Catholic Church Teachings and Views are Wrong?

[1ke]

I ask out of ignorance, but what about burning heretics?

The civil government, not the Church, dispensed punishment for capital crimes. Heresy was not only a Church matter. Heresy was a state matter. Heresy (obstinate heresy that one refuses to recant) = treason against the state. Treason = capital crime. Heresy was treated this way by many rulers because heresy and heretics tended to spread sedition and anarchy, and it was in the state’s best interest to ensure stability and law & order.

Was this ever condoned by Popes or councils or was it always condemned? (even though it was practiced)

That is a prudential matter, not a doctrinal matter. Although there are no council pronouncements on burning heretics specifically (and the Church encouraged leniency and reconciliation), the Church’s teaching then as today is that capital punishment can be legitimately used. It is a much larger burden on the state to show it is necessary in this day and time when we can much more easily handle dangerous criminals.

I’m sure the Church teaches against burning heretics now?

Heresy is no longer a civil crime. Therefore, the only punishments involved are ecclesial.

The Church’s position on capital punishment has not changed-- it is not inherently wrong. Civil governments today no longer look to doctrinal matters in the criminal code.

 

[chazcheh]

Thank you for all your posts, I’m glad to see the Catholic community growing in knowledge.

I am asking this question as I am looking at the forces against the Catholic Faith and trying to understand why they believe we are wrong.
I guess I’m trying to dig a little to see if there is real reason for certain societies and governing bodies rejecting the teachings of the Catholic Church.

What I am trying to get at is, if the Catholic Church with all its Teachings and Dogma over the past 2000 years have never been proven incorrect, but In FACT like its teachings against slavery, cannibalism, etc have always brought forth good in this world, well then there is no reason to not trust it now, since it has always been right, RIGHT??

 

[anruari]

Thank you for all your posts, I’m glad to see the Catholic community growing in knowledge.

I am asking this question as I am looking at the forces against the Catholic Faith and trying to understand why they believe we are wrong.
I guess I’m trying to dig a little to see if there is real reason for certain societies and governing bodies rejecting the teachings of the Catholic Church.

What I am trying to get at is, if the Catholic Church with all its Teachings and Dogma over the past 2000 years have never been proven incorrect, but In FACT like its teachings against slavery, cannibalism, etc have always brought forth good in this world, well then there is no reason to not trust it now, since it has always been right, RIGHT??

Well yes and no.
Her ability to teach the truth comes not from her Human History, but from the Divinely prophesied protection of the Holy Spirit, as recorded in the Gospels.
Your first point should be to defend the prophesy of Christ that “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it [My Church]” and that peter and the apostles, and their successors have the power on earth to forgive sins and to Bind and loose (make laws) and their decisions and judgements have authority that is upheld in Heaven.

Then you can demonstrate that this church can only be the Catholic Church.

then you can demonstrate that indeed that prophesy is continuing to be fulfilled. that while errors and misconceptions have existed and been common, that the official teaching of the church has never erred.
that Christ estab

 

[dronald]

The civil government, not the Church, dispensed punishment for capital crimes. Heresy was not only a Church matter. Heresy was a state matter. Heresy (obstinate heresy that one refuses to recant) = treason against the state. Treason = capital crime. Heresy was treated this way by many rulers because heresy and heretics tended to spread sedition and anarchy, and it was in the state’s best interest to ensure stability and law & order.

That is a prudential matter, not a doctrinal matter. Although there are no council pronouncements on burning heretics specifically (and the Church encouraged leniency and reconciliation), the Church’s teaching then as today is that capital punishment can be legitimately used. It is a much larger burden on the state to show it is necessary in this day and time when we can much more easily handle dangerous criminals.

Heresy is no longer a civil crime. Therefore, the only punishments involved are ecclesial.

The Church’s position on capital punishment has not changed-- it is not inherently wrong. Civil governments today no longer look to doctrinal matters in the criminal code.

I’m just curious as to why this was never tried to be put to a stop by the Church? (or was it?) If they had so much power, couldn’t they put more effort into stopping people from being murdered by burning?

They speak out against many state matters these days (and back then) why not burning heretics?

 

[JerryZ]

Uhhh because we have ARMIES of praying people

While the secular have weapons of varying degree of destruction?

Also we must remember that the conversion process cannot be imposed by brute force it has to come from the heart.

Peace

 

[PaulfromIowa]

I am asking this question as I am looking at the forces against the Catholic Faith and trying to understand why they believe we are wrong.
I guess I’m trying to dig a little to see if there is real reason for certain societies and governing bodies rejecting the teachings of the Catholic Church.

No, there is no justifiable reason for schism from Christ’s Church. Never has been, never will be.

 

[fred_conty]

I’m just curious as to why this was never tried to be put to a stop by the Church? (or was it?) If they had so much power, couldn’t they put more effort into stopping people from being murdered by burning?

They speak out against many state matters these days (and back then) why not burning heretics?

I’m guessing here, but communications weren’t the best in those days. It required days and weeks to communicate and by the time it went thru, it was too late. I’m sure there must also have been quite a bit of misunderstanding which wasn’t talked thru as well. The bishops too in those days took on more responsibility for handling matters and didn’t always refer everything to Rome. It is important to understand that society, customs, and general living, were quite different then, and to be fair, we must put ourselves in their shoes if we are to understand what really went on. Events weren’t all that clear cut to all parties, civil and religious authority.

Just a passing thought.

 

[chazcheh]

I’m guessing here, but communications weren’t the best in those days. It required days and weeks to communicate and by the time it went thru, it was too late. I’m sure there must also have been quite a bit of misunderstanding which wasn’t talked thru as well. The bishops too in those days took on more responsibility for handling matters and didn’t always refer everything to Rome. It is important to understand that society, customs, and general living, were quite different then, and to be fair, we must put ourselves in their shoes if we are to understand what really went on. Events weren’t all that clear cut to all parties, civil and religious authority.

Just a passing thought.

Fair and valid point. We are quick to judge events in history without understanding the circumstances. We usually judge things according to our circumstances of our time and expect events to play out they way it should or could have played out if the event took place today.

 

[dronald]

Thanks for the responses. So how would one reply to all of these charges without understanding the history of the Church in detail? I looked up some of these and am not sure how a Catholic should respond.

A certain paranoia of heresy and its taint on the community is apparent from St Paul through all the church fathers and right into medieval Christendom. Jerome is famous for commenting on Galatians 5:9, “A little leaven,” says (Catena Aurea): “Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame.” We have Augustine’s commentary of ‘And the Lord said to the servant: Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in [compelle intrare], that my house may be filled.’ [Luke 14:23] to justify coercion. And Aquinas in the Summa re-iterating that “…by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death.” This thinking is very much the life blood of the Church and burning and torture was quite a common fate of heretics. As the Catholic Encyclopedia says: “The burning of heretics was first decreed in the eleventh century [NB unofficially in use a millenia earlier]. The Synod of Verona (1184) imposed on bishops the duty to search out the heretics in their dioceses and to hand them over to the secular power. Other synods, and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) under Pope Innocent III, repeated and enforced this decree, especially the Synod of Toulouse (1229), which established inquisitors in every parish (one priest and two laymen). Everyone was bound to denounce heretics, the names of the witnesses were kept secret; after 1243, when Innocent IV sanctioned the laws of Emperor Frederick II and of Louis IX against heretics, torture was applied in trials; the guilty persons were delivered up to the civil authorities and actually burnt at the stake.” And from this the Crusade against the Cathars and so forth.