- Status
M
Montrose
Guest
When did opinions become infallible teachings?
You do know don’t you that infallible teachings cannot ever be changed. You can’t have an infallible teaching approving the death penalty and then the Church advocating that all countries abolish it!!
U
umamibella
Guest
Bishop Barron said of the Inquisition yeah it was wrong, we did some wrong things
Last edited:
C
ConcernedConvert
Guest
When they were continuously held and taught through scripture, church doctors and popes throughout all of catholic history.
This is why Pope Francis position is problematic. It would appear that He is in disagreement with, quite literally, the entire magisterium of the church throughout its history.
This is why Pope Francis position is problematic. It would appear that He is in disagreement with, quite literally, the entire magisterium of the church throughout its history.
M
Montrose
Guest
There has never been an infallible teaching on capital punishment.
C
ConcernedConvert
Guest
You can choose to look at it that way and ignore the conflict that the recent changes have with the magisterium of the church. What that implies, however is that you support relativism.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Right. So, it’s an instruction on how to act, moving forward.
Not sure why you’re asking the question – the answer seems manifest: If they don’t repent and are executed, then they die in mortal sin. Aren’t they, then, denied the possibility of later repentance?
I’m glad you’ve asked it that way. “Does it always?” asks whether all have failed to repent. We can’t say that. “Has it always?” asks whether this effect always is potentially present in a context of capital punishment. The answer is ‘yes’.
In the context of the quote I provided, they offered the following:
What’s being referenced here is the archaic notion that someone who committed a serious crime was already a lost cause. We don’t see it that way today. So, whereas they might have thought “no opportunity for salvation in the future” and executed in the past, we think “opportunities for contrition and repentance in the future are possible” and defer capital punishment today.
Because you’re making a claim about the history of the Church in Europe. So… you’re not claiming that, in the West, heresy remains a civil crime… right?Gorgias:
I’m not sure why we should restrict our concern geographically.
On the other hand, you’re choosing to support the position the pope teaches error on faith and morals.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
No, I’m making a claim about two things:
1 what seems a common practice of posters here to try to pretend the Church was not deeply involved and partly responsible for the execution of heretics
2 the reluctance of many posters here to say outright that execution for heresy is wrong.
In point 1, I am making a claim not about the history of the Church but about modern posters’ reluctance to admit to the truth about that history.
In point 2, I am making a claim about what seems to me to be an astonishing unwillingness to admit to the wickedness of killing people for thought crimes. Those killings of course are now rare in the West, but not so rare elsewhere. To me the wickedness is apparent wherever the killing happens.
C
ConcernedConvert
Guest
Addressing your responses in order, sorry I don’t know how to pull the quote box up on my phone so I will use numbers.
- The church is not simply addressing how to act moving forward, in making these instructions in the new CCC it is implying that the historical teaching was either wrong or is no longer right. This breaks the new teaching into one of two things: The church taught error historically, or morality is relative.
- Capital punishment does not deprive souls seeking to repent. We have proof of this scripturally as well as in the life of the saints and martyrs of the church. Many of whom converted and repented prior to their executions.
What we do know, is that there is scriptural and historical church teaching thaT documents the use of capital punishment to protect (innocent)souls. God is Just not simply Merciful. - Regarding your alleged archaic notion:
The church has NEVER thought or taught that there were lost causes. We are not any more advanced in thought or morality today than we were in the times of Christ. Again, we have scriptural and church teaching historically to back this up. - Your last response to me: If the teaching has truly changed, and we need to “pick a side” so to speak:
consistent historical teaching of the church supported through the scriptures, doctors of the church, historical councils and popes
or…
the last 10 or so years and One Pope.
It is pretty clear to me which one we should believe.
T
TK421
Guest
Capital punishment is not an intrinsic evil and hundreds of years ago the lines were very blurred between religious life and secular life. Heresy and treason/sedition against the crown were often synonymous with one another, both in Catholic and in protestant countries (or on planet Earth in general).
I of course share your view that it seems unconceivable to feel justified to burn anybody alive for any reason, but this was a normal mode of thought at the time and people are products of their environment, including philosophers and theologians and bishops. We are no better than they are, except in whatever unearned advantages we may have gained from the lessons of history.
Last edited:
P
Pattylt
Guest
Question about the heresies/treason committed back then…
We’re they large numbers, small numbers or some large and some small? I’m not asking exact numbers but a sense of proportion to the Catholics. Anyone know? Thanks.
We’re they large numbers, small numbers or some large and some small? I’m not asking exact numbers but a sense of proportion to the Catholics. Anyone know? Thanks.
A
AlNg
Guest
But it was defensible in the past. Another argument for moral relativism.
It was Ok in the past. It is not OK now.
Last edited:
C
CelticWarlord
Guest
Yes, thank you for clarifying that. I wrote in haste.
T
TK421
Guest
Historical or geographical context isn’t moral relativism. The underlying objective truth is still the same.
Amputating an arm with gangrene in the 1800s was morally permissible because medicine was more crude and they didn’t have reliable means of curing it. Today, amputation from gangrene can usually be avoided and it would be unethical for a doctor to amputate unless they were forced to do so.
It’s not a perfect analogy to capital punishment or burning heretics, but it is a fact that in past centuries society was in an earlier stage of development, and with less complex governments and laws, that the line was very blurred between church and state and heresy and treason were usually linked together. That doesn’t necessarily mean it was morally right but it is definitely irrational to look at the 16th century the same as the 21st century, as if the conditions were all the same, because that obviously isn’t true at all. Even today, societies still struggle tremendously with having people with different ideologies intermixed. Riots and violence can erupt. 2020 might look primitive or brutal to people 300 years from now, but we do our best in our current time and place in the hopes that it will be better for our children and grandchildren.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
Of course it is. Relativity is when the morality of an action is relative to the context.
T
TK421
Guest
With that particular definition, relativity is not a bad thing. In fact, not using it would lead to serious errors.
Last edited:
C
ConcernedConvert
Guest
There is some history of massive heresies within the church. Now not all of these resulted in executions.
For example, it is said that during the Arian Heresy, the majority of all bishops were Arian Heretics.
For example, it is said that during the Arian Heresy, the majority of all bishops were Arian Heretics.
P
Pattylt
Guest
Is that in one area or country or throughout the entire church? One thing I’m trying to understand is that from my point of view, once an area became Catholic there wasn’t any way the Church would let it become anything else. The church claiming, say northern France, must remain Catholic even if the bishops and people wanted otherwise is wrong, to me anyway. Kind of a Once Catholic, you can’t go back!
C
ConcernedConvert
Guest
The entire church at the time.
Here is an EWTN article about it if your interested.
Here is an EWTN article about it if your interested.
Last edited:
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
That’s not Jesus.
- Status