Baptists vs. Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Epistemes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Most Baptists don’t really have any knowledge of the historical Church (they like most Christians simply assume their beliefs are the correct and original ones) and seeing how that clear Catholic beliefs and structures can historically verified back to the 100’s can be shocking when realized, as this flies in the face of many of their assumptions.

Also keep in mind that there are some Baptist congregations that are anti-intellectual. I don’t say that as an insult but to point out that there are some who think that reason, scholarship, and contextual study put up barriers to the Holy Spirit.
That was a well thought out post. I knew nothing about the early church (except for what was written in the NT) until recently and I am really trying to play catch up. My church does not believe that the vast majority of published history is correct, that it is a Catholic conspiracy to hide the truth of the “real church”. I have been very surprised that many people in our church do not as much Bible as I thought they would. They do know the proscribed verses all “good Baptists” should know i.e. “Roman’s Road”, and such. There are also many anti-Catholics which is really starting to irritate. If we are the “true church”-why should we lower ourselves to making fun of others?

I think David B. Currie was correct in “Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic”:
Catholics unashamedly start with the Gospels and base their soteriology on Jesus’ teachings. They look at all the ret of the New Testament as an expansion on Jesus, which must be understood in the light of his teachings.
Code:
 Evangelicals start their study of soteriology with the Pauline epistles. They relegate all the rest of the Bible to being a footnote to Paul, including the teachings of Jesus. This may sound like a harsh generalization, but a check of the Evangelical literature bears this out.
 
I don’t know if this helps any, but I’ll give it a try…

Let’s back track for a moment:
I ask for the help and intercession of those who are more alive than I am right now; who dwell in the presence of God and know the fullness of life.
Right. You want to violate the Bible’s condemnation of the act of praying to the dead.
Pastor Jim: Please clarify your position to avoid confusion. From what I’ve read it appears like you are purposefully trying to misrepresent what Catholics do/believe.

Strugglingalong made it perfectly clear that Catholics ask for intercession from those who “dwell in the presence of God.” Your response was an accusation that we are doing something contrary to biblical teaching. FLJames explained perfectly clearly (using scripture as requested) physical death vs. spiritual death (re: post 252). Your response: “So then, the “saints” you pray to all went to Heaven without dying first?”

**Pastor Jim, do you believe that Catholics pray for/ask for prayers from corpses or from *the living souls *of people whom they love and admire? **
 
This, of course, coming from someone who’s religion has actually put people to death in the name of combatting intellectual dissent.
If you were involed in this discussion for any reason other than to be argumentative you may have noticed that I didn’t post that as an insult but simply acknowledging that this a view point held by some within the broad range of Baptist congregations. Most importantly while it is a minority view within the Baptist fold it is one that is held even today and thus relavent to the discussion.

Additionally I always find it interesting that some Protestants really enjoy trying to play this card when during the same period of time they delt with things the same way. You may want to look at the persecutions of Catholics and dissenting Protestant groups in Scottland, Ireland and England, you may want to look at the burnings by Puritans and you may want to look at the fact that Witch burnings spiked with the coming of the Reformation. The people in those times were brutal. End of story. So if you think you’ve made some sort of clever retort by pointing a finger at Catholicism over this you may want to notice that three fingers are pointing back at you.
 
That was a well thought out post. I knew nothing about the early church (except for what was written in the NT) until recently and I am really trying to play catch up. My church does not believe that the vast majority of published history is correct, that it is a Catholic conspiracy to hide the truth of the “real church”. I have been very surprised that many people in our church do not as much Bible as I thought they would. They do know the proscribed verses all “good Baptists” should know i.e. “Roman’s Road”, and such. There are also many anti-Catholics which is really starting to irritate. If we are the “true church”-why should we lower ourselves to making fun of others?

I think David B. Currie was correct in “Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic”:
I think the writings of the ECFs are one of the greatest tools Christians have in helping them understand the way Jesus wanted them to live their lives…

In response to the OP… Catholics are much more inclined to listen to the opinions of the early Christians in helping them understand Scripture (or Catholic teachings) than a Baptist… I speak for myself when I say I would much rather trust the opinion of a Christian leader who lived in the 100s-300s over my own when it comes to understanding God’s message.

SD
 
This, of course, coming from someone who’s religion has actually put people to death in the name of combatting intellectual dissent.
OOOH, you do not want to go there - Baptists are guilty of religious killings a lot more recently than anyone in the Catholic Church, including the burning of several civil rights activists in Mississippi during the 1960s.

The Inquisitions of the Catholic Church had been shut down several centuries prior to that, I think? 🤷
 
OOOH, you do not want to go there - Baptists are guilty of religious killings a lot more recently than anyone in the Catholic Church, including the burning of several civil rights activists in Mississippi during the 1960s.
Really? Could you please explain which Baptist denomination decreed that civil rights workers should be burned?
40.png
rtconstant:
If you were involed in this discussion for any reason other than to be argumentative you may have noticed that I didn’t post that as an insult
Odd that you say I shouldn’t be offended by your claims about Baptists, but then you turn around and waste no time feigning offense at mine.
but simply acknowledging that this a view point held by some within the broad range of Baptist congregations. Most importantly while it is a minority view within the Baptist fold it is one that is held even today and thus relavent to the discussion.
OK. What Baptist holds this view and, if this is true, why have Baptists established some of the finest colleges and universities and seminaries in the world?
Additionally I always find it interesting that some Protestants really enjoy trying to play this card when during the same period of time they delt with things the same way.
Could you please show an example of Protestants or Baptists killing Catholics in the name of “anti-intellectualism”?
You may want to look at the persecutions of Catholics and dissenting Protestant groups in Scottland, Ireland and England, you may want to look at the burnings by Puritans and you may want to look at the fact that Witch burnings spiked with the coming of the Reformation.
Source?
The people in those times were brutal. End of story. So if you think you’ve made some sort of clever retort by pointing a finger at Catholicism over this you may want to notice that three fingers are pointing back at you.
I was just pointing out an historical fact. Why, I’m sure I didn’t mean it as an insult.
40.png
GeorgiaPeach:
Pastor Jim, do you believe that Catholics pray for/ask for prayers from corpses or from the living souls of people whom they love and admire?
I believe that Catholics pray to those who have died, whom they believe have special spiritual authorities and can grant them favor with God.
SD Catholic:
I’m sure you would be satisfied with your answer but it didn’t answer my question so I have to keep asking it… Is a soul Dead or Alive when it’s with God in heaven? I beg you to answer one more time… pleeeeease!!! remember I’m not asking for the extras on getting there, just the alive or dead part once they’re there.
I suppose I could answer it a fifth time, but I don’t see the point. If you couldn’t understand it the first four times, I don’t see why you would understand it now.
 
Really? Could you please explain which Baptist denomination decreed that civil rights workers should be burned?
When you can tell me which Catholic Church official ever said that it was okay to torture and kill people during an Inquisition. (HINT: It never happened - the people who did those things were acting on their own initiative, and against Church teaching - just like the Baptists who killed civil rights workers on the basis of their religious beliefs.)
 
When you can tell me which Catholic Church official ever said that it was okay to torture and kill people during an Inquisition.
This is what is commonly known as “moving the goalposts”. I never said anything about an inquisition.

You did, however, say that Baptists killed several civil rights workers as a part of “religious killings”.

I am asking you to back up your statement.
 
When you can tell me which Catholic Church official ever said that it was okay to torture and kill people during an Inquisition.
IV Lateran:
Those condemned, being handed over to the secular rulers of their bailiffs, let them be abandoned, to be punished with due justice, clerics being first degraded from their orders. As to the property of the condemned, if they are laymen, let it be confiscated; if clerics, let it be applied to the churches from which they received revenues. But those who are only suspected, due consideration being given to the nature of the suspicion and the character of the person, unless they prove their innocence by a proper defense, let them be anathematized and avoided by all 1-intil they have made suitable satisfaction; but if they have been under excommunication for one year, then let them be condemned as heretics. Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath.
Even more explicitly, the papal encyclical Exsurge Domine condemns this proposition of Martin Luther:
  1. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
So we have a Council saying that heretics should be handed over to the civil authorities for “extermination,” and lest you say that this did not include the death penalty (even though we know historically that it often did), we have a papal encyclical explicitly condemning the proposition that the Holy Spirit doesn’t want heretics to be burned.

Edwin
 
In 2000 Pope John Paul II called for an “Inquisition Symposium”, and opened the Vatican to 30 external historians. Their findings called into question certain long-held beliefs. It emerged that more women accused of witchcraft died in the Protestant countries than under the Inquisition. For example, the Inquisition burned 59 women in Spain, 36 in Italy and 4 in Portugal, while in Europe civil justice put to trial close to 100,000 women and burned 50,000 of them.[11][12] 26,000 condemned “witches” died in Germany.[13]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

Yes, burning of heretics is indeed wrong. I do not support the dark past that Christians had. But make sure you look in the mirror before you start pointing fingers.
 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

Yes, burning of heretics is indeed wrong. I do not support the dark past that Christians had. But make sure you look in the mirror before you start pointing fingers.
Baptists had nothing to do with this. And secondarily the comparison of Protestant governments in general to the Inquisition in particular is asymmetrical. Catholic civil authorities were just as bad in terms of witch-burning as Protestant governments, by and large (it varied by region). The contrast is not between Catholics and Protestants but between the Church court using Roman law and the local civil courts which were less concerned for justice and humanity and more prone to get carried away by panic.

It has also been suggested by some scholars that areas such as Spain where the Inquisition was strong were not as fierce in the hunt for witches because they were too busy hunting for heretics. (I think this is rather unfair to the Inquisition, by the way.)

Your point that sixteenth-century governments were generally engaged in dealing out brutal punishments to some group of people whom we wouldn’t persecute today is generally a fair one. But it isn’t going to make much impression on Baptists, who are opposed to church-state alliances in the first place. (We Anglicans, on the other hand, really do have no leg to stand on!)

Edwin
 
So we have a Council saying that heretics should be handed over to the civil authorities for “extermination,” and lest you say that this did not include the death penalty (even though we know historically that it often did), we have a papal encyclical explicitly condemning the proposition that the Holy Spirit doesn’t want heretics to be burned.

Edwin
Let me double check that for you…

You got this from the Fordham.edu website

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html
Text. We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that raises against the holy, orthodox and Catholic faith which we have above explained; condemning all heretics under whatever names they may be known, for while they have different faces they are nevertheless bound to each other by their tails, since in all of them vanity is a common element. Those condemned, being handed over to the secular rulers of their bailiffs, let them be abandoned, to be punished with due justice, clerics being first degraded from their orders. As to the property of the condemned, if they are laymen, let it be confiscated; if clerics, let it be applied to the churches from which they received revenues. But those who are only suspected, due consideration being given to the nature of the suspicion and the character of the person, unless they prove their innocence by a proper defense, let them be anathematized and avoided by all 1-intil they have made suitable satisfaction; but if they have been under excommunication for one year, then let them be condemned as heretics. Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath. But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action. The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land.
And another source… (that I found)

dailycatholic.org/history/12ecume1.htm
We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and catholic faith which we have expounded above. We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under. They have different faces indeed but their tails are tied together inasmuch as they are alike in their pride. Let those condemned be handed over to the secular authorities present, or to their bailiffs, for due punishment. Clerics are first to be degraded from their orders. The goods of the condemned are to be confiscated, if they are lay persons, and if clerics they are to be applied to the churches from which they received their stipends. Those who are only found suspect of heresy are to be struck with the sword of anathema, unless they prove their innocence by an appropriate purgation, having regard to the reasons for suspicion and the character of the person. Let such persons be avoided by all until they have made adequate satisfaction. If they persist in the excommunication for a year, they are to be condemned as heretics. Let secular authorities, whatever offices they may be discharging, be advised and urged and if necessary be compelled by ecclesiastical censure, if they wish to be reputed and held to be faithful, **to take publicly an oath for the defence of the faith to the effect that they will seek, in so far as they can, to expel from the lands subject to their jurisdiction all heretics designated by the church in good faith. **Thus whenever anyone is promoted to spiritual or temporal authority, he shall be obliged to confirm this article with an oath. If however a temporal lord, required and instructed by the church, neglects to cleanse his territory of this heretical filth, he shall be bound with the bond of excommunication by the metropolitan and other bishops of the province. If he refuses to give satisfaction within a year, this shall be reported to the supreme pontiff so that he may then declare his vassals absolved from their fealty to him and make the land available for occupation by Catholics so that these may, after they have expelled the heretics, possess it unopposed and preserve it in the purity of the faith – saving the right of the suzerain provided that he makes no difficulty in the matter and puts no impediment in the way. The same law is to be observed no less as regards those who do not have a suzerain.
Now is it just me or does it seem like your term “exterminate” probably had a different meaning back in 1215. I also doubt the council was in English so it was probably a translation that we both are using. However, because both versions are different, I hardly think that “exterminate” means the same now as it did in the year 1215. Just a thought…
 
Odd that you say I shouldn’t be offended by your claims about Baptists, but then you turn around and waste no time feigning offense at mine.
Yeah, see that sort of feigned ignorance isn’t going to fly here. I used to be a Baptist from a family of various types of Baptists. If you have had much experience with various Baptist congregations then you know exactly what I’m talking about. I have an aunt and a cousin that attend one. So sorry they are out there but as I said it is a minority. Its interesting you’re pretending to be offended when those who attend those Churchs would be proud of what I described.

By the way I wasn’t feigning offense at what you said about The Church you’re just ignorant of history. I used to be the same way. I sympathize with you, I’m not angry at you for your statements.
OK. What Baptist holds this view and, if this is true, why have Baptists established some of the finest colleges and universities and seminaries in the world?
Never claimed otherwise. I attended a Baptist college. That’s what happens when you’re only looking to be offended and argumentative. It causes you to not read things through.

My aunt, and cousin attend a Missionary Baptist Church. My parents were Hard Shell Baptists (when they were younger) they had a similar out look. Additionally, region can have an impact on this as Baptist Churches tend to be highly democratic and autonamous. If you’re Baptist then you know that there can be a drastic difference in practice between congregations even whenin the same denomination. Even in larger more organized denoms like the SBC one can find Churches that range from Fundamentalist to conservative to very liberal.
Could you please show an example of Protestants or Baptists killing Catholics in the name of “anti-intellectualism”?
A History of the Rise and Influence of Rationalism in Europe (1865): The Presbyterians through a long succession of reigns were imprisoned, branded, mutilated, scourged, and exposed in the pillory. Many Catholics under false pretences were tortured and hung. Anabaptists and Arians were burned alive … In Scotland, during nearly the whole period that the Stuarts were on the throne of England, a persecution rivalling in atrocity almost any on record was directed by the English government, at the instigation of the Scotch bishops, and with the approbation of the English church, against all who repudiated episcopacy … The Presbyterians were hunted like criminals over the mountains. Their ears were torn from the roots. They were branded with hot irons. Their fingers were wrenched asunder by thumbkins. The bones of their legs were shattered in the boots. Women were scourged publicly through the streets. Multitudes were transported to Barbados, infuriated soldiers were let loose upon them, and encouraged to exercise all their ingenuity in torturing them …

The Protestants in continental Europe were no better than their British counterparts. In Switzerland many Anabaptist [a] were executed by drowning, considered by many a fitting end to these “double baptizers”. The Anabaptists were not the only people persecuted by the Calvinists; the freethinker Gentilis was killed by the axe, while the Unitarian Servetus was burned at the stake.

In Holland, where Calvinism was the official religion, things were not much better. In the seventeenth century, there flourished a Christian sect called Aminianism which teaches a modified doctrine of predestination. They were not tolerated by the Dutch Calvinists. The Arminian Barneveldt was beheaded as a traitor in 1619, while another prominet Arminian, Grotius, was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Haught, Holy Horrors: p109-111
Knight, Humanist Anthology: p113-114
Robertson, History of Christianity: p206-207
I was just pointing out an historical fact. Why, I’m sure I didn’t mean it as an insult.
Oh, just helping out eh? Strange you took offence when I just pointed out a current fact.
I believe that Catholics pray to those who have died, whom they believe have special spiritual authorities and can grant them favor with God.
Correction, Catholics pray to and with those who are joined with them in the Body of Christ. These are those who have gone on to experience Life Everlasting. The fact that we are dying but they have life eternal does not seperate us. I appreciate the fact that stated what you thought we believed clearly though.
I suppose I could answer it a fifth time, but I don’t see the point. If you couldn’t understand it the first four times, I don’t see why you would understand it now.
He couldn’t understand because your answers have been incomplete or self-contradictory. You either believe that heaven is populated with death or you believe those who are with Christ are alive for evermore. There isn’t a middle ground on this one.
 
Yeah, see that sort of feigned ignorance isn’t going to fly here. I used to be a Baptist from a family of various types of Baptists. If you have had much experience with various Baptist congregations then you know exactly what I’m talking about. I have an aunt and a cousin that attend one. So sorry they are out there but as I said it is a minority. Its interesting you’re pretending to be offended when those who attend those Churchs would be proud of what I described.
And yet, when I asked you who these people were, you were unable to give any examples.
By the way I wasn’t feigning offense at what you said about The Church you’re just ignorant of history.
Actually, my first grad degree was in history and I taught history at both the high school and colegiate levels.
My aunt, and cousin attend a Missionary Baptist Church. My parents were Hard Shell Baptists (when they were younger) they had a similar out look.
And, surely, you can show evidence that these two Baptist groups are “anti-intellectual”?
A History of the Rise and Influence of Rationalism in Europe (1865): The Presbyterians through a long succession of reigns were imprisoned, branded, mutilated, scourged, and exposed in the pillory. Many Catholics under false pretences were tortured and hung. Anabaptists and Arians were burned alive … In Scotland, during nearly the whole period that the Stuarts were on the throne of England, a persecution rivalling in atrocity almost any on record was directed by the English government, at the instigation of the Scotch bishops, and with the approbation of the English church, against all who repudiated episcopacy … The Presbyterians were hunted like criminals over the mountains. Their ears were torn from the roots. They were branded with hot irons. Their fingers were wrenched asunder by thumbkins. The bones of their legs were shattered in the boots. Women were scourged publicly through the streets. Multitudes were transported to Barbados, infuriated soldiers were let loose upon them, and encouraged to exercise all their ingenuity in torturing them …
And your evidence that this was done by Baptists or that they were based on “anti-intellectualism”…?
The Protestants in continental Europe were no better than their British counterparts. In Switzerland many Anabaptist [a] were executed by drowning, considered by many a fitting end to these “double baptizers”. The Anabaptists were not the only people persecuted by the Calvinists; the freethinker Gentilis was killed by the axe, while the Unitarian Servetus was burned at the stake.
Actually, Servetus was killed because of his heresy, not because of “anti-intellectualism”.
In Holland, where Calvinism was the official religion, things were not much better. In the seventeenth century, there flourished a Christian sect called Aminianism which teaches a modified doctrine of predestination. They were not tolerated by the Dutch Calvinists. The Arminian Barneveldt was beheaded as a traitor in 1619, while another prominet Arminian, Grotius, was sentenced to life imprisonment.
And you’re basing your claim that this was an exercise in “anti-intellectualism” on what, exactly?
Oh, just helping out eh? Strange you took offence when I just pointed out a current fact.
A “fact” that you have so far been unable to show any evidence for.
Correction, Catholics pray to and with those who are joined with them in the Body of Christ. These are those who have gone on to experience Life Everlasting. The fact that we are dying but they have life eternal does not seperate us. I appreciate the fact that stated what you thought we believed clearly though.
I disagree. They have died. Therefore, they are dead. So, in addition to sinning by praying to those other than God, you are sinning by violating God’s condemnation of praying to the dead.
He couldn’t understand because your answers have been incomplete or self-contradictory.
Actually, my answers were not contradictory at all and were not incomplete.
You either believe that heaven is populated with death or you believe those who are with Christ are alive for evermore. There isn’t a middle ground on this one.
So then, you believe that no one in Heaven died?
 
I disagree. They have died. Therefore, they are dead. So, in addition to sinning by praying to those other than God, you are sinning by violating God’s condemnation of praying to the dead.
That is not true at all. There are many verses of scripture where God says that we will live even after we die. This is fundamental of Christianity.

John 11:25-26
25Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

I know how much you like this one…
John 6:51
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

With regard to “praying to the dead”, firstly we are not praying to them. We are asking them to pray for us or for others. It is the same as asking you friend or mother or sister to pray for you. Why? Because they are alive just as much as your friend or mother or sister is. They can pray for us like your friend can. The difference is that the people in Heaven are right there next to God! What an amazing prayer they can do for us when they are in Heaven already!
So then, you believe that no one in Heaven died?
It is true that many people in heaven died on earth, almost all of them. But because they remained in with the Lord, they are now alive with Him in Heaven. They are not dead in some fable Hades pool. Again, these are basic principles of Christianity, not just Catholicism.
 
That is not true at all. There are many verses of scripture where God says that we will live even after we die. This is fundamental of Christianity.
That’s right: AFTER…WE…DIE.
With regard to “praying to the dead”, firstly we are not praying to them.
Actually, Catholics do pray to them.
It is the same as asking you friend or mother or sister to pray for you.
The obvious difference, of course, is (a) I’m not praying to my friend or mother or sister and (b) my friend and mother and sister are not dead.
Why? Because they are alive just as much as your friend or mother or sister is.
I disagree. They did die.
They can pray for us like your friend can. The difference is that the people in Heaven are right there next to God! What an amazing prayer they can do for us when they are in Heaven already!
Could you please show me which verse tells us that God is more likely to listen to a prayer based on the proximity of the supplicant?
It is true that many people in heaven died on earth, almost all of them.
So then they are dead.
Again, these are basic principles of Christianity, not just Catholicism.
How can this be, when the Bible, the sacred text upon which Christianity is based, says that they are dead?
jmcrea:
Nobody in Heaven is currently dead.
Just like Generalissimo Fransisco Franco, they’re still dead.
After they died, their souls were resurrected and judged, and then
Actually, the Bible tells us that the judgement has not taken place yet.
 
So then, you believe that no one in Heaven died?
Nobody in Heaven is currently dead. After they died, their souls were resurrected and judged, and then, after they were judged to be worthy of Heaven, they went to Heaven.
 
Now is it just me or does it seem like your term “exterminate” probably had a different meaning back in 1215. I also doubt the council was in English so it was probably a translation that we both are using. However, because both versions are different, I hardly think that “exterminate” means the same now as it did in the year 1215. Just a thought…
I allowed for this by citing Exsurge Domine, which explicitly speaks of burning. Furthermore, it’s common knowledge that the normal punishment for an unrepentant heretic was burning at the stake. “Exterminate” means to get rid of from a certain area, whether by execution or by exile (or preferably by inducing the heretics to repent). But we know quite well that by the 13th century it was common practice to burn unrepentant heretics at the stake, not to show them to the borders! (Consider how uncharitable an act it would have been to send heretics into the territory of your neighbors! This was often done in the sixteenth century, and was done to Muslims and Jews in Spain in the fifteenth century, but in those circumstances there were neighboring nations where the religion of the group in question was either dominant or tolerated.)

This is the problem with the kind of apologetics you are engaging in here. It’s a classic example of special pleading. You ignore everything that we know about the context of these documents, and instead demand that the text say explicitly “it is good to burn people at the stake.”

At any rate, you haven’t dealt with the *Exsurge Domine *quote.

Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top