Aquinas on heretics

[wisdomseeker]

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.

do you think that God has excluded the government from being under His authority?

Now you have a government who accepts all kinds of heresy and unjust. A government who is unwise and have no idea who God is. You have a government and courts that supports gay marriage, abortion, contraceptive, pornography, divorce, distraction of families, and all kinds of paganism. You no longer have to worry about being under the protection of the One True Faith who is to protect us from the wolves and false teachings because you choose to be under the protection of an ungodly government.
so you get what you ask for. a government separated from God’s law and rules and teachings. a government who is more worried about pleasing the desires of man than God. have it your way.

 

[shaky]

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?

Hi EvanlSOT

I have Given up looking for Answers on the protestant side it is to confuseing. So i am looking into and studying the Roman Catholics and Orthodox.

 

[Peter_Gabriel]

It is difficult to have a discussion when words do not have definitions.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hi EvanlSOT

I have Given up looking for Answers on the protestant side it is to confuseing. So i am looking into and studying the Roman Catholics and Orthodox.

Gloria be to God!

this is a great start to understand the CC.

zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m3/4mrkc.html

 

[clmowry]

Hi EvanlSOT

I have Given up looking for Answers on the protestant side it is to confuseing. So i am looking into and studying the Roman Catholics and Orthodox.

Been there, done that and got the T-shirt.

May God bless you in your search for truth.

Chuck

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hi clmowry,

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 ;-).

no. heretics are damned unless they repent before they die. Jesus says, if he doesnt listen to the Church, treat him as a tax collector, a publican. this is a comand from Christ Himself. if you reject the Church, you are rejecting Jesus and God, according to Jesus. Jesus also says, that there will be more Mercy to the cities of sodom than to those who reject His Church. when you reject the Church, the Laws and rules, you subject yourself to be under an evil government and its laws.

great video

youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV?feature=mhum#p/a/u/0/UNPS-PTT9gg

 

[EvanISOT]

Peter Gabriel,

It’s difficult to have a discussion when your interlocutors are mad, and make apologies for murderers who think they’re justified because they restrict their murder to heretics.

WisdomSeeker,

if you reject the Church, you are rejecting Jesus and God, according to Jesus.

Well, naturally, I don’t believe you are in a state of accepting the Church, so are you rejecting Jesus and God? I’m not that narrow minded, of course, just pointing out that you said a lot of fluff if I’m not convinced that your Church is currently apostolic, but an apostate from the faith handed down back yonder, by St. Peter & Friends.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It’s difficult to have a discussion when your interlocutors are mad, and make apologies for murderers who think they’re justified because they restrict their murder to heretics.

St Matthew said it best.

Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

It is useless to discuss this with you when you have this attitude. You don’t want a disucssion.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Peter Gabriel,

It’s difficult to have a discussion when your interlocutors are mad, and make apologies for murderers who think they’re justified because they restrict their murder to heretics.

WisdomSeeker,

Well, naturally, I don’t believe you are in a state of accepting the Church, so are you rejecting Jesus and God? I’m not that narrow minded, of course, just pointing out that you said a lot of fluff if I’m not convinced that your Church is currently apostolic, but an apostate from the faith handed down back yonder, by St. Peter & Friends.

It doesnt matter what you believe. we know where the Chair of St Peter is. that is what separates the True Church from the rest. or you dont think our Lord knew that would be dispute and confusion on this issue of the True Church? i think He did so HE has given us the way to know His True Church, He gave us a sheppard to lead His people. He said, Peter do you love me? Peter said, yes Lord. Feed my sheep…
and He also said, there are others that will be brought into the fold and that is us the gentiles. gentiles were brought in into the fold by our Lord to also be fed by Peter.

With so many self made churches dont you think our Lord was going leave us without a sign of the True Church, His Church? do you? well, He did leave us a sign to know the Truth. St Peter’s chair.

 

[EvanISOT]

ByzCath,

I didn’t know the pearls (there are REAL pearls, you know) involved killing people. If you have a point to make, make it, friend, I understand your definition of murder. If you’re strong enough to parry my sarcasm and just argue the point, and not get lost in definitions or ad hominem attacks (like your most recent post), I’ll consider it, you have my word.

WisdomSeeker,

Okay, you make a good point…for nearly a 1000 years, the whole Church was agreed on some of what you said, although more in esteem than authority, with regard to St. Peter’s Chair. Now, if you would, answer me this, because I’ve honestly been confused as to how Catholics get around it: after the great schism, the Pope was the ONLY remaining Patriarch, correct? The other four of the original Pentarchy disowned him for his arrogance towards the Patriarch of Constantinople.

So you cry fowl that we’re not in communion with St. Peter’s Chair, but we cry fowl that he was arrogant enough to continue rogue of the original Pentarchy. I think we have a legitimate grievance.

Thanks,
Evan

 

[wisdomseeker]

ByzCath,

I didn’t know the pearls (there are REAL pearls, you know) involved killing people. If you have a point to make, make it, friend, I understand your definition of murder. If you’re strong enough to parry my sarcasm and just argue the point, and not get lost in definitions or ad hominem attacks (like your most recent post), I’ll consider it, you have my word.

WisdomSeeker,

Okay, you make a good point…for nearly a 1000 years, the whole Church was agreed on some of what you said, although more in esteem than authority, with regard to St. Peter’s Chair. Now, if you would, answer me this, because I’ve honestly been confused as to how Catholics get around it: after the great schism, the Pope was the ONLY remaining Patriarch, correct? The other four of the original Pentarchy disowned him for his arrogance towards the Patriarch of Constantinople.

So you cry fowl that we’re not in communion with St. Peter’s Chair, but we cry fowl that he was arrogant enough to continue rogue of the original Pentarchy. I think we have a legitimate grievance.

Thanks,
Evan

arrogance or not that is their opinion. the greatest arrogance here is towards God and when one separates himself from St Peter and do not repent and turn back. things has happened in teh past none of us is perfect and if some squables happened between them, it is time to recognize and submit to St Peter’s authority not because St Peter wants to rule over them like the world power do but like Jesus has commanded. the CC has helped the Orthodox church many times including sending the Crusaders to die for them. What God has done no man can undo. if Jesus made St Peter the highest authority in teh Church then who are we to say that he cannot rule over us? if we do, we find ourselves fighting against God. this is the greatest arrogance of all. i think that the Orthodox church can greately help us at times where we are alone fighting the world. i would be full of joy to see the EO and the CC coming together for the sake of the Kingdom. they are both beautifull and a light to the world. the world is in darkness.

 

[EvanISOT]

Dear Wisdomseeker,

if Jesus made St Peter the highest authority in teh Church then who are we to say that he cannot rule over us?

I heartily agree with you, but it’s the “if” that’s the real problem here, and unfortunately, we’ll have to agree to disagree on that condition, with no executions for heresy on either side please.

i would be full of joy to see the EO and the CC coming together for the sake of the Kingdom. they are both beautifull and a light to the world. the world is in darkness.

This time I agree without reservations. Only that I think sadly it may be unrealistic that this will ever happen…too many developments have taken place in the RCC that make us very suspicious of its faithfulness to the Apostolic/Patristic tradition it once defended…and no matter how many liberal Patriarchs we have, I highly doubt an union would ever happen…and if it did, you better believe there would be nasty schisms on both sides, especially the Orthodox.

In any case, you’re right, our world is in darkness, and relative to it, I think both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have light to offer our culture, we’ve got a lot worse to worry about than religious problems nowadays, unfortunately.

Regards,
Evan

 

[Benadam]

I think it rare for someones’ continued existence in the flesh to be a threat for a technilogically advanced society.

OTOH if a society is without a state gevernment that is able to enforce law the occassional lynching may be necessary.

But;

If the Church were not divided and the societies of the world were governed by law that flowed from her, a heretic would be rightly removed. If the heresy threatened society the heretics execution could be necessary.

I know that’s extreme but my point is, the conditions of the time have to be included in moral decisions. I don’t know if burning heretics was ever necessary but the perception of those that supported it seems understandable given the social position of the Roman Catholic Church back then. After all wasn’t Phineas praised for executing the Hebrew and the Canaanite woman?

Hypothetical:

A thousand years from now all human societies recognize the dignity of human life from conception to natural death. A doctor who performs abortions is treated as a murderer. Perhaps society is threatened by his existence winthin it. He is removed without question.

If one reverses this historical concept and applies it to the conditions of the middle ages as percieved by people of that time, it is more understandable how an obstinate heretic would be percieved as a serious eneogh threat to society to be removed.

The person of the future in my hypothetical would be horrified that abortion doctors aren’t treated like criminals.

I disagree with the idea that Our Saviour’s desire that all men be saved is reason to believe that they will be taken care of, or is reason eneogh to not consider those falling into error, that people falling away from the faith should not be bothersome. This seems to be a sin of omission.:twocents:

 

[shaky]

I think it rare for someones’ continued existence in the flesh to be a threat for a technilogically advanced society.

OTOH if a society is without a state gevernment that is able to enforce law the occassional lynching may be necessary.

But;

If the Church were not divided and the societies of the world were governed by law that flowed from her, a heretic would be rightly removed. If the heresy threatened society the heretics execution could be necessary.

I know that’s extreme but my point is, the conditions of the time have to be included in moral decisions. I don’t know if burning heretics was ever necessary but the perception of those that supported it seems understandable given the social position of the Roman Catholic Church back then. After all wasn’t Phineas praised for executing the Hebrew and the Canaanite woman?

Hypothetical:

A thousand years from now all human societies recognize the dignity of human life from conception to natural death. A doctor who performs abortions is treated as a murderer. Perhaps society is threatened by his existence winthin it. He is removed without question.

If one reverses this historical concept and applies it to the conditions of the middle ages as percieved by people of that time, it is more understandable how an obstinate heretic would be percieved as a serious eneogh threat to society to be removed.

The person of the future in my hypothetical would be horrified that abortion doctors aren’t treated like criminals.

I disagree with the idea that Our Saviour’s desire that all men be saved is reason to believe that they will be taken care of, or is reason eneogh to not consider those falling into error, that people falling away from the faith should not be bothersome. This seems to be a sin of omission.:twocents:

Hi benadam

From my point of view how i see things. The Orthodox church want to stay with the Original teachings of the church in the first 1,000 years.

Why does the Roman catholic church want to change things Like having a head patriarch,
Filioque, married bishops, Divorce and remarriage, purgatory, etc. There are other issues as-well.
All these changes have taken place after the first 1,000 years.

Surly making these changes is the cause of schism. You have only got to look at the protestant churches with all there different changes with divisions as an example.

 

[Benadam]

Hi benadam

From my point of view how i see things. The Orthodox church want to stay with the Original teachings of the church in the first 1,000 years.

Why does the Roman catholic church want to change things Like having a head patriarch,
Filioque, married bishops, Divorce and remarriage, purgatory, etc. There are other issues as-well.
All these changes have taken place after the first 1,000 years.

Surly making these changes is the cause of schism. You have only got to look at the protestant churches with all there different changes with divisions as an example.

Just because something causes schism doesn’t mean it wasn’t good to do. Jesus taught things that caused schism, we can’t expect the Holy spirit to teach things that never cause schism. Although I do highly appreciate the orthodox view of pronouncing doctrin dogma. The necessity has to out value the broken bonds. OTOH breaking bonds isn’t always bad just painfull.

What’s so special about 1000 years after Christ?

I think it possible there were some things lost between the very beginning and 1000 yrs ago. Suppose Peter’s relationship with the other Apostles in relation to teaching authority was something buried alive in traditions of men by the year 1000?

Spiritual doors only open in front of certain people and those people have traditionally had roles in salvation history exclusive to themselves.

When it comes to dogma, the Catholic Church doesn’t change teaching but guards it. If it makes something dogma it’s usually because it’s become a necessity to it’s mission.

We want to stick to the original teachings too and don’t believe we have changed the teaching handed down to us.

If Peter did not become someone with a higher order of authority then there is no reason to even call him first. If first is exclusive at all then it is inherently of a higher order.

To me it’s like a band of brothers who have what their father passed on to them. They all developed deeper understanding of what their father taught them. But at some point the brother’s didn’t agree on what was deeper understanding.

 

[EvanISOT]

Benadam,

What’s so special about 1000 years after Christ?

Some of your theologians consider Bernard of Clairvaux to be the last of the Church Fathers…have you ever heard of the “Church Fathers”? The first 1000 years after Christ, as opposed to the second, may have significance for those who think Patristic testimony and wisdom is still beneficial; unfortunately, if you consider yourself wiser than them because of the time period in which you live, you’ve caught the virus known as modernism.

And the discussion among these Fathers, IMHO, was much more thoughtful and deep than what you said here:

If Peter did not become someone with a higher order of authority then there is no reason to even call him first. If first is exclusive at all then it is inherently of a higher order.

You very easily dismiss an entire hemisphere of Christianity along with some of its better disputes as though there were no cause for debate. I guess that settles all my doubts. Where can I sign up to be a Roman Catholic?

Have you ever heard the expression “first among equals”? That is what St. Peter was among the other Apostles, and as you so nicely put it, what’s the difference between then and now? The difference is that your Papacy has desecrated Christ’s Church in its own distorted way, and tried to pass itself off as the real deal. But I suppose with your infallible logic about your (conditionally) infallible Pope, I have no room to spread the light of reason; perhaps we should remain in the Medieval Western mindset forever. Though perhaps that mindset shouldn’t have so easily dismissed the Patristic mindset. What a waste of intellectual willpower.

Dear Shaky,

I apologize if I sounded a bit sarcastic in my response to Benadam…but I thought your observations were very relevant, and his response to you was very condescending and dismissive without much meat and potatoes to justify such a response.

Regards,
Evan

 

[Benadam]

Benadam,

Some of your theologians consider Bernard of Clairvaux to be the last of the Church Fathers…have you ever heard of the “Church Fathers”? The first 1000 years after Christ, as opposed to the second, may have significance for those who think Patristic testimony and wisdom is still beneficial; unfortunately, if you consider yourself wiser than them because of the time period in which you live, you’ve caught the virus known as modernism.

And the discussion among these Fathers, IMHO, was much more thoughtful and deep than what you said here:

 

[shaky]

Just because something causes schism doesn’t mean it wasn’t good to do. Jesus taught things that caused schism, we can’t expect the Holy spirit to teach things that never cause schism. Although I do highly appreciate the orthodox view of pronouncing doctrin dogma. The necessity has to out value the broken bonds. OTOH breaking bonds isn’t always bad just painfull.

What’s so special about 1000 years after Christ?

I think it possible there were some things lost between the very beginning and 1000 yrs ago. Suppose Peter’s relationship with the other Apostles in relation to teaching authority was something buried alive in traditions of men by the year 1000?

Spiritual doors only open in front of certain people and those people have traditionally had roles in salvation history exclusive to themselves.

When it comes to dogma, the Catholic Church doesn’t change teaching but guards it. If it makes something dogma it’s usually because it’s become a necessity to it’s mission.

We want to stick to the original teachings too and don’t believe we have changed the teaching handed down to us.

If Peter did not become someone with a higher order of authority then there is no reason to even call him first. If first is exclusive at all then it is inherently of a higher order.

To me it’s like a band of brothers who have what their father passed on to them. They all developed deeper understanding of what their father taught them. But at some point the brother’s didn’t agree on what was deeper understanding.

Hi benadem.

I would not think such an important teaching that Peter being supreme Apostle over Paul and the rest of the Apostles could be lost during the first thousand years. There has always been 5 patriarchs up an till 1054. Peter happened to be the Head bishop of Rome in the beginning James was the head bishop of Jerusalem Paul became the head bishop of Antioch.
Peter was the first disciple called by Jesus. Later Jesus gave Peter keys which was the responsibility to build the church. which was with the help of the rest of the Apostles. Paul came a while later.
Even if the 2 churches come together today you will always have a head bishop, Patriarch of the Roman catholic church which is the Pope which goes all the way back to Peter.
Each Patriarch, head bishop is a Pope in the Orthodox church. which will go all the way back to the other Apostles.
It seems the split is caused by a power struggle caused by Rome. The Romans always want to be in charge. Its in there nature, there blood. Rome was always going round conquering lands all over the place. So the wanted to be in charge of the whole church.

You ask what is so special about 1000 years after christ. If you study all the differences in church teaching between the 2 churches. They all happened after about 1000 years.
Bishops and priests not to be married came in about the 1200 centuary as a example. All these changes has really has put the wedge in between the 2 churches.

Ok you can try to have deeper understanding of the bible to try and get more truth. But talk to a Jehovah witness. There understanding is so deep they think there the only ones with the truth and because of this they think everybody else is lost.

 

[EvanISOT]

Hey Benadam,

Which other Apostle did Jesus give the keys too? Which one got a new name given by Jesus? Those things are meaningless I’m sure when everyone is equal. Which father called Peter first among equals?

He gave the keys to Peter, naturally, but how does this show that he is not primus inter pares; in fact, you can look this phrase up on Wikipedia and it’ll give you some government/ecclesiastical historical use of the phrase. Naturally, you and I could throw Patristic quotations at each other until we’re blue in the face, but I don’t think that would achieve anything. There’s obviously some sort’ve impasse here, and the Catholic unwillingness to admit this seems like fairy-tale land. At least the more traditional Orthodox leaders say union will never happen; the Pope seems to think it’s imminent.

Debate isn’t dismissed if not mentioned.

My apologies, how about the Eastern argument that the Pope overstepped his authority, and that conciliar Christianity is true Christianity, conciliarity of ALL the Patriarchs, not just one of the original five (Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Constantinople). Okay, now it’s no longer straw man, I’ve laid it out there. You see, that’s what strikes me the most about the Great Schism: I can’t see there being a possibility of arrogance except for the West, because the Pope was willing to sacrifice his brothers rather than get off his newly acquired high horse (you acknowledge, I assume, that this hadn’t posed this great of a problem for the first 800 or so years of Christian history…and I believe even during this history, there was a Pope, and four other Patriarchs with him). How can you believe that it was the Orthodox that innovated, or that Rome didn’t?

And I’m equal to St Peter so are you.

I’m not a bishop, so the second part of your statement is incorrect; but if you’re a bishop, then by all means, by Orthodox philosophy (patristic philosophy) you are indeed equal to St. Peter’s successor IN AUTHORITY; you have one vote at the council just like the Pope does, but less esteem.

He would see you as you see me. But wouldn’t you say when it comes to spreading the gospel the Roman Catholic church has lead the way and consequently has a more universal characteristic?

Haha, don’t make assumptions now…how do you think I see you?

I must confess, the very apparent lack of Orthodoxy’s success in the West kind’ve bothers me. So in this sense, I have to agree with you: the RC Church has done a marvelous job gaining higher membership, and if you consider this alone to be “spreading the gospel,” I grant that fully. But (and this also requires faith on my part, as your thought does as well) in my limited experience, I’ve seen a lot of insincere Catholics, and comparatively much fewer insincere Orthodox…so is this massive lop-sidedness in favor of Catholicism necessarily a good sign for the RC Church? Membership, yes, but given all the cultural reasons it has higher membership, I’m not so sure this is a spiritual success that can be used to put Orthodoxy down in this regard.

Regards,
Evan

 

[Benadam]

I would not think such an important teaching that Peter being supreme Apostle over Paul and the rest of the Apostles could be lost during the first thousand years.

***And the ten hearing it, began to be much displeased at James and John. But Jesus calling them, saith to them: You know that they who seem to rule over the Gentiles, lord it over them: and their princes have power over them. But it is not so among you: but whosoever will be greater, shall be your minister. And whosoever will be first **among you, shall be the servant of all. *

Peter’s authority was not asserted but exercised by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Acts:15 6-8
***And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. [7] And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. ***

Ok you can try to have deeper understanding of the bible to try and get more truth. But talk to a Jehovah witness. There understanding is so deep they think there the only ones with the truth and because of this they think everybody else is lost.

But the JW has to deny what was formerly believed, Hall mark of a new faith not a deeper understanding.
I agree with you about many things. There are things that in hinesight should have been handled differently. I think there should have been more sensitivity in regards to the filioque. But the theology is sound. The wound was not delivered by theology but by false perceptions on both sides concerning agreed upon boundaries. The Creed for instance. The west was insensitive to their eastern brother’s.

Peace of Christ.