Aquinas on heretics

[Benadam]

Evan, I regret that I will have to address your post at a later time. On the elevated order of Peter’s authority I answered somewhat in my post to shaky. I do want to clarify what I meant concerning the statement I wrote about equality.

benadam: 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.

All men are created equal. When we speak of authority we aren’t speaking of something that confers personal greatness in of it’self. We are speaking of something that the person of authority must live up to. I need to correct myself in that St Peter did live up to what love demanded of him and you and I are not yet finished.

***Mathew 23 ***
***Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not. ***

Jesus dignified the teaching authority of Moses that the scribes and Pharisees rightly possessed but did not attach that dignity to them personally. Jesus called them whitewashed tombs full of dead men’s bones. Yet taught that their teaching was to be obeyed.

Peace of Christ.

 

[shaky]

***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. ***

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.

Hi benadam

The point i am trying to get to is why was it that the supremacy of peter and then the Popes supremacy was not sorted out right from the very beginning of Church history.
Why was it about a 1000 years later this issue was raised

 

[markomalley]

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

While I would, in a modern, pluralistic context, have a really hard time punishing a heretic with death, I would think about how many souls have been condemned to eternal damnation as the result of heretics given unrestrained access to spread their filth and lies.

How many babies have died before having a chance to be born as a result of “Catholic” politicians buying into the heresy that one can be privately opposed to abortion but don’t feel it to be right to “impose their religious beliefs on others?”

We will not have any idea of how many souls have been lost as the result of the heresy of socialism (consistently condemned by the popes since the 19th century) being preached from the pulpit. Or the heresy of liberation theology being preached, despite it being explicitly condemned by the CDF. We really won’t know that answer until we reach heaven.

You can go back to the heresies of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli? How many poor, inadequately formed souls were lost to the heresies they preached? And how many continue to be lost (drawn from the true Faith handed down by the apostles) in each generation? (See 2 Cor 11:3-4)

The damage a heretic can do is incredible and can last for generations. And the damage done there can have eternal impact.

Makes Thomas’ solution to the problem seem a little less unreasonable when thinking about it in those terms (or at least, to me, it does). But in today’s world, I would be happy if the ecclesiastical authorities for us Latins would just be bold enough to call a heretic a heretic and call heresy heresy. That would be a huge start.

 

[Benadam]

Hi benadam

The point i am trying to get to is why was it that the supremacy of peter and then the Popes supremacy was not sorted out right from the very beginning of Church history.
Why was it about a 1000 years later this issue was raised

Shaky, I think in the beginning it was a given. It took a thousand years to become forgotten, to the point it had to be asserted in order to be preserved. Many things aren’t explicit in the NT not because they weren’t known but because they were.

 

[shaky]

Shaky, I think in the beginning it was a given. It took a thousand years to become forgotten, to the point it had to be asserted in order to be preserved. Many things aren’t explicit in the NT not because they weren’t known but because they were.

Hi Bedadam

Maybe Things could have been forgotten: But such a Important thing as Peters Supremacy
Being Lost is a bit hard to swallow.
When you Listen to pentecostals they say the Original Church teachings are Lost and they are trying to be Like the First century church. They seek baptism in the holy spirit
and speaking in tongues as evidence of there salvation.
If peter had the gift of being infallible over the rest of the Apostles as regards dogma
Why was the Gospel of Peter not canonised??

 

[clmowry]

Why was the Gospel of Peter not canonised??

Because it wasn’t written by St. Peter.

What St. Peter had to say seems to have been captured in writing by St. Mark.

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

Why was the Gospel of Peter not canonised??

Because it didn’t come directly from St. Peter or one of his companions.

What St. Peter wanted to have written seems to have been captured in writing by St. Mark.

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

Why was the Gospel of Peter not canonised??

Because it didn’t come directly from St. Peter or one of his companions.

What St. Peter had to say seems to have been captured in writing by St. Mark.

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

Why was the Gospel of Peter not canonised??

Because it didn’t come directly from St. Peter or one of his companions.

What St. Peter had to say seems to have been captured in writing by St. Mark.

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

shaky:
Why was the Gospel of Peter not canonized??

Because it didn’t come directly from St. Peter or one of his companions.

What St. Peter had to say seems to have been captured in writing by St. Mark.

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

shaky:
Why was the Gospel of Peter not canonized??

Because it didn’t come directly from St. Peter or one of his companions.

What St. Peter had to say seems to have been captured in writing by St. Mark.

Chuck

 

[Benadam]

Hi Bedadam

Maybe Things could have been forgotten: But such a Important thing as Peters Supremacy
Being Lost is a bit hard to swallow.
When you Listen to pentecostals they say the Original Church teachings are Lost and they are trying to be Like the First century church. They seek baptism in the holy spirit
and speaking in tongues as evidence of there salvation.
If peter had the gift of being infallible over the rest of the Apostles as regards dogma
Why was the Gospel of Peter not canonised??

Maybe so shaky.
I’m not familiar eneough with the Gospel of Peter. I figure it isn’t a gospel that actually comes from Peter or if it does it’s adulterated?

 

[clmowry]

Hmm…I guess it was posting…

 

[EvanISOT]

Mark O’ Malley,

If I may just briefly respond and voice my concerns.

I’m a rational (if sinful) human being, I understand that your position is perfectly tenable from a rigid logical perspective, reasoning from earlier principles. Okay? I’m not denying your rationality.

What frightens me about your rationality is that I so strongly believe that it could also be used by Marx, for instance, to defend his worldview, or any other schmuck who has no truths to their credit.

Calvin, Zwingli, etc., and their followers, were and are in grave error. But we Orthodox are not so correct by the teachings of your own Church. Perhaps Vatican II said some nice stuff about us but Vatican I explicitly declared us (through our beliefs about St. Peter’s role) as “anathema.” That’s not very nice :’-(.

And so, Mark, or anyone else who’s defended Aquinas on this point, I ask you, why don’t you burn us rotten heretics? Will you make some ridiculous excuse about how we live in a different world, and therefore the standards for killing people have to be polished up? Maybe just focus on the Jews and Hindus? Or maybe even heighten our standards to only killing secular humanists? Or perhaps we should kill you?

Don’t you see how ridiculous it is to leave such judgments in the hands of humans, no matter how sanctimonious they may deem themselves because of their being in the “true Church,” or what have you?

I’ve been reading some Thomas Aquinas recently, and also studying some history in my spare time (has NOTHING to do with my school or work, haha)…it turns out we Orthodox have a Saint who wanted to burn the heretics as well, Abbot Joseph Volotsky, who wanted to burn the “Judaizers.”

We also have Nilus of Sora, who is also a Saint in our Church, and opposed his contemporary St. Joseph on this and a few other matters, advocating freedom of conscience in matters of faith, and believing that the only right way to deal with these heretics was to persuade them of their wrongs BY EXAMPLE…wow, what a bizarre concept. Now, although these are both Saints, I look up to St. Nilus as being perhaps the more loving of the two, and the greatest of these is love.

Anyway, as a final thought…we have these two opposing figures both glorified in our Church, so where is your Saintly opposition to St. Thomas in the Roman Church, or does he stand alone as a beacon of rigid logic and death for the opposition?

Thanks,
Evan

 

[clmowry]

And so, Mark, or anyone else who’s defended Aquinas on this point, I ask you, why don’t you burn us rotten heretics?

Well let’s see, given that you are Orthodox no Catholic ecclesiastical court, or bishop would have authority to declare you a heretic.

But even if you were an obstinate Catholic heretic, and the Church declared you to be such, I can’t see how this could result in your death since today I don’t know of a country where the civil penalty for being a Catholic heretic would be death [in fact I don’t know of a country where there is any civil penalty for being a Catholic heretic today, but maybe there’s still an old law on the books out there somewhere?]

Civil authorities don’t do this any more. [Though, I guess you could still get yourself put to death for Apostasy from Islam in a dozen or so countries.]

That aside, I think the following teaching would apply in all cases where the death penalty was to be considered:

“2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity **“are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”**68”

Chuck

 

[shaky]

Maybe so shaky.
I’m not familiar eneough with the Gospel of Peter. I figure it isn’t a gospel that actually comes from Peter or if it does it’s adulterated?

Hi Benadam

I read that it was Constantine that legalised the Christian faith: Also when in came down to dogma, This was discussed between 300 bishops. Lets take the Trinity for a Example
what happens during the process there is a vote between the bishops to decide what a certain dogma is. All Constantine did was use his position to Authorise and Established the dogma on what the bishops decided.

Things are different now because you do not have a Emperor of Rome. How are things done today?
Is everything left to Just the Pope to decide regarding any new dogma to Establish?
Or is there a number of bishops that vote to decide what is dogma and all the Pope does
Is Authorise and Establish it?

 

[Benadam]

Hi Benadam

I read that it was Constantine that legalised the Christian faith: Also when in came down to dogma, This was discussed between 300 bishops. Lets take the Trinity for a Example
what happens during the process there is a vote between the bishops to decide what a certain dogma is. All Constantine did was use his position to Authorise and Established the dogma on what the bishops decided.

Things are different now because you do not have a Emperor of Rome. How are things done today?
Is everything left to Just the Pope to decide regarding any new dogma to Establish?
Or is there a number of bishops that vote to decide what is dogma and all the Pope does
Is Authorise and Establish it?

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.

 

[Benadam]

Mark O’ Malley,

And so, Mark, or anyone else who’s defended Aquinas on this point, I ask you, why don’t you burn us rotten heretics? Will you make some ridiculous excuse about how we live in a different world, and therefore the standards for killing people have to be polished up? Maybe just focus on the Jews and Hindus? Or maybe even heighten our standards to only killing secular humanists? Or perhaps we should kill you?

If one trully believes that man is need of salvation and that souls are in peril, then it follows that heresy can create conditions that damn souls. Any act that is necessary in order for man to return to God is natural and good to do. It may be a sin not to do whatever is required to end the scourge of heresy.

Numbers Ch 25 10-11

And the Lord said to Moses:

Phinees the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned away my wrath from the children of Israel:

A good act shouldn’t be something bound by custom.

But he said to them: What man shall there be among you, that hath one sheep: and if the same fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not take hold on it and lift it up? How much better is a man than a sheep?

 

[Benadam]

Mark O’ Malley,

Don’t you see how ridiculous it is to leave such judgments in the hands of humans, no matter how sanctimonious they may deem themselves because of their being in the “true Church,” or what have you?

Evan I reread this post and realized that I had not recognized your very valid concern.

It’s very dangerous to believe in a book written by God and to be a member of a people that God has chosen among men to teach the rest of the world what He wants them to know. The ultimate end for non-believers is conversion or destruction.

Fortunately Christ presented His followers with an example of self sacrifice. He taught us to love our enemies, to not return evil for evil. Without these safeguards, it would all too often be easy to decide slaughtering non-believers is an act of God. In the end only God has the authority to destroy those who refuse to believe what He has revealed to His people.

This danger is inherent in the religion of a people who believe they are chosen by God by reason of a book that comes from His inerrant hand. A contrasting example is Muhammed and the Quran which I believe lack sufficient safeguards in this respect.

The Cross prevents Christians from abandoning the duty of conversion and acting on God’s behalf as destroyer/judge. St Thomas Aquinas wasn’t teaching that sometimes it is a good for believers to destroy non-believers but sometimes it is a good to prevent non-believers from destroying believers.

I’m thinking that this difference is causing the problem you’re having with St Thomas Aquinas.

 

[markomalley]

BTW, I thought in my earlier response, I gave the citation from the Summa to which I thoguht you were referring (Summa II-II-10-8 and II-II-11-3 and 4)

Mark O’ Malley,

If I may just briefly respond and voice my concerns.

I’m a rational (if sinful) human being, I understand that your position is perfectly tenable from a rigid logical perspective, reasoning from earlier principles. Okay? I’m not denying your rationality.

What frightens me about your rationality is that I so strongly believe that it could also be used by Marx, for instance, to defend his worldview, or any other schmuck who has no truths to their credit.

Calvin, Zwingli, etc., and their followers, were and are in grave error. But we Orthodox are not so correct by the teachings of your own Church. Perhaps Vatican II said some nice stuff about us but Vatican I explicitly declared us (through our beliefs about St. Peter’s role) as “anathema.” That’s not very nice :’-(.

First of all, Calvin, Zwingli, et al, were notorious heretics. However, this would not come even close to applying to any living Presbyterian, Anabaptist, or other Protestant. Since they were not baptized in the Catholic Church, they would not fall under Canon Law to begin with and would, according to Aquinas’ thought, be classed as “unbelievers,” who are to be tolerated.

Frankly, most Orthodox with whom I speak on matters of faith consider us Latins to be the heretics, so I don’t think I’ll choose

And so, Mark, or anyone else who’s defended Aquinas on this point, I ask you, why don’t you burn us rotten heretics? Will you make some ridiculous excuse about how we live in a different world, and therefore the standards for killing people have to be polished up? Maybe just focus on the Jews and Hindus? Or maybe even heighten our standards to only killing secular humanists? Or perhaps we should kill you?

Again, if you were to actually read Aquinas, you would understand that he is not talking about non-Catholics, whom he says should be tolerated (II-II-10-8), but to those who call themselves Catholic but preach heresy. That is the point I’m defending and that is the point I will continue to defend. Sorry if it is a little too subtle a distinction to be readily accepted.

Don’t you see how ridiculous it is to leave such judgments in the hands of humans, no matter how sanctimonious they may deem themselves because of their being in the “true Church,” or what have you?

I’ve been reading some Thomas Aquinas recently, and also studying some history in my spare time (has NOTHING to do with my school or work, haha)…it turns out we Orthodox have a Saint who wanted to burn the heretics as well, Abbot Joseph Volotsky, who wanted to burn the “Judaizers.”

We also have Nilus of Sora, who is also a Saint in our Church, and opposed his contemporary St. Joseph on this and a few other matters, advocating freedom of conscience in matters of faith, and believing that the only right way to deal with these heretics was to persuade them of their wrongs BY EXAMPLE…wow, what a bizarre concept. Now, although these are both Saints, I look up to St. Nilus as being perhaps the more loving of the two, and the greatest of these is love.

Anyway, as a final thought…we have these two opposing figures both glorified in our Church, so where is your Saintly opposition to St. Thomas in the Roman Church, or does he stand alone as a beacon of rigid logic and death for the opposition?

Thanks,
Evan

Since you are studying Aquinas, I will ask you to re-read II-II-11-3, but only after you read II-II-10-8 for the proper context. (I would post them, but that would blow the 6000 character limit on responses out of the water)