Burning at the stake

  • Thread starter Thread starter mjacob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Lorarose:
Let’s not forget that those were violent times OVERALL - catholic/protestant together.

It is interesting when folks want to point out the catholic violence and seem to overlook the many people burned at the stake by protestants for suspicion of witchcraft.

Salem, Mass. was not a catholic town by any means.

So why do protestant feel so comfortable pointing this sin out to catholics - when THEY KNOW their history is just as tainted?
I’ll stand behind my churches history. If you can find a case where a Mennonite church (or community) endorsed punishment by death I will recant my position, but violence was and is so far removed from the docterine of my church that instances described in the Catholoc and Protestant churches have never been an issue. We have been persicuted by catholics AND Protestants.
 
It’s easy to criticise what people did in the past.

But, how do they explain babies being hacked to death, in the year 2005, with full support of the Federal Government and many of the clergy of various religious denominations?
 
40.png
EA_Man:
This is true. However, one of the mistakes of Catholic Church was the assumption of temporal power. For a brief period, it was beneficial. But Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world. It cannot be won or maintained by the sword.

Peace
True, Christ’s Kingdom is not *of *this world, but it surely is *in *this world too, the Church.😉

Another thing - there are no “mistakes” of the Catholic Church; as the Body and Bride of Christ, she is without error, without taint:

25: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
26: that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
27: that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Ephesians 5

Of course, the Church’s members are all sinners, and we all make mistakes. Mother Church is, however, without error. Also, the Church does holds both spiritual and temporal power; the Church in the person of St. Peter received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and notice that Christ gave authority to Peter in heaven and on earth. Christ said, “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Clearly, Christ conferred not only spiritual but also temporal power. Why might he do this? Well sure enough, the Church is the Kingdom of Christ, and he rules it. All the kings of the earth are subject to Christ and his Kingdom, giving the Church the pre-eminent position among all other institutions on earth. When Peter presented two swords to Christ before they left for the Garden of Gethsemanee, Christ didn’t say, “Throw one back,” but rather he said, “It is sufficient.” The two swords represent two forms of power, temporal and spiritual. Hence, the idea of the Church’s glory on earth headed by his Vicar, the idea of Christendom, was an ideal of medieval Europe. All kings, according to St. Paul, receive their authority from God, and therefore, Christians are subject to their rulers. However, the king must rule in accord with God’s law, which is given by the Church. If he disobey’s the Divine Law, he abuses his power. That is why Christians although subject to Caesar, refused to worship him as a deity although it was demanded by secular law. Therefore, the relationship between the Church and the State is very close, and the ideal government should be one that is in perfect accord with the Church.

During the Middle Ages, this ideal was sought after, but not perfectly attained. Just as treason was a grave offense against the State, heresy was and is a grave offense to the Faith. Commited to protecting the Kingdom of God, rulers saw the attack of heresy against the Church as an attack against God himself, and hence, it was his right to punish, although it should have been done with mercy and the goal of repentence in mind. Overzealous kings sometimes felt that death was the most appropriate sentence, similar to how the ancient Israelites prescribed death for blasphemy. The Church, however, never exectuted punishments; rather, it determined whether a convict was guity of a certain crime, such as heresy, and whether or not the convict would repent. Then the convict had to be handed over to the State for just punishment. Although in theory this method was just, in practice the State often gave unnessary punishments.

Today, the Church still possesses temporal power, espcially the Vatican state that belongs to the Church of Rome. The Pope is also ruler of Vatican City and at the same time, ruler of the Church. The Church has always held a certain degree of temporal power, which although isnt her primary power, still belongs to Christ’s Kingdom.
 

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. ##
The Papal bull allowing torture doesnt explicity mention torture at least the english translation. The Church doesnt seem to have had a position on torture till recently. Also while there is the question of whether to use force, heresy should be supressed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top