Christ mentioned burning trees that bore bad fruit, right after telling His followers to beware of those teaching false doctrine”

Should we burn them, then? You’re not really relieving any doubts I had about Aquinas, but seem to be confirming them.

Hi Julian,

I don’t know how I can be any more specific, Mr. Francis above seemed to understand.

 

[EvanISOT]

Hi Shaky,

But I trust that is not your judgment, but the Lord’s??? So basically, the feeling I’m getting here is that Aquinas was right, and the only thing holding you back from sending masses of heretics to the flames is the fact that our government doesn’t respect such barbaric nonsense.

 

[CaptainPicard]

For others, here’s a quote from St. Thomas:

With regard to heretics there are two points to be observed, one on their side, the other on the side of the Church. As for heretics their sin deserves banishment, not only from the Church by excommunication, but also from this world by death. To corrupt the faith, whereby the soul lives, is much graver than to counterfeit money, which supports temporal life. Since forgers and other malefactors are summarily condemned to death by the civil authorities, with much more reason may heretics as soon as they are convicted of heresy be not only excommunicated, but also justly be put to death.

But on the side of the Church is mercy which seeks the conversion of the wanderer, and She condemns him not at once, but after the first and second admonition, as the Apostle directs. Afterwards, however, if he is still stubborn, the Church takes care of the salvation of others by separating him from the Church through excommunication, and delivers him to the secular court to be removed from this world by death. (ST II:II 11:3)

I honestly don’t know how to argue against Aquinas’s logic. It certainly is worse to lead people’s souls to destruction than to lead their body to destruction, so if capital punishment is ok for murder, why not heresy? The Church, following St. Paul in Romans 13:1-7, teaches that the secular authorities do have the right and the authority from God to execute people. It’s not “murder”. Of course, the Church has given guidelines for when capital punishment is and isn’t appropriate.

I suppose that we don’t do it today for two reasons that I can think of. First, the “cat is out of the bag” sort to speak. Executing a heretic isn’t going to stop the proliferation of heresies. There are so many different belief systems floating arounding and information flows so fast, that the days are over when heresy can be stopped from spreading. Catholic teaching now has to compete on the marketplace of ideas. Secondly, since the Church and state are seperate, heresy isn’t illegal anymore, so executing them would be inappropriate.

Obviously, to our 21st century values of freedom of thought and religion, it seems somewhat off. Even though I understand the logic behind it, that saving people’s souls is of the utmost importance, I can’t say that I’m a huge fan of the idea.

 

[JM3]

SUMMA THEOLOGICA

Whether the Church should receive those who return from heresy?

On the contrary, The Decretal Ad abolendam (De Haereticis, cap. ix) says that “those who are found to have relapsed into the error which they had already abjured, must be left to the secular tribunal.” Therefore they should not be received by the Church.
I answer that, In obedience to Our Lord’s institution, the Church extends her charity to all, not only to friends, but also to foes who persecute her, according to Mat. 5:44: “Love your enemies; do good to them that hate you.” Now it is part of charity that we should both wish and work our neighbor’s good. Again, good is twofold: one is spiritual, namely the health of the soul, which good is chiefly the object of charity, since it is this chiefly that we should wish for one another. Consequently, from this point of view, heretics who return after falling no matter how often, are admitted by the Church to Penance whereby the way of salvation is opened to them.
The other good is that which charity considers secondarily, viz. temporal good, such as life of the body, worldly possessions, good repute, ecclesiastical or secular dignity, for we are not bound by charity to wish others this good, except in relation to the eternal salvation of them and of others. Hence if the presence of one of these goods in one individual might be an obstacle to eternal salvation in many, we are not bound out of charity to wish such a good to that person, rather should we desire him to be without it, both because eternal salvation takes precedence of temporal good, and because the good of the many is to be preferred to the good of one. Now if heretics were always received on their return, in order to save their lives and other temporal goods, this might be prejudicial to the salvation of others, both because they would infect others if they relapsed again, and because, if they escaped without punishment, others would feel more assured in lapsing into heresy. For it is written (Eccles. 8:11): “For because sentence is not speedily pronounced against the evil, the children of men commit evils without any fear.”
For this reason the Church not only admits to Penance those who return from heresy for the first time, but also safeguards their lives, and sometimes by dispensation, restores them to the ecclesiastical dignities which they may have had before, should their conversion appear to be sincere: we read of this as having frequently been done for the good of peace. But when they fall again, after having been received, this seems to prove them to be inconstant in faith, wherefore when they return again, they are admitted to Penance, but are not delivered from the pain of death.

 

[EvanISOT]

Dear Cap. Picard,

I appreciate your honesty, and also your quotation from the Summa. I agree with you on not digging the concept myself…I’m not a big fan of the Inquisition, either.

I’d like to offer a humble suggestion on what you said here:

“It certainly is worse to lead people’s souls to destruction than to lead their body to destruction, so if capital punishment is ok for murder, why not heresy?”

With risk of sounding overly intellectual and Latinist in tone, isn’t there a difference between the final actuality of death, and the mere potentiality of death to the soul, which can never fully die while encased in flesh? If you murder me, I die, but if you preach heresy to me, you only potentially set my soul on the path to destruction…the former is final, the latter reversible while breathing. Fair?

We’re all human, and like I said, Mr. Picard, what you said you personally feel resonates with me as well. However, I must admit I’m a bit shocked; what everyone has posted here, including Mr. (or Ms./Mrs.) JM3, indicates to me, at least in simple language, that you have no good excuses for Aquinas, and his superior philosophizing is above critique as far as Roman Catholics (at least represented here thus far) are concerned.

So as far as burning those early Protestants at the stake goes, we’re all in? Well, you are, by virtue of your faith in Aquinas as a Saint and Doctor of your Church, but I have no such loyalty to him.

Let me make one argument and see if it’s sensible to you. The early Church dealt with tons of heresies…like Arianism, Nestorianism, Eunomionism (sp?), Gnosticism, all kinds of nonsense. As far as I know, the ancient Church, even after the Edict of Milan, didn’t go burning even the big bad guys…I’m pretty sure the Emperors stuck to banishment and such penalties, but no death.

If the Church, under Aquinas, is so willing to submit to the civil authorities in their execution of heretics, then why did they submit to the civil authorities in their non-execution of heretics back in the olden days? Isn’t that the Church’s calling, to be immutable, like Our Lord? And surely they would be immutable on something so important as life? The one thing the Pope and the Patriarch of Moscow can agree on is that the Africans shouldn’t wear condoms…can’t the Catholics at least get straight whether we need to be burnin’ them heretics at the stake or not?

Thanks,
Evan

 

[CaptainPicard]

Hi Evan,
I guess I’ll just go ahead and give my thoughts on your various points:

With risk of sounding overly intellectual and Latinist in tone,

You’re safe on these forums.

isn’t there a difference between the final actuality of death, and the mere potentiality of death to the soul, which can never fully die while encased in flesh? If you murder me, I die, but if you preach heresy to me, you only potentially set my soul on the path to destruction…the former is final, the latter reversible while breathing. Fair?

The distinction you make is certainly a true one. A heretic could 1. not convince anybody of his error 2. convince somebody of his error, but that person could later come back to the Church or 3. The heretic could lead people to heresy, but God could choose to have mercy on those lead into heresy and save them anyway.

So I certainly agree with you that the case of the heretic and murderer are not perfectly analogous. However, it still holds true that heresy tends toward the death of the soul. Even if in specific cases it doesn’t hold, generally speaking it does. See, for instance, 2 Peter 3:16.

We’re all human, and like I said, Mr. Picard, what you said you personally feel resonates with me as well. However, I must admit I’m a bit shocked; what everyone has posted here, including Mr. (or Ms./Mrs.) JM3, indicates to me, at least in simple language, that you have no good excuses for Aquinas, and his superior philosophizing is above critique as far as Roman Catholics (at least represented here thus far) are concerned.

I don’t know, as I said before, what he says makes a lot of sense to me. I might not like it emotionally, but intellectually I can’t really fault him.

So as far as burning those early Protestants at the stake goes, we’re all in? Well, you are, by virtue of your faith in Aquinas as a Saint and Doctor of your Church, but I have no such loyalty to him.

I respect St. Thomas, but neither other Catholics nor I are required to believe everything he says. Sometimes he gets things wrong. Whether this is one of those cases is, of course, up for debate.

As far as the burning of the early Protestants, I don’t know of any recent teaching of the Church nowadays that says whether they were right or wrong. I don’t think saying “The burnings were OK” would be very good for generating good will between Catholics and Protestants. But, as far as I know, in principle, the burning of the original Protestants could be considered morally licit so long as it was done with the proper authority. I suppose it would have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

But think of it this way, if Martin Luther had been executed early in his career as a reformer, it might have saved hundreds of millions from falling away from the apostolic faith. Obviously the ends don’t justify the means. But what St. Thomas is arguing is that the means, in this case, are morally licit (even if they are extreme).

Let me make one argument and see if it’s sensible to you. The early Church dealt with tons of heresies…like Arianism, Nestorianism, Eunomionism (sp?), Gnosticism, all kinds of nonsense. As far as I know, the ancient Church, even after the Edict of Milan, didn’t go burning even the big bad guys…I’m pretty sure the Emperors stuck to banishment and such penalties, but no death.

That’s my understanding, as well. Banishments aren’t nice, but they are certainly nicer than executions. As far as I know, the execution of heretics was more of a second millennium thing (but I’m no historian).

If the Church, under Aquinas, is so willing to submit to the civil authorities in their execution of heretics, then why did they submit to the civil authorities in their non-execution of heretics back in the olden days? Isn’t that the Church’s calling, to be immutable, like Our Lord? And surely they would be immutable on something so important as life? The one thing the Pope and the Patriarch of Moscow can agree on is that the Africans shouldn’t wear condoms…can’t the Catholics at least get straight whether we need to be burnin’ them heretics at the stake or not?

It doesn’t have to be either/or, it can be both. What I mean is that it could be, in some circumstances, morally acceptable to either execute the heretic or not to execute the heretic. Both ways could be acceptable courses of action. If either way is acceptable, than it’s ok to do one thing in one age and another thing in another age.

One last thing, I think there’s a lot of things that bug me about executing heretics. But I think the thing that gets me the most is that heretics are judged so harshly (both in this world and possibly after death by God) strictly for what they believe. I think we all understand punishing people for doing something wrong, but it’s harder to get our heads around punishing people for believing something wrong, especially in our age. In looking at the various heresiarchs, they seem like guys who truly thought they were doing right. It’s hard to say what their motives were and maybe they truly were bad guys, but I can’t help but to feel sorry for them.

However, scripture is full of warnings that what we believe and what we teach others is of the utmost importance, so I just trust that God knows what he is doing and will bring about proper justice.

Here are some questions for you. I don’t know much about the Orthodox stance on the issue. What do they teach about it? Also, would there ever be any instance where you would say it’s acceptable to execute somebody over heterodox teaching (either now or in some other age)?

 

[clmowry]

With risk of sounding overly intellectual and Latinist in tone, isn’t there a difference between the final actuality of death, and the mere potentiality of death to the soul, which can never fully die while encased in flesh? If you murder me, I die, but if you preach heresy to me, you only potentially set my soul on the path to destruction…the former is final, the latter reversible while breathing. Fair?

Fair with regard to the finality of death, but you have only taken the heretic into account.

The theologians are not discussing what to do about a spiritual suicide it is more akin to a spiritual mass murderer.

If it was just the soul of the heretic that these theologians were concerned with, I would imagine that you they would conclude you should leave them to their spiritual suicide in hopes that they change their course.

What do you do with a person who is not only committing spiritual suicide but professes that they would rather die than divert their path from committing spiritual mass murder?

Maybe a better analogy would be what to do with someone who has a usually fatal highly contagious disease who’s been told they have the disease by a body of doctors but refuses to admit that they are sick and demands their right to shake the hands of everyone they meet.

Even today, I think the CDC would quarantine that person until he either recovered or died.

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

One last thing, I think there’s a lot of things that bug me about executing heretics. But I think the thing that gets me the most is that heretics are judged so harshly (both in this world and possibly after death by God) strictly for what they believe. I think we all understand punishing people for doing something wrong, but it’s harder to get our heads around punishing people for believing something wrong, especially in our age. In looking at the various heresiarchs, they seem like guys who truly thought they were doing right. It’s hard to say what their motives were and maybe they truly were bad guys, but I can’t help but to feel sorry for them.

I don’t think this is an issue of persecuting people for what they believe. I would submit it was primarily an issue of people rejecting authority.

If someone obstinately rejected the authority of the Church [which I believe would have been essentially equivalent in the minds of medieval leaders as a direct rejection of God] I would think the civil leaders might have been a tad concerned about the potentiality of “other” treasonous behaviors.

It’s not like the Church was running around asking people what they believed and then burning them at the stake if they didn’t get the answer right.

It seems to me, that for the most part, you had to work pretty hard and getting yourself executed.

I’m sure there are exceptions, but didn’t you just pretty much have to keep your opinions to yourself to avoid the stake?

In that regard I think many heretics were “heroic” in there beliefs, wrong, but heroic none the less.

It takes a strong man or woman to not recant when it can save their lives.

Chuck

 

[Sherry_G]

At that time in history, the secular punishment for heresy was death. Plain and simple. The works of Thomas Acquinas are beautiful, instructive, philosophical, theological, reverent and respectful. You are not required to “like the guy”, however studies into his tremendous volume of work requires years of thoughtful studies while your OP seems to have been gleaned from some source such as “Wikipedia”.

St. Thomas was just like us, a human being. After that one comparison, I fall exceedinly short when comparing to his intellectual and spiritual development- how about you?

 

[wisdomseeker]

For others, here’s a quote from St. Thomas:

I honestly don’t know how to argue against Aquinas’s logic. It certainly is worse to lead people’s souls to destruction than to lead their body to destruction, so if capital punishment is ok for murder, why not heresy? The Church, following St. Paul in Romans 13:1-7, teaches that the secular authorities do have the right and the authority from God to execute people. It’s not “murder”. Of course, the Church has given guidelines for when capital punishment is and isn’t appropriate.

I suppose that we don’t do it today for two reasons that I can think of. First, the “cat is out of the bag” sort to speak. Executing a heretic isn’t going to stop the proliferation of heresies. There are so many different belief systems floating arounding and information flows so fast, that the days are over when heresy can be stopped from spreading. Catholic teaching now has to compete on the marketplace of ideas. Secondly, since the Church and state are seperate, heresy isn’t illegal anymore, so executing them would be inappropriate.

Obviously, to our 21st century values of freedom of thought and religion, it seems somewhat off. Even though I understand the logic behind it, that saving people’s souls is of the utmost importance, I can’t say that I’m a huge fan of the idea.

good answer. most people are more concerned with this life than the souls that can be lost. may be this only confirm what our Lord said: “the door is straight and only few will enter.” and He also says that “what does it do for a man to win the whole world and looses his soul.”

 

[EvanISOT]

Hey Captain Picard,

You’re safe on these forums.

Good point.

Also, seems like a good listing of the three possibilities of the influence of heretics. Also, granted that heresy is harmful stuff.

But think of it this way, if Martin Luther had been executed early in his career as a reformer, it might have saved hundreds of millions from falling away from the apostolic faith. Obviously the ends don’t justify the means. But what St. Thomas is arguing is that the means, in this case, are morally licit (even if they are extreme).

Fair, but if we add to the fact your three possibilities of Luther’s influence (all of which would not be damning, the one you didn’t mention would be), and contrast that with the result of burning the heresiarch…won’t that only have the one result of landing him in hell? What if, instead of over-intellectualizing to the point of rationalized murder, the Catholic Church instead allowed the heresiarch to be corrected by the Church non- violently, with the perk being that even the heresiarch may eventually have a change of heart.

That’s my understanding, as well. Banishments aren’t nice, but they are certainly nicer than executions. As far as I know, the execution of heretics was more of a second millennium thing (but I’m no historian).

Yeah, that’s been my observation also, so we have a small consensus going here ;-).

It’s hard to say what their motives were and maybe they truly were bad guys, but I can’t help but to feel sorry for them.

Like I said, on this very human level, we are agreed; if only your Church wasn’t holding you back from fully accepting your common sense. Consider this: maybe your nature isn’t so completely corrupt that you screw up in your feelings this basically. You KNOW that lust is wrong deep down, and resentment, etc., but you don’t think your sympathy for these individuals your Church sent to hell in a handbasket (at least to the good Catholic mind) is so wrong, do you? Aquinas is self-defeating…he claims the One is simple, and yet it’s his very insanity that requires much rationalizing and scholastic thinking (anything but commonsensical or simple). How could Aquinas fall so short of the One in being so brainy about Him? Maybe that’s the point.

I don’t know much about the Orthodox stance on the issue. What do they teach about it? Also, would there ever be any instance where you would say it’s acceptable to execute somebody over heterodox teaching (either now or in some other age)?

I was baptized Orthodox March 27th this year, so don’t take me as an authority. In Orthodoxy, it’s taught that if you pray truly, you are a theologian, and a theologian if you pray truly. I don’t pray truly; and there is no position of “apologist” in the Orthodox Church, or if there is, it’s not so highly thought of as by Western Christianity.

Anyway, with that disclaimer, some of the things I so appreciate about Orthodoxy are its total lack of an Inquisition, a Reformation, or any organized violence against the West. The West can boast no such thing in humility or pride, and it took the very loving Pope, John Paul II, to finally acknowledge the Catholic Church’s past shortfalls in this regard.

As to Orthodox teaching on salvation for the heterodox…it is so much simpler and more conscientious in its philosophy than Catholicism, if I may make that claim. I’ve noticed that there are two types of Catholics on this issue…Catholics who say all non-Catholics can be saved, and those traditionalists who say (with utmost conviction and certainty), that all non-Catholics (even Orthodox) are damned.

Here is the answer of a VERY traditional (perhaps traditionalist?), Orthodox Saint, St. Theophan the Recluse, to the issue:

“You ask, will the heterodox be saved… Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins… I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever.”

So you see, Orthodoxy is a Christianity of love, in its purest form…correcting the wrong without pride, and leading even those “enemies” to salvation. Such a philosophy is not compatible with the over-thought craziness of Aquinas, who was so boastful as to even delineate the different types of hell for different types of people…wasn’t Blessed Augustine’s rationalism enough to wonder about, without going nuts with it?

Dear Sherry,

St. Thomas was just like us, a human being. After that one comparison, I fall exceedinly short when comparing to his intellectual and spiritual development- how about you?

You prize so highly this “intellectual development”? Do you prize Nietzsche for his intellectual development? Just because he’s developed in this regard doesn’t make him a Saint, nor does it make him Hitler either. It’s irrelevant. Didn’t even Aquinas say that the One is simple…“pure act” or some such jargon? Who is more prized, the simpleton who is illiterate but faithful, or the one with the big head who thinks he knows the secrets of the universe?

Was Aquinas very purified, Saintly, and at one with God’s energies? Shoot, I’m so far away from that…so if Aquinas was, then he was a universe ahead of me…but please don’t make the criterion his fat head, I don’t see how that matters. I’m sure Nietzsche was much smarter than me as well.

Regards,
Evan

 

[EvanISOT]

Hi clmowry,

I don’t think this is an issue of persecuting people for what they believe. I would submit it was primarily an issue of people rejecting authority.

Well, I reject your authority…and your authority’s authority, all the way up to the Pope. Now according to Boniface VIII, I’m damned to hell by default. Would you like to then come and do an honor killing because of this? I could give you my address if you’d like…but I warn you, though I don’t instigate, I will defend ;-).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

If I may use you briefly as an example of my beef with Aquinas: imagine you are a great philosopher (maybe you already are), and you’ve synthesized brilliantly systems of thought that have preceded you; influencing mankind for the better and leading to an ever more civilized understanding of God and man created by Him. But then, one day, you walk out your door and pop some poor guy in the face just because he disagrees with your faith (even if it is the Church). Or even worse, what if, in the context of your brilliance, you plant ideas explicitly rationalizing and validating would-be murderers in your own faith, who kill people of other (Christian, maybe even within the Church) persuasions for that fact alone, that they don’t buy the party line, THE party line. Wouldn’t you rightly be recognized only for this sin primarily, and then all your greatness as an afterthought?

As an Orthodox Christian, I want to like Aquinas (though not acknowledge his Saintliness), because many of my favorite authors (like Chesterton), seem quite fond of him. But how can they (or you Catholics) be so fond of a man who calls his fellow Catholics to be complete tools of a state run by religion, and through that, violate the commandment not to murder? Surely you modern Catholics don’t consider heresy a crime punishable by death.

Thanks,

Evan

Capital punishment is not murder. There is due process of law that is followed that is not followed when someone chooses to commit murder.

You are messing with definitions.

 

[Genesis315]

Heretics who received the death penalty weren’t like your average Methodist or whatever living down the street in a diverse society. They were people in a unified society who very gravely harmed the common good, stirring up the people in rebellion and causing all sorts of disorder. They were generally only put to death as a last resort when admonishment, fines, and then imprisonment/exile failed. Orthodox nations operated the same way.

This chapter of Bishop Von Kettler’s 19th century work on religious liberty explains this well:

opuscula.blogspot.com/2008/07/religious-freedom-part-iii.html

 

[shaky]

Hi Shaky,

But I trust that is not your judgment, but the Lord’s??? So basically, the feeling I’m getting here is that Aquinas was right, and the only thing holding you back from sending masses of heretics to the flames is the fact that our government doesn’t respect such barbaric nonsense.

Hi EvanLSOT

Its not my Judgement it is the Lords I started out as a Christian on the protestant side and been involved in some evangelical cults. I have had some bad experiences in some churches. That is why i ended up as a non denominal christian that has stopped going to churches all-together. There are all these different churches claiming they are the only true church:shrug: It is proper head banging

For some Reason i was always against the Roman Catholic Church. because of its bad history of the way heretics and witches were burnt at the stake. I thought it was wrong
I thought allot of innocent people were burnt at the stake that were not really witches.

In history i read that Inquisition sent a Army of solders after 2,000 Cathards who were heretics living in this village with a population of 20,000 people. Because they could not tell the difference between a normal village person or a Cathard heretic. The solders decided to kill everybody in the village.

From how i understand the bible everybody should be allowed to live until the day they die naturally. During this time they are given a chance to Repent.
According to the bible Even a Serial Murderer can come to repentance and be saved.
But in America some are Sentenced to death.

How did the Orthodox Church treat heretics and witches in the dark ages is there any history of the Orthodox church persecuting anybody for whatever Reason

 

[EvanISOT]

Dear ByzCath,

Well gee whiz, I just checked out a girl by the side of the road as I was driving home, would you please due process me up and then cut my head off for it? Or may I yet live to repent of it if I see the error of my ways? You see, I never considered a society that used their “due process” to execute candy-store robbers such a great society…I’ll call those backwards hooligans murderers any day, you can quote me on that! You’re messing with decent, common sense reality by your currently inordinate concern for definitions.

Genesis,

Orthodox nations killed heretics as well? I’m glad to hear it! It sounds like I can relax and join you Catholics in lighting up the sky! It can’t be the Methodists down the street? How about the Orthodox and Catholics who mislead people in any way, I’m sure we can weed some of them out.

But seriously, do you have evidence of the Orthodox thing? I am curious. I’ll check out your reference, thanks.

Howdy Shaky!

So are you Catholic now? I didn’t grasp that part. Yeah, I share your sympathies and concerns, definitely, and can’t answer your question as to the Orthodox…I think we went out on some Latin-massacring fun in 1181, or somewhere thereabouts, and then them Catholics retorted in 1204 by destroying Constantinople, thus solidifying the Great Schism. Good stuff! Who needs violent movies, anyway, when you can just depend on Christians to get the job done?