Are most Catholics excommunicated?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Little_Les
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ontologysue said:
No, because they used his concientious objections to rationalize violence to satisfy their own agenda. Luther himself never encouraged violence, in fact, he did the opposite.
Click to expand...
I recall reading stuff where Luther did in fact encourage violence, but nothing readily at hand and I’m not going to look.

However, here is a tidbit from the Calvinist Westminster Confession of Faith:
freechurch.org/resources/confessions/westminster.htm

III. The civil magistrate … yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered and observed.
Click to expand...
The fact that the Church could pronounce a Papal Bull that by logical implication states, even theoretically, it could be the will of God for a human being to be burned alive, is absurd. Sorry, I am Catholic but my higher conscience would object to that.
Click to expand...
So what forms of capital punishment would your conscience accept? Hanging? Beheading? Firing Squad? Gas? Lethal Injection. Or are you (and God) against capital punishment entirely?
We should remember there were no “due process”, rule of law protections for people who had the inflammatory and deadly epithet of “heretic” pinned to them. Far too often innocent people who simply disagreed with or antagaonized church leaders, people who were “politically incorrect” in our own jargon, were horribly tortured and killed.
Click to expand...
You provide no supporting sources. In any event, my understanding is that the Church/Inquisition Courts were far ahead of their time in due process. Far ahead of the contemporary civil courts.

And even today, one can get into court on trumped up charges.
 
SPH1 said:
I recall reading stuff where Luther did in fact encourage violence, but nothing readily at hand and I’m not going to look.
Click to expand...
Invocavit Sermons is just one example of Luther’s admonitions against violence of any kind. More evidence is on the side of Luther having been against than for violence.

In terms of your Calvinist Westminster Confession…

I would not disagree if you’re saying the Protestants succumbed to the same agendas, ie violent power struggles all in the name of keeping the “faith” pure.
SPH1 said:
You provide no supporting sources. In any event, my understanding is that the Church/Inquisition Courts were far ahead of their time in due process. Far ahead of the contemporary civil courts.
Click to expand...
You must be kidding! Yes, today trumped up charges can get one in to court but there’s about 100% more chance that that person will get out of the process in one piece. If the church wanted someone convicted, they were convicted, period.

I agree that the Inquisition was far less the atrocity it has been acused of being by modern historians, but, it is disengenuous of we Catholics to deny the dire consequences that resulted in this arbitrary process that resulted in nothing more than juridical murder.

I’m not making an argument for or against capital punishment, I think there are justifications for it, ie the Greek translation of the Commandment not to kill, in actuality translates, “do not murder.”

My argument is with the Church when “heretical beliefs” are used as a justification for murder. It happened to Our Lord.
 
Teflon93 said:
Absolutely wrong. In fact, Luther called for the murder of these peasants, and penned a vile tract on the subject.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, did you read the reference you listed? It makes my point, not yours. Luther’s articles were “retitled” without his knowledge to encourage violence… He consistently argued AGAINST violence. Your “vile tract” is nothing of the kind. It only shows how others intent on violence for their own reasons subverted everything Luther said to their own ends. Those sins are on their consciences, not Luther’s.

Before we start casting stones at the Protestants, should we not inwardlly ponder how history might have been different if the Church had not given way to the greed and corruption that percipitated the entire schism?
 
ontologysue said:
Excuse me, did you read the reference you listed? It makes my point, not yours. Luther’s articles were “retitled” without his knowledge to encourage violence… He consistently argued AGAINST violence. Your “vile tract” is nothing of the kind. It only shows how others intent on violence for their own reasons subverted everything Luther said to their own ends. Those sins are on their consciences, not Luther’s.

Before we start casting stones at the Protestants, should we not inwardlly ponder how history might have been different if the Church had not given way to the greed and corruption that percipitated the entire schism?
Click to expand...
I’ll be happy to quote it for you. You might want to read the thing before relying entirely on the wiki; I linked to that simply to point out it existed.

Having read the tract in question, Luther was not advocating nonviolence.

It is important to keep facts straight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top