Burning Heretics at the stake

[Tis_Bearself]

Has the church ever infallibly taught it is okay to burn Heretics at the stake and as a Catholic can I disagree with people in the past doing so?

Of course they haven’t taught that. And of course as a Catholic you can and should disagree with such cruelty.

 

[johnnykins]

The terminology of the Inquisition is that the guilty to be executed were “relaxed” to the state for punishment.

I note that the Inquisition had jurisdiction only over Christians. Muslims and Jews who never converted were directly tried by/subject to the state. If they were conversos who lapsed, then the Inquisition could get involved.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

“But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.“

Jesus meant that as, “having a millstone around your neck and being thrown into the sea would be nothing compared to what God is going to do to you if you don’t repent before you’re judged.”

He didn’t mean, “it’s okay for you Christians to drown or otherwise execute somebody who you’ve decided causes Christians to sin.”

I would add this is Jesus we’re talking about, who never raised a hand to any human, never committed violence on any person, told Peter to put his sword away in the garden and healed the guy who Peter had cut, etc. Since when does Jesus advocate violence against anybody?

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Jesus doesn’t advocate violence. What he advocates is truth, justice, mercy. These are all things that the church has applied in different forms over her history.
Jesus left the church the authority to apply these virtues. My point by citing Mathew is that there are consequences for heresy, just as there are consequences for all sins. Jesus left the church in charge of applying those consequences in order to protect the souls of those impacted.
Again another scripture that demonstrates this.

2 Peter 2,1
“But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.“

 

[PickyPicky]

I think even the scripture supports actions such as execution for heresy.
For we need to understand that the consequences of heresy lead to the destruction of souls for those who fall into them. Eternal souls are arguably more important than temporal life

There is something quite frightening about this confidence of righteousness. Imagine how most of us would react to a follower of some other religion, or some Protestant faith, declaring that it is better that Catholics should die.

Consider that you may be mistaken.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Another thing I would like to point out regarding your post:

We believe in the holy Trinity correct?
We believe that our lord and savior is, was and always will be the one true god correct?

We cannot simply separate Jesus in the New Testament from God of the Old Testament. They are ONE. He did not change the laws but fulfilled them. The Old Testament is full, and I mean whoa full, of violence. God is Just, he is not a pacifist.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Let’s flip it here a little. Let’s look at the martyrs of the church. What was more important to them than temporal life?
What was more important to the Apostles, then temporal life?
What was more important to Jesus Christ himself when he faced the cross?

It’s eternity.

I’m not advocating for executions. I’m saying that if the church had good reason, we shouldn’t doubt her from centuries in the future.

 

[johnnykins]

Just look at the history of the 30 Years War or the other wars of religion…Your point is exactly what the Founding Fathers were trying to get at in the First Amendment.

The Massacre during the Albigensian Crusade it Beziers is where the phrase: “Kill them all, God will know his own…” was supposedly uttered…I had thought that was at Tyre or some such My bad.

 

[Anesti33]

Since when does Jesus advocate violence against anybody?

Leviticus 20:2-5ff

Joshua 8:1-2

 

[johnnykins]

Morality doesn’t change. Or, so I was taught. So judging from the future is certainly apt.

Pius IX and Edgardo Mortara is another lesson in point.

The Church, in her faithful, leaders and hierarchy, has much to answer for…

 

[White_Tree]

I think even the scripture supports actions such as execution for heresy.

Yes, that is what they executed Jesus for (Matthew 26:64-66).

Though I’m not sure I want to be standing on the side of the people who executed Jesus…

 

[PickyPicky]

Let’s flip it here a little. Let’s look at the martyrs of the church. What was more important to them than temporal life

Let’s flip it a bit more. Let’s look at the Protestant martyrs.

Or let’s do neither. Let’s say killing people because their religious views differ from our own is wicked.

 

[MikeInVA]

I believe the heretics were killed (by the state, not the Church) because they represented a threat to the authority of the king in whatever country, because his authority to rule came from God.

 

[ConcernedAmerican]

The church itself never burned anyone. Secular governments did punish heresy as a capital offense at times.

 

[ConcernedAmerican]

It’s not though.

 

[PickyPicky]

(by the state, not the Church)

The same shuffling off of responsibility.

The church itself never burned anyone. Secular governments did punish heresy as a capital offense at times

The same shuffling off of responsibility.

It’s not though

You don’t think “burning people to death for heresy is abominable”? That’s shocking. But at least you come out and say so, not hiding behind “it was the state what done it” or “it wasn’t really for heresy”.

Well, all I can say is I hope you never fall into the hands of people who also think it is not abominable, and who think your religion is a heresy.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

You can look at it the way you want to. However, your views differ from that of the magisterium and history of the church.

 

[MikeInVA]

Civil rulers saw heretics as threats to their authority. If you read unbiased accounts of the inquisitions you’ll find that the Church generally intervened to keep the civil authorities from torturing and killing their subjects.

 

[Anesti33]

I think it’s important that we’re clear who the actors were, here. The State had their role and the Church had hers. By the same token, the Church always condoned the use of capital punishment in this way. It’s not as if the Church said “capital punishment is immoral, so we’ll shuffle off responsibility to the State!” but that the Church recognized the boundaries of her proper role.

 

[PickyPicky]

I think it’s important that we’re clear who the actors were, here. The State had their role and the Church had hers. By the same token, the Church always condoned the use of capital punishment in this way. It’s not as if the Church said “capital punishment is immoral, so we’ll shuffle off responsibility to the State!” but that the Church recognized the boundaries of her proper role.

Yes, fair enough. But I’m not suggesting that the Church shuffled off responsibility. I am all for accepting that people in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period thought the way people then thought and acted the way they acted. There is no reason to assume they were more or less wicked than we are.

What I am suggesting is that people today shuffle off responsibility when they pretend the Church had no part in the killing of heretics but it was all the fault of the states, if fault there was. That seems to me to lack an honesty of approach.

Similarly I am astonished that people today are unable to see that killing people because of their religious views is wicked.