Can you name me ONE POPE who opposed the Burning of heretics

[Kaninchen]

Also, right before the reign of Queen Mary, St. Thomas More seems to have opposed executing heretics, unless they were violent (he wasn’t the pope, but he was still a very important Catholic figure):

1528 A.D. - St. Thomas More wrote that violence should not be used against heretics even by secular authorities, unless the heretics themselves are violent, and then only for that reason. (Dialogue Concerning Heresies, Part IV, Chapter 13)

Richard Bayfield, John Tewkesbury, James Bainham, Sir Thomas Hitton, Thomas Bilney.

 

[dmar198]

Richard Bayfield, John Tewkesbury, James Bainham, Sir Thomas Hitton, Thomas Bilney.

I don’t think those examples contradict the testimony of St. Thomas More, because it is my understanding that he executed those men as supporters of a violent rebellion, and not simply because they disagreed with the Church. Anyway, that’s how I see it. What do you think?

 

[Kaninchen]

I don’t think those examples contradict the testimony of St. Thomas More, because it is my understanding that he executed those men as supporters of a violent rebellion, and not simply because they disagreed with the Church. Anyway, that’s how I see it. What do you think?

I think you’ve just about excused virtually all executions of Catholics after 1570 (there being few before) in Elizabeth’s reign.

 

[Memaw]

Perhaps when one lives in a world where quite a bit of the architecture is from that time, the feeling that there’s a lot more Medieval stuff still around in our modern world is more overt.

Especially the bad feelings towards each other and that is totally against God’s Will. When will it ever end !! There is nothing any of us can do to change the past but we sure can aim the future in a kinder direction. God Bless, Memaw

 

[AngelusDomini]

The Elizabeth / Mary arguments really need to be seen in context - executions were on the orders of officials acting in the monarch’s name. There was more than a Protestant/Catholic battle - it was bound up with keeping your place as a statesman if you were a member of court, a way to dispose of potential enemies or someone proving a bit problematic.

There was also the threat of foreign invasion (don’t forget that many catholic ‘missionaries’ were sent to England as spies for foreign rulers) - there was much to be feared and hysteria found an easy breeding ground. In the same way, under Mary’s rule there was the threat of Protestant foreign alliance. The persecutions in the UK were more about the kingdom and politics than religion. The papacy, was also treading careful ground as secular rulers were not above threatening the power of the popes and (hard as it may be to accept), the papacy was very much caught up in the concerns of worldly power.

It is foolish to try and look at historical events just through modern view points. The Salem witch trials by today’s standards seem like a very bizarre and blood thirsty form of mass hysteria and blood lust, however, witch craft was seen as a very real threat to those people. It was all inhumane and against the Gospel, however, mindsets were set and belief was, for most, based on what they were simply told in an age where even some of the most powerful were uneducated.

 

[grannymh]

The opinions of popes about any subject do not have the power to change any duly defined doctrine in the Catholic Church.

The proper question is which Catholic doctrine was physically changed.

 

[Peter_J]

The opinions of popes about any subject do not have the power to change any duly defined doctrine in the Catholic Church.

The proper question is which Catholic doctrine was physically changed.

You got me. Although I do know that, according the Dale Gribble, the basement of Harvard Divinity School was the place where women were being surgically ordained.

For what his opinion is worth, that is.

 

[thistle]

Had the Spanish been successful in imposing Mary Stuart on the throne of England, she would have been Mary II.

She was Mary I of Scotland.

I’m not sure imposition is the right word. Spain certainly had an agenda. However, Mary Queen of Scots was the rightful heir to the English throne. She was the legitimate grand daughter of Henry VII while Elizabeth was the illegitimate daughter of Henry VIII.

 

[JRKH]

The Elizabeth / Mary arguments really need to be seen in context - executions were on the orders of officials acting in the monarch’s name. There was more than a Protestant/Catholic battle - it was bound up with keeping your place as a statesman if you were a member of court, a way to dispose of potential enemies or someone proving a bit problematic.

There was also the threat of foreign invasion (don’t forget that many catholic ‘missionaries’ were sent to England as spies for foreign rulers) - there was much to be feared and hysteria found an easy breeding ground. In the same way, under Mary’s rule there was the threat of Protestant foreign alliance. The persecutions in the UK were more about the kingdom and politics than religion. The papacy, was also treading careful ground as secular rulers were not above threatening the power of the popes and (hard as it may be to accept), the papacy was very much caught up in the concerns of worldly power.

It is foolish to try and look at historical events just through modern view points. The Salem witch trials by today’s standards seem like a very bizarre and blood thirsty form of mass hysteria and blood lust, however, witch craft was seen as a very real threat to those people. It was all inhumane and against the Gospel, however, mindsets were set and belief was, for most, based on what they were simply told in an age where even some of the most powerful were uneducated.

An excellent post.

This is something that we need to recognize and share in such conversations. In most cases during the time of the “Reformation”, politics played a much larger role in these things than did theology.
The reformation may have started over theological issues, but it was politics that really caused the most damage and (IMHO) helped the schism(s) to take root in the way that they did.

Peace
James

 

[GEddie]

Perhaps when one lives in a world where quite a bit of the architecture is from that time, the feeling that there’s a lot more Medieval stuff still around in our modern world is more overt.

Those of us in NA, which was the Native happy-hunting ground at the time, often ignore the long historical footprint of that period.

I mean, around here, we still think a human lifetime is a historically-significant duration…

ICXC NIKA

 

[meltzerboy]

I can’t say for sure. Does it have anything to do with the Jew’s (and the cat’s) inability to profit from their dream because of their obstinacy with regard to changing their ways?

 

[meltzerboy]

The Elizabeth / Mary arguments really need to be seen in context - executions were on the orders of officials acting in the monarch’s name. There was more than a Protestant/Catholic battle - it was bound up with keeping your place as a statesman if you were a member of court, a way to dispose of potential enemies or someone proving a bit problematic.

There was also the threat of foreign invasion (don’t forget that many catholic ‘missionaries’ were sent to England as spies for foreign rulers) - there was much to be feared and hysteria found an easy breeding ground. In the same way, under Mary’s rule there was the threat of Protestant foreign alliance. The persecutions in the UK were more about the kingdom and politics than religion. The papacy, was also treading careful ground as secular rulers were not above threatening the power of the popes and (hard as it may be to accept), the papacy was very much caught up in the concerns of worldly power.

It is foolish to try and look at historical events just through modern view points. The Salem witch trials by today’s standards seem like a very bizarre and blood thirsty form of mass hysteria and blood lust, however, witch craft was seen as a very real threat to those people. It was all inhumane and against the Gospel, however, mindsets were set and belief was, for most, based on what they were simply told in an age where even some of the most powerful were uneducated.

Good post! It would appear that politics trumps all else, both then and now.

 

[captainrick]

From a Catholic.

Don’t we have more important things to do than argue about Pope’s who lived 500 years ago? Can’t we work together to end abortion or feed some hungry people, or at least have a barbeque or go bowling or something?

-Tim-

Exactly! There are much better things to do than get into religious arguments with people who hate the Catholic Church.

I was a Protestant for many years, and everyone I knew respected Catholics as fellow Christians.

 

[Kount_C]

From a Protestant

Can you name me ONE POPE who opposed the Burning of heretics under Bloody Mary’s Reign? Where was the outspoken outrage from the Church of Rome?

If you want real authentic answers.
You should go to the website. " St. Michael’s Call, Catholic Super Site"

There is a big question and answer section from everything from apologetic to spiritual warfare I think you would find a lot more info other then the average laymen.

The state burned people at stake, not the pope. Mostly the inquisition was done, because of the need to stop Sharia law that the Spanish wanted no part of.

 

[epostle]

Can you name me ONE POPE who ENDORSED the Burning of heretics?

 

[grannymh]

You got me. Although I do know that, according the Dale Gribble, the basement of Harvard Divinity School was the place where women were being surgically ordained.

For what his opinion is worth, that is.

Oooops! I do want to laugh at myself. :blushing:

When I wrote …
"The opinions of popes about any subject do not have the power to change any duly defined doctrine in the Catholic Church.

“The proper question is which Catholic doctrine was physically changed.”

I was thinking along the lines of a physical event like a proper Church Council. Some people think that anytime a high ranking church member speaks, he is declaring a new, updated, or changed Catholic doctrine. Catholic doctrines require a lot of physical studying, sometimes years, in preparation for a very physical Church Council event.

Regardless of a pope’s silence or open opposition, the Catholic doctrines surrounding the dignity of the human person because she and he are in the image of God, remain.

Can a pope go against a Catholic doctrine? Some have done that. It is up to God to judge pope’s and peasant’s actions.

When people ask about one pope who opposed heretics, that sounds like a strawman argument. Popes and peasants live and die. The real issue is that Catholic doctrines remain unchanged.

 

[Kaninchen]

She was Mary I of Scotland.

I’m not sure imposition is the right word. Spain certainly had an agenda. However, Mary Queen of Scots was the rightful heir to the English throne. She was the legitimate grand daughter of Henry VII while Elizabeth was the illegitimate daughter of Henry VIII.

The thing is that I don’t share your perspective over Elizabeth’s legitimacy but that’s rather by-the-by. Mary Stuart could only have become queen if Elizabeth were deposed and that was only going to happen by rebellion and a foreign-backed (ie Spanish) rebellion at that.

Since I kind of have a prejudice that Henry VII and his granddaughter Elizabeth were the last two English ruling Monarchs (before Monarchs became a constitutional convention - reigning rather than ruling) who weren’t a waste of space I think that would have been a pity. Mary Stuart would have been a disaster (she had the track record) and France would never have accepted being surrounded by Spain/Spanish client states so instability would have been inbuilt.

 

[Peter_J]

Oooops! I do want to laugh at myself. :blushing:

Since I don’t know you all that well, I should clarify that I’m not a hard-nosed using-words-correctly all-the-time type. (I don’t particularly mind when people call something in real life “ironic”, provided it’s something that would be ironic if it happened in a play. But that’s a whole other can of worms.) But I just couldn’t resist making light of a doctrine being “physically” changed.

In seriousness, I’m a little surprised that you didn’t use the usual term “official” … although simultaneously admire you for not doing so, considering the usual problems that come along with it.

 

[Peter_J]

… that you didn’t use the usual term “official” …

P.S. Or the other usual terminology “Well that wasn’t infallible”.

 

[Kaninchen]

Especially the bad feelings towards each other and that is totally against God’s Will. When will it ever end !! There is nothing any of us can do to change the past but we sure can aim the future in a kinder direction. God Bless, Memaw

I think that some posters on CAF tend to think of the Middle Ages as being like a huge Giotto painting with the population (some of them with circles around their heads) spending their time gazing upwards, enraptured. Then naughty heretics and, eventually, Luther came along and ruined it.