Aquinas on heretics

[shaky]

I’m definitely no expert on the processes involved when the Church defines or proposes doctrine. I do know it isn’t something a Pope does on his own. Establishing a new dogma is rarely on any Popes agenda. In a certain way the process involves the whole Church. The need to either guard the faith or souls is usually something glimpsed on the horizon long before it becomes necessary. Decades or centuries.

Hi benadam

Well if new dogmas that have come into the church over the last 1000 years is not done by the Pope Alone. This does not show that he is infallible or supreme on his own.

This also shows that the number of bishops in Rome that get together to vote over new dogma are Supreme over the number of bishops of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Surly that can’t be Right.

Its like deciding we are the head number of bishops in Rome Over the number of bishops
in the East.

 

[clmowry]

Why would you ever expect the Pope to act unilaterally to define a dogma?

Generally speaking, the Pope would only get involved in the discussion of a particular dogma in order to settle a theological argument among particular bishops and/or theologians.

I don’t think there has ever has been, nor would I ever expect there to be a case where the Pope just popped out with a new dogma all by his lonesome.

Chuck

Hi benadam

Well if new dogmas that have come into the church over the last 1000 years is not done by the Pope Alone. This does not show that he is infallible or supreme on his own.

This also shows that the number of bishops in Rome that get together to vote over new dogma are Supreme over the number of bishops of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Surly that can’t be Right.

Its like deciding we are the head number of bishops in Rome Over the number of bishops
in the East.

 

[shaky]

Why would you ever expect the Pope to act unilaterally to define a dogma?

Generally speaking, the Pope would only get involved in the discussion of a particular dogma in order to settle a theological argument among particular bishops and/or theologians.

I don’t think there has ever has been, nor would I ever expect there to be a case where the Pope just popped out with a new dogma all by his lonesome.

Chuck

Hi clmowry

Well when the church in Rome decided that their patriarch should be supreme over the other 4 patriarchs because of the chair of peter being first bishop in Rome.
This must have been decided amongst a group number of bishops in Rome.
This is like decideing that the Group number of bishops in Rome are supreme over the Group number of bishops in the Eastern church.

 

[Genesis315]

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.

Sorry I haven’t been able to post in a while. For example, the Codex Iustiniani of the Byzantine emperor Justinian (6th century) includes death by burning as a punishment for heresy against the Christian faith. This was also the policy of his two immediate predecessors and remained on the books for quite some time as far as I can tell.

Also, in Russia the state also punished heretics with death. For example, in the 14th century, the Strigol’iki, received this punishment.

 

[EvanISOT]

Thanks Genesis 315.

Well, I don’t know what to say. It took a Mormon to inform us that the American revolution was a “5000 Year Leap,” and another Mormon, Glenn Beck, to properly advertise it.

So am I to believe that I’d find a better home as a peace-loving person in the Mormon faith? I kind’ve consider it to be an innovative sham, but I guess I prefer lies and peace to truth with killings.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not agreeing with that disgrace Rosie O’Donnel, who wants us to think that “radical” Christianity is similar to radical Islam. Not at all. Roman Catholics tend to form quite a civilized international community nowadays. But did they grant themselves this civility? Or did they follow the Protestants? Many now look to Martin Luther as a conscience for the free world, but following Aquinas’ line of thought, he’d have been snuffed out had the intolerant Catholic Church had its say.

In any case, I’m not buying the argument presented by Catholics here that there is some huge difference between the heretics of yester-centuries and the Methodist down the street today. Both hold faulty beliefs about everything, and no doubt the modern day Methodist has butchered the faith even more thoroughly than his forbears did. Moreover, if these modern people looked for the ancient faith, they could easily find it; like many of us have. So why don’t we burn them?

Because the Protestants of the New World say we shouldn’t, that’s why, and they’re absolutely right. Let us follow the peaceful example of Jesus Christ, Our Lord, and St. Nilus of Sora. Our Lord, of course, wouldn’t attack even when it would’ve been more than reasonable to do so. And St. Nilus didn’t agree with Thomas’s warped rationalization for killing even the soul-killers, heretics.

You must really think everyone in the modern world is screwed, if you thought a few heretics back then could do so much damage to the soul. Look at what’s in the marketplace of ideas today! Being a Monophysite or a Nestorian is nothing compared to what I can be today if I so desire.

Regards,
Evan