Burning at the stake

  • Thread starter Thread starter mjacob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
mjacob:
How does one respond to people raising questions around heretics being burnt at the stake - particularly shocking was a recent one that someone challeneged me with - Johann Huss?
Click to expand...
Is it not amazing that the institution that was supposedly to support and promote “God’s” wishes, was the one that was so evil? The Catholic church is nothing but a evil and corrupt institution, run by evil, followed by brain-washed followers. It was not just an evil period for the Church, as the church is evil. The way that one responds to that is to tell people that the true god is everywhere (which is what Jesus was trying to teach prior to the Church getting their hands on the scriptures and translating them how they needed in order to control the people). You do not need to believe is a horribly corrupt institution, which burnt people at the stake. It is no better than Adolf Hitler, actually worse. Tell people to quit going to church and giving money. If they insist on continuing to do so, they should look at the financial statements of the diocese and see the continued corruption.
 
40.png
Corona1500:
Is it not amazing that the institution that was supposedly to support and promote “God’s” wishes, was the one that was so evil? The Catholic church is nothing but a evil and corrupt institution, run by evil, followed by brain-washed followers. It was not just an evil period for the Church, as the church is evil. The way that one responds to that is to tell people that the true god is everywhere (which is what Jesus was trying to teach prior to the Church getting their hands on the scriptures and translating them how they needed in order to control the people). You do not need to believe is a horribly corrupt institution, which burnt people at the stake. It is no better than Adolf Hitler, actually worse. Tell people to quit going to church and giving money. If they insist on continuing to do so, they should look at the financial statements of the diocese and see the continued corruption.
Click to expand...
Funny you should mention Hitler:

tentmaker.org/books/MartinLuther-HitlersSpiritualAncestor.html

We were just discussing Martin Luther’s influence on Hitler on another thread. Also, I would suggest your reading list be expanded beyond Jack Chick.
 
40.png
RyanL:
I have reported you to the moderators. If you cannot be reasonable, you do not belong.

RyanL
Click to expand...
In reality I think types like him in the long run help our cause with reasonable men. I kind of like him. 🙂
 
40.png
Corona1500:
Is it not amazing that the institution that was supposedly to support and promote “God’s” wishes, was the one that was so evil? The Catholic church is nothing but a evil and corrupt institution, run by evil, followed by brain-washed followers. It was not just an evil period for the Church, as the church is evil. The way that one responds to that is to tell people that the true god is everywhere (which is what Jesus was trying to teach prior to the Church getting their hands on the scriptures and translating them how they needed in order to control the people). You do not need to believe is a horribly corrupt institution, which burnt people at the stake. It is no better than Adolf Hitler, actually worse. Tell people to quit going to church and giving money. If they insist on continuing to do so, they should look at the financial statements of the diocese and see the continued corruption.
Click to expand...
You seem to be full of hatred for the Catholic Church.

This is not the fruit of the Spirit of God. It is from another Spirit.

You do not announce what church you belong to, but you will find that all churches, have dark deeds in their histories. The Protestant Churches in particular were founded on blood and torture and burnings.

See: geocities.com/aprofaith/leaders.htm
 
How sad is our failure to recognize that the most heinous chapters in the drama of this world have been blights on human history and not solely on the particular past of any individual culture or institution. This is a burden that we all share. There are none who can boast in a truly blameless heritage, whether by ideology or lineage. Those that do find themselves upon the path toward elitism, a deficient manner of thinking that includes racism among its evil progeny.

Christians are heirs to a common history that terminated with the reformation. All of the sleights of the Church during this time - and indeed even some of their fruits, both real and imagined, are a legacy to us all. To put blame at each other’s feet for an inheritance to which we can all equally lay claim is the height of hypocrisy. Prudence lies in recalling Matthew 7:3 before we assume the roles of both judge and jury in such matters.

The core of the Catholic faith as represented by the Magisterium has never taught violence or bloodshed. Such would be contrary to the Will of Christ. That Holy Mother Church’s unruly children have acted in such a way are another matter entirely. If she is to be found guilty of anything it would be only that she is represented by human beings.

The revelation that we are sinners should come as no surprise to any Christian, regardless of denomination. Through concupiscence, each of us is the victim of our own disordered desire. Each has within himself the capacity for the most unspeakable vices. We do well to recall the words of the Apostle (1Corinthians 1:30-31) before we cast a jaundiced eye at our neighbor. It is specifically the Grace of God and not individual “goodness” that separates the petty thief from the sexual deviate, the town gossip from the mass murderer. Our collective failures by no means undermine the reality of our faith, but rather render its salvific grace all the more necessary.
 
Mad Amos:
How sad is our failure to recognize that the most heinous chapters in the drama of this world have been blights on human history and not solely on the particular past of any individual culture or institution. This is a burden that we all share. There are none who can boast in a truly blameless heritage, whether by ideology or lineage. Those that do find themselves upon the path toward elitism, a deficient manner of thinking that includes racism among its evil progeny.

Christians are heirs to a common history that terminated with the reformation. All of the sleights of the Church during this time - and indeed even some of their fruits, both real and imagined, are a legacy to us all. To put blame at each other’s feet for an inheritance to which we can all equally lay claim is the height of hypocrisy. Prudence lies in recalling Matthew 7:3 before we assume the roles of both judge and jury in such matters.

The core of the Catholic faith as represented by the Magisterium has never taught violence or bloodshed. Such would be contrary to the Will of Christ. That Holy Mother Church’s unruly children have acted in such a way are another matter entirely. If she is to be found guilty of anything it would be only that she is represented by human beings.

The revelation that we are sinners should come as no surprise to any Christian, regardless of denomination. Through concupiscence, each of us is the victim of our own disordered desire. Each has within himself the capacity for the most unspeakable vices. We do well to recall the words of the Apostle (1Corinthians 1:30-31) before we cast a jaundiced eye at our neighbor. It is specifically the Grace of God and not individual “goodness” that separates the petty thief from the sexual deviate, the town gossip from the mass murderer. Our collective failures by no means undermine the reality of our faith, but rather render its salvific grace all the more necessary.
Click to expand...
Wow! That was a superb post. I just copied and pasted it to my personal folder. I will reflect on this frequently. Thank you Amos!
:blessyou:
 
The idea of executing heretics by burning, actually began in the East in the time after the rise of Islam in 700, where heretics influenced by Zoroastrian dualism began to infest the Church, provoking wars and allying with the Muslim powers.

The death sentence was introduced because of the danger to society and the Empire these people caused. Because the Zoroastrians worshipped fire, this was thought to be a fitting way to execute them.

Here is a first person account of the end of a bogomil leader around 1000 AD from the Princess Anna Comnena. It gives some idea of the unsympathetic attitude prevalent with regard to this type of sentence.
fordham.edu/halsall/basis/AnnaComnena-Alexiad15.html

X However all the members of the holy synod and the chief monks, as well as the patriarch of that time, Nicholas, decreed that Basil who was the heresiarch and quite unrepentant, deserved to be burnt. The Emperor was of the same opinion and after conversing with him several times and recognizing that the man was mischievous and would not abandon his heresy, he finally had an immense pyre built in the Hippodrome. A very large trench was dug and a quantity of wood, all tall trees piled up together, made the structure look like a mountain. When the pile was lighted, a great crowd slowly collected on the floor and steps of the circus in eager expectation of what was to happen. On the opposite side a cross was fixed and the impious man was given a choice, for if he dreaded the fire and changed his mind, and walked to the cross, then he should be delivered from burning. A number of heretics were there watching their leader Basil. He shewed himself contemptuous of all punishment and threats, and while he was still at a distance from the fire he began to laugh and talk marvels, saying that angels would snatch him from the middle of the fire, and he proceeded to chant these words of David’s, ‘It shall not come nigh thee; only with thine eyes shalt thou behold.’ But when the crowd stood aside and allowed him to have a free view of that terrifying sight, the burning pyre (for even at a good distance he could feel the fire, and saw the flames rising high and as it were thundering and shooting out sparks of fire which rose to the top of the stone obelisk which stands in the centre of the Hippodrome), then the bold fellow seemed to flinch from the fire and be disturbed. For as if wholly desperate, he constantly turned away his eyes and clapped his hands and beat his thigh. And yet in spite of being thus affected by the mere sight he was adamant. For the fire did not soften his iron will, nor did the messages sent by the Emperor subdue him. … Then they ‘recognizing the web from the edge,’ took him and pushed him, clothes, shoes and all, into the middle of the pyre. And the flames, as if deeply enraged against him, ate the impious man up, without any odour arising or even a fresh appearance of smoke, only one thin smoky line could be seen in the midst of the flames. For even the elements are excited against the impious; whereas, to speak truthfully, they spare those beloved of God, just as once upon a time in Babylon the fire retreated from those young men who were dear to God, and enclosed them like a golden chamber. In this case the men who lifted up the accursed Basil had scarcely placed him on the pyre before the flames seemed to dart forward to snatch hold of him. Then the people looking on clamoured loudly and demanded that all the rest who belonged to Basil’s pernicious sect should be thrown into the fire as well, but the Emperor did not allow it but ordered them to be confined in the porches and verandahs of the largest palace. After this the concourse was dismissed. Later, the godless ones were transferred to another very strong prison into which they were cast and after pining away for a long time died in their impiety.

i
 
its not inrisically wrong to kill hertics–Jesus himself said that if anyone leads these little ones into sin better you ie a millstone a round his kneck and throw him in the depths of the sea
 
Mad Amos:
How sad is our failure to recognize that the most heinous chapters in the drama of this world have been blights on human history and not solely on the particular past of any individual culture or institution. This is a burden that we all share. There are none who can boast in a truly blameless heritage, whether by ideology or lineage. Those that do find themselves upon the path toward elitism, a deficient manner of thinking that includes racism among its evil progeny.

Christians are heirs to a common history that terminated with the reformation. All of the sleights of the Church during this time - and indeed even some of their fruits, both real and imagined, are a legacy to us all. To put blame at each other’s feet for an inheritance to which we can all equally lay claim is the height of hypocrisy. Prudence lies in recalling Matthew 7:3 before we assume the roles of both judge and jury in such matters.

The core of the Catholic faith as represented by the Magisterium has never taught violence or bloodshed. Such would be contrary to the Will of Christ. That Holy Mother Church’s unruly children have acted in such a way are another matter entirely. If she is to be found guilty of anything it would be only that she is represented by human beings.

The revelation that we are sinners should come as no surprise to any Christian, regardless of denomination. Through concupiscence, each of us is the victim of our own disordered desire. Each has within himself the capacity for the most unspeakable vices. We do well to recall the words of the Apostle (1Corinthians 1:30-31) before we cast a jaundiced eye at our neighbor. It is specifically the Grace of God and not individual “goodness” that separates the petty thief from the sexual deviate, the town gossip from the mass murderer. Our collective failures by no means undermine the reality of our faith, but rather render its salvific grace all the more necessary.
Click to expand...

The reason that the defence that runs “we are are all sinners” is unconvincing, is this:​

  1. The use of the death penalty against religious dissidents was a reversal of Catholic teaching - the Fathers had been against it - Lactantius and John Chrysostom are two famous opponents - and the execution of Priscillian of Avila for Manichaeism in 385 had been denounced by Siricius of Rome and by Martin of Tours, among others. Though not by all bishops.
Then, some years after the Emperor Frederick ruled that heretics should be burned (in 1224), the Pope - Gregory IX - followed suit. In 1252, Innocent IV legalised the use of torture by the Inquisition.

And in 1520, in “Exsurge Domine”, Leo X condemned Luther’s thesis that “To burn heretics is against the will of the Holy Spirit”.

These can’t be brushed aside as instances of human sinfulness - they were things done by Popes acting as Popes, so they do need to be faced.

FWIW, the punishment of burning seems to be derived from Roman Law, which was much studied in the thirteenth century - the Emperor Diocletian had decreed in 297 that Manichaeans should be burned.

Odd, to find the same people suffering the same penalty at the hands of the other religion he had attempted to penalise. ##
 
It is vitally important in such matters to separate the actions of individual men from the official teaching of the Magisterium. No ecclesial chair, not even the See of Peter, preserves its officiates from their own inherently sinful inclinations.

The second millennium cast a pall over all of humanity, and those who committed evil in the name of Christ were certainly products of their times. The distinction must always be made, however, between the contemptable behavior of such men and the Divine Will as expressed through the Deposit of Faith.

While her opponents may disingenuously attempt to indict the Church as a whole when speaking of her historical transgressions, it is with the individual consequences of sin, and not Catholic theology, that their true contention must rest.
 
It cannot be evil to obey the will of God when He commands man to put someone to death.

**NAB GEN 9:6 **

"If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; For in the image of God has man been made." In scriptural terms, to cut off a limb from the body of people means to put someone to death. To cut someone off from the body of people to protect the body of people from being lead astray is what Jesus is talking about when He discussed putting a mill stone around a man’s neck and drowning him in the sea (MAT 18:5).

Jesus gave St. Peter and his successors the power to call upon Him to hold a man bound to his sins in heaven. You cannot go to heaven, but are cut off from the spiritual life of the body of the Church and cast into hell, if Jesus holds you bound to your sins in heaven.

Please visit Throwing Stones which studies Jesus will on when to physically or spiritually kill to protect the body of people from harm.

Spiritual death through Papal anathemas, (calling upon Jesus to hold sins bound in heaven) is infinitely deadlier than state physical capital punishment. The Church has many anathema’s presently actively tied to papal encyclicals to spiritually damn heritics to eternal death. The Church still believes in and uses death sentences to protect Church doctrine. They simply use the Catholic spiritually deadly big gun given to them by Jesus and no longer waste their time with physical death stake burnings.

CANON I. (example of using anathema to spiritually put to death heretics.

-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

Anathema

In passing this sentence, the pontiff… …pronounces the formula of anathema which ends with these words: "Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive N-- himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him** condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels…
He who dares to despise our decision, let him be stricken with anathema maranatha, i.e. may he be damned at the coming of the Lord, may he have his place with Judas Iscariot, he and his companions.**

Quoted from New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm

NAB MAT 16:13

I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven;
 
History shows that the death penalty in matters of religion is generally brought in by governments, because heresy has become a **threat ** to civil order and national security, and the death penalty is subsequently assented to by Churches.

This was the process in the eastern Empire, the western kingdoms and elsewhere.

So - How is heresy a threat to civil order and national security?

Well Heresy causes division, which is very dangerous to any nation - especially one where the ruler has enemies.

Just look at these or many other faith message boards. Very few things arouse emotions and passions like religious matters. I’ve lost count of how many people I’ve debated in the last couple of years who have become consumed by some idea based on their understanding of a verse of scripture - and then decided that the Church is heretical and Satanic for not seeing things their way. You don’t have to go far on the web to find people calling various Churches anti-christ and the tool of Satan.

Such intemperateness (which seems to be the hallmark of heretical sects) quickly leads to violence. (When you have convinced yourself your opponent is Satan - you soon have to take action). We have seen this historically in te destruction of Churches and desecration of hosts and sanctuaries by early protestants. Paulicians and Bogomils in the east allied with Muslims against the Christian Empire. Cathars established “no-go” areas in France.

In France, germany, England and Ireland, the reformation divisions brought on bloody civil wars in which many hundreds of thousands died.

As such, heresy was seen as something as dangerous to a state as plague to a city, and state power decided to quell it by means of a quick nip-in-the bud sanction. The Church went along with this - just as it went along with death penalties for Murder, Treason and other crimes.
 
40.png
mjacob:
How does one respond to people raising questions around heretics being burnt at the stake - particularly shocking was a recent one that someone challeneged me with - Johann Huss?
Click to expand...

On no account try to defend the indefensible - this is both immoral, and gives the impression that the Church is incapable of condemning evil in her past: that she is IOW more concerned with looking good (even when she is wrong) than with applying the Gospel as much to herself as to anybody else.​

If the Church does evil - trying to make it look good instead of evil merely suggests that she has one standard for others, and another for herself. People do have moral standards - thanks in part to the influence of centuries of Christianity - and if those moral standards are what Christians say they are, then the Church must expect to have them applied to her. And if she has been untrue to the teaching she has received, people are going to point that out. It is no compliment to her to be judged by a lower standard than she teaches others to observe - so appealing to a lower standard in order to avoid being criticised is extremely unwise. ##
 
Mad Amos:
It is vitally important in such matters to separate the actions of individual men from the official teaching of the Magisterium. No ecclesial chair, not even the See of Peter, preserves its officiates from their own inherently sinful inclinations.

The second millennium cast a pall over all of humanity, and those who committed evil in the name of Christ were certainly products of their times. The distinction must always be made, however, between the contemptable behavior of such men and the Divine Will as expressed through the Deposit of Faith.

While her opponents may disingenuously attempt to indict the Church as a whole when speaking of her historical transgressions, it is with the individual consequences of sin, and not Catholic theology, that their true contention must rest.
Click to expand...

So what is one to make of:​

  • Papal legislation allowing torture - such as the Bull Ad Extirpanda of Innocent IV in 1252
  • Papal rebukes to Inquisitors for not prosecuting heretics with sufficient energy;
  • Papal letters to kings encouraging them to exterminate heretics - such as those of Pius V to Charles IX of France
  • Leo X’s condemnation of Luther’s thesis that “To burn heretics is contrary to the will of the Holy Spirit” ?
Inconvenient Papal utterances can’t be put down to sin and nothing more; that is a destructive defence, which would drive a coach and four through any dogma one cares to name - it would be simplicity itself to shrug off Papal infallibility in this way, for example.

If Popes are acting as teachers, as law-givers, or as guardians of orthodoxy, what they say has to be taken seriously - and those activities just listed must therefore be taken seriously. It is irrelevant that we don’t like their doctrine - that is our problem, not theirs. Leo X was acting with great seriousness in condemning that thesis - he did so in the Bull Exsurge Domine, which is quoted at length in Denzinger’s handbook of doctrinal documents: and that thesis is quoted too - it is by any standards as fully a magisterial act as Humanae Vitae or Munificentissimus Deus. Leo X was using the same Petrine authority in condemning that thesis, as Paul VI did in condemning contraception. Undermine Leo X’s competence to condemn Luther for saying something the whole Church now takes for granted as true - and the authority of every Pope since Leo X is equally undermined.

Innocent IV and Leo X both chose the Bull as the form of letter in which to say what they did - and canonically, the Bull was the most authoritative of all kinds of Papal letter. Both popes were engaging their authority.

It’s no good saying these things are not good morals for us - those popes, and others, saw no moral problem in torturing heretics or in burning them. St. Pius V, who was a very zealous Inquisitor, was canonised in 1712 - by a Pope: and at least nowadays, canonisations are held to be infallible. IOW, he was infallibly canonised for doing and and encouraging things which Popes nowadays condemn: for the CCC condemns torture very explicitly; and by implication, the burning of heretics.

St. Nicholas the Great in the 9th century, like the Fathers before him, had condemned torture - but by the time of Innocent IV, the letter containing that condemnation appears to have been lost.

So things are in a right old tangle. What is the true Tradition on these matters - and if it is taught now, in our days, why was it not as clearly taught by Leo X or Innocent IV or Pius V ?

There is a real problem here, and it’s not going to go away. ##
 
40.png
mjacob:
How does one respond to people raising questions around heretics being burnt at the stake - particularly shocking was a recent one that someone challeneged me with - Johann Huss?
Click to expand...
Well, while burning at the stake does seem to be a cruel form of punishment, executing heretics is not in itself intrinsically unjust. St. Thomas points out that if we execute those who murder the body, then it is just to execute those who murder the soul. And not all heretics were executed. Only those who caused major social disruption. In effect, they were the terrorists of those days, they just didn’t use bombs. They used false doctrine instead.
 
A note also is that societies looked to Old Testament Kingdoms to get governing ideas. Death sentences were often used.

st julie
 
40.png
EA_Man:
So was the church correct in condemning Hus as a heretic?
If so, then why today don’t they condemn Protestants who not only accept Hus’ teachings but have expanded upon them? If it was “correct” to condemn the heresy why is not “correct” today? Or is it no longer a heresy? If it is a heresy, why not condemn it?
And if it is not a heresy, why did they condemn it then?
Click to expand...
Yes. He was a heretic, and the heresy is still condemned.
The Catholic response to this is that “today we need to reach out in love and mercy to those that have fallen away, to lead them back home.” The real explanation is that the political power of the church has been so far diminished that she cannot enforce her edicts any longer even among the “faithful”. The furor in last year’s election over the question of denying communion to practicing Catholic politicians who support abortion is a perfect example.
Click to expand...
Reaching out in love is not the entire story. People who embrace heretical Protestant views today, if they are born Protestants, are not under the same burden as those in the initial wave of the Protestant revolt. The urgency of defections from the Church is no longer seen as something that can be managed by force.

Heresy was considered violence to the stability of the State and punishable by death. Protestants also burnt heretics at the stake and beheaded them. Such violence is no longer acceptable (and has been found to be unworkable). Governments on both sides of the divide no longer undertake the extermination of religious heresy as part of their political mandate.

. . .
There is MUCH more that can be said about this.On both sides. This is a glass-house or pot/kettle accusation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top