Q
QuoVadis
Guest
Am wondering if anyone can explain what Pope Leo X meant in 1520 when he said,
papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm
Source:
papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm
- Status
A
Atemi
Guest
It means that Roman Catholics do not have the option of believing that murdering and burning alive those who disagree with them on matters of doctrine is against God’s will.
Either God is against such bahavior, He is indifferent to such behavior, or He is for such behavior.
With all Apostolic authority, the RCC has taught that each and every Catholic cannot ever believe the first or they lose their very salvation and suffer eternally in Hellfire.
Of course, very, very few Catholics know this.
…
C
Church_Militant
Guest
As always…you wish…
Let’s put this in a Biblical context that even Atemi can understand.
In the Old Testament, how many times were the Jews told to wipe out the inhabitants of an area who were heretics? Were they wrong? Did God misdirect them?
Okay…flash forward several centuries to that point when Leo X was dealing with the reformer’s heresy and craziness of that time. Did Leo X do less than attempt to discern the will of God? I think not.
But while we are on this touchy topic, let’s not forget that while their modern post reformation step children may badmouth the Catholic Church for such as this, that history records that the reformers were no better in their dealings with us, but they certainly felt they were doing the will of God, didn’t they?
So though Atemi wishes that he’s made some great points against the Catholic Church, he will fail to admit that he is a follower of the same traditions of the murdering reformers (Can you all hear the cries of the peasant revolt dead crying out from their graves against Luther? Or the blood of my own persecuted Irish ancestors crying out to God on high?)
Will heretics burn? I think so. In hell. Is that against the will of the Holy Spirit? You figure it out.
Let’s all hope and pray that all the a-C propaganda and rhetoric never attempts violence against Catholics today. Most all of us have long memories.:irish1:
Oh…by the way, no one seems to have mentioned that there is nothing in this bull that goes beyond the burning of the writings of Luther and his supporters or anything more than their excommunication.
It’s easy to try to make more of a document than it says.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Where is it then?
F
Future_Prodigy
Guest
the thing is though that the rhetoric isnt used so much to support the position of the reformers over and against the catholics (most protestants acknowledge their own dark days)… but rather to discredit the arugment for papal infallibility. It is argued what sort of scary scenario that could have emerged had the pope held the same office, thus his newly added powers (according to them) he has today
C
Church_Militant
Guest
I haven’t seen many n-Cs admit “their own dark days” and I bet a dollar that if I posted some document of similar nature from Luther or Huss or some other such character, here and pointed to it as evidence that based on the fundamental error of Sola Scriptura they feel that they have a right to do violence, I’d get the same sort of reaction that it garners here. Yet their own “infallible” teachers did the self same thing and in fact we all can see that though they will not assert their own infallibility, they proclaim it defacto in their teachings that everyone is expected to accept. That’s one of the critical flaws of SS to begin with.Let’s be realistic…the fundamentalist n-Cs do indeed believe that they can say anything or do anything in their opposition to the Catholic faith. Just look at some of the a-C posts here on CAF or (God forbid) peruse some of the a-C fora that are out there. It makes CAF seem like a picnic on the beach by comparison. :whacky: If ya haven’t been there, trust me…I have.
A
Atemi
Guest
This Bull has nothing to do with what I wish but what the RCC has verifiably taught with the supposed authority of God.
So first you say “I wish” and then you go forward and support the directive of the Bull.
He discerned it so far to say that believing any differently than the Bull allows is a damnable offense.
Too bad none of them suggested that they had such authority nor did they prop themselves up as Vicar of Christ.
Comparing the sin of man to the official position of the RCC that has never been rescinded is extremely weak, for sure.
I merely repeat what the pope plainly taught with the supposed authority of God Himself backing him up.
If you do not like what I said, your problem is with your pope, not with me.
I do not follow any such traditions. I do not belong to a faith community that officially supported the murder of those who merely did not believe as we do.
As a Catholic, you do not have such liberty.
Yet we all know very well that the context is speaking of this life, not the next.
And it is easy to make less of a document than it says:
“by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…”
Like I said, the vast majority of Catholics will not be taught this. I wasn’t.
…
C
Church_Militant
Guest
As if your own tradition teaches with any less assertion of correctness…yet without the remotest connection to the beliefs of the early church.
Just pointing out the biblical precedent. Are you going to deny that my case is as good as any you can make?
.Not necessarily, since excommunication is remedial, no one need be damned if they repent their errant heresies. But then you like to seek to portray the Catholic faith in the worst possible way, regardless of the facts.
Really? Try telling that to the peasants that Luther supported the slaughter of…or my Irish ancestors who suffered under the anti-Catholic persecutions. But you’ll turn a blind eye to that won’t you?
of the RCC that has never been rescinded is extremely weak, for sure.Excuse me, but I did show you a Biblical precedent. You are supposedly some kind of “Bible Only Christian” are you not? Then according to your own professed only authority, you cannot attack Leo X or any of this teaching of the Church without manifesting some measure of hypocrisy IMO.
what the pope plainly taught with the supposed authority of God Himself backing him up.According to Sola Scriptura, I have actually cited all the authority that Leo X needed.
As usual, you wish. The fact is that your whole argument is specious and hypocritical because it fails to even begin to deal with the similar issues of n-Cs of that period and even after. What’s good for one should be good for the other, correct?
Ah…see. The very denial that I anticipated. Just because the names on the front of the community building have changed means little when the fact is that those within accept and profess the same doctrines, and in the same way that a line of succession can be traced from modern Catholic teaching to the early church via history, the same can be done to your own community’s beliefs which would no doubt take a circuitous route but still end in the laps of the reformers we are talking about. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and acts like a duck then it’s a reformation duck.
Nor do I need or want them, that’s one reason that I left the errors of n-C communities and came to the Catholic faith.
, not the next.Do we? Where does it say that?
Yep, IMO many n-Cs do it to the Word of God on a regular basis.
Yeah, so? Based on your post history with me, you didn’t learn much anyway, hence you embraced error and persist in it.:knight2:Oh please, tell that to the marines.
A
Atemi
Guest
No.
My church does not teach that they have such authority or power as to invent even the very thoughts of the congregation that can damn them to Hell.
You pointed out no Biblical precedent where anyone is called to murder others because they believe differently than you. How silly that you would think you did such a thing.
The fact that you would even toss support for such a crime into God’s lap demonstrates much about your worldview.
How sweet. They’re damned until they think God does not have a problem with murder.
My point remains:
“believing any differently than the Bull allows is a damnable offense”
Repenting of believing any differently is not believing any differently, Michael.
You cited nothing.
Actually, you cited incidents that never happened. Jews were never told to to “wipe out” the inhabitants of any area because they were “heretics.”
It’s OK because others did it?
Come on, Michael. That is not a godly position to take on evil.
…
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Biblical precedent where anyone is called to murder others because they believe differently than you. How silly that you would think you did such a thing.
The fact that you would even toss support for such a crime into God’s lap demonstrates much about your worldview.
How sweet. They’re damned until they think God does not have a problem with murder.
My point remains:
“believing any differently than the Bull allows is a damnable offense”
Repenting of believing any differently is not believing any differently, Michael.
You cited nothing.
**
Actually, you cited incidents that never happened**. Jews were never told to to “wipe out” the inhabitants of any area because they were “heretics.”
It’s OK because others did it?
Come on, Michael. That is not a godly position to take on evil.Yeah yeah yeah… SSDD…
Look at these scriptures and tell me that I am wrong. There are probably more…
1st Samuel 15:1-3
Jeremiah 6
Deuteronomy 13:11-17
Jeremiah 50:9-46
Deuteronomy 20:16-18
As I said… precedent in the Word of God.
Damnable offense? The document speaks of excommunication, something that the New Testament enjoins the Church to do in cases like that.
Perhaps if your own community followed the Word of God more closely you might see something similar, but instead, being every man his own little pope, they just leave and join another group or open another community.
The Biblical fact is that there really is a scriptural precedent for dealing violently with heretics and the church knows it, but today, (Praise Be To God!) we seek to use reason and dialog, though excommunication is still the same valid tool that it has been for 2,000 years though that only applies to our fellow Catholics.
Am I saying that we should burn heretics today? No, I am not.
I am merely pointing out that it is incorrect for a-Cs to allege that this was not something that the scriptures set as a precedent.
As for not taking a godly position on evil…I would assert that the one in moral danger is the one who endangers the very souls of people with their heresies. Since the teachings of the so called reformation err in matters of salvation doctrine this is the factual situation and they should heed to call to return to faithful New Testament Christianity.
A
Atemi
Guest
Your veiled references to vulgarity is not very becoming, Michael.
You are wrong.
The Amalekites were not punished because they were “heretics.”
No command here for any Jews to go murder “heretics.”
You are making all this up as you go along in your defense of evil deeds.
People who worship pagan gods are now “heretics”?
It seems you do not understand what a “heretic” is.
Yet again: no command here for any Jews to go murder “heretics.”
This is bad.
No “heretics” anywhere here either.
Nothing. All this is flailing.
You work so hard to find an excuse why your church has the right to murder those who don’t believe like you, Michael, but you have offered nothing so far.
Why not simply submit to the Christian dictate to love your neighbor instead of looking for an excuse to murder them and burn them alive?
Sorry, but putting someone out of the local congregation did not mean they were damned. That doctrine “developed” over the centuries.
No. We don’t seek justification to murder our neighbors for believing a little differently than we do. I am sorry if that disappoints.
We believe that Christians are called to live at peace with all and to love our Christian neighbors and serve them…not burn them alive.
Crazy thinking, I know.
Actually, none at all.
As a Christian, you should know this.
But you can never believe that it is against God’s will for your church to murder your Christian neighbor in cold blood if they do not believe exactly as you.
You think this is the heart of Christ on the matter?
Amazing to me.
Isa 5:20 “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil”
…
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
I think it is a distortion of Christianity to condemn that particular proposition (assuming that it represents Luther’s thinking faithfully)
Equally, there may be some fine shade of meaning, or mode of interpretation, that makes the Pope’s utterance much less revolting than it may seem. Another document that has been much misunderstood is the 1864 Syllabus of 80 Errors: since interpretation without regard for context was a major cause of dislike for it, & still is, the same could be true here. Bulls are like any other type of document - there are ways to interpret them properly, & ways not to do so.The OP is right - if some statements & actions of European Protestants were presented to certain US Protestants who have criticised Rome for various things, all Hell would break loose. Not because EPs are hiding anything, but because EPs, & European Catholics, have lived in very similar social contexts with which US Christians of all kinds are unlikely to be familiar: a lot of objections to various forms of Christianity have as much to do with sociology as with religious faith.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Not “in cold blood.” Only after a properly-conducted trial, where the defendant has had the opportunity to defend his innocence and/or recant his heresies.
Christ is not as tolerant of dissent against His teachings or disobedience toward His commandments as many people imagine. If you think the heretic trials were scary, just wait 'til you see the Last Judgement.
Woe, indeed. Such people would be … [drumroll] … heretics.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
The iniquisition would pail in comparison because the Just Judge is God himself. Jesus Christ. I would say over millions of human beings will be cast into the fires of hell, whether they be Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jewish, Muslim, Hindi, atheists, pagans, if, they are completely disobedient by acting upon the grace of God.Christ is not as tolerant of dissent against His teachings or disobedience toward His commandments as many people imagine. If you think the heretic trials were scary, just wait 'til you see the Last Judgement.
A
Atemi
Guest
That is very kind of you. As long as you give Christians a “trial” for their “crimes” against humanity.
LOL.
Kangaroo courts where corrupt officials sear their consciences excuse their desire to murder fellow Christians.
More of the world needs to be exposed to this fascinating facet of Roman Catholicism.
…
J
jmcrae
Guest
Not at all. They were legally constituted - real police officers, real lawyers, the King’s judiciary, and the whole bit - all government sponsored and perfectly legal. Not a single clergyman in the whole place, other than the guy that brings last rites to the condemned prisoner. Just like Texas.
M
Mimi
Guest
cafepress.com/newoxford.41011414
This link shows a picture of a bumper sticker that says:
I’d rather be roasting heretics!
(ducking and running with impish grin on face)
Sorry, couldn’t resist - do I have to confess this?
Mimi
This link shows a picture of a bumper sticker that says:
I’d rather be roasting heretics!
(ducking and running with impish grin on face)
Sorry, couldn’t resist - do I have to confess this?
Mimi
- Status