Catholic Heretics and the Death Penalty

  • Thread starter Thread starter robert_newman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
robert_newman said:
It is not the duty of a Christian to live in the past but in the present.

You have a real problem with Christians who, as in the time of the Reformation, voted with their feet to get out of what they saw was a totally corrupt insitution. That was their choice. And papal medals were struck to celebrate when they were murdered,

You speak of Ireland. But the Papacy itself gave the island of Ireland to the English king with the command that he send missionaries there to convert them. (This was before the Reformation at a time when the English king was a Roman Catholic). These things are history.

You are of course fully entitled to believe what you please within the context of the laws of the land. I defend your freedom. Toleration is a hallmark of true Christianity.

Yours sincerely
Click to expand...
Using the quote feature, (like this) will make it much easier to see who you are responding to y’know.

BTW, I find it interesting that you just used the same reasoning to defend the persecution of Irish Catholics that we always offer about sins against Protestants…“it was the civil authority”. Same old, same old.

You’re no different than anyone else sir.
If I was you I’d drop this bad joke of a thread.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
 
robert_newman said:
Let’s be honest. Today on this thread we have had numerous Roman Catholics agreeing that the death penalty is correct for heretics. Mary Rose for example. And others. They are being honest.

I repeat, unless you can show that canon law has changed you must agree that it has NOT changed.

The onus is on you to show it has changed. I have showed evidence that it has NOT changed.

If you believe these books (which previously were said not to exist) do not contain the things I quoted from them, then, at that time, you can call me a liar. But all I have said to you is true and these works are obtainable in any good Catholic library. They were written FOR Catholics and I again must insist that you read them if you really wish to argue like this.

A wise man is one who has heard both points of view. I have pointed to your own Catholic sources. I cannot produce photocopies but I am quite sure you can obtain them yourself from the British Library or any other library if you really want to have physical evidence of their content.

I did not manufacture these contents. I have told you exactly what is contained in these works. I have also told you of letters approving of them. And you have seen your own colleagues agreeing with their content.

Therefore, Sir, the onus is on you to produce evidence that canon law and the treatment of heretics has changed within the Roman Catholic Church. If you cannot provide even a single reference then, in all fairness, we must conclude that the position of Rome remains the same now on heretics as it was in the Middle Ages.

So the choice is entirely yours. You can do nothing. Or you can check these things for yourself. Either way, I am responsible for the truth, the same as you.

That is only fair and just.

Yours in Christian Service
Click to expand...
There are at least 2 links to the current code of canon law in this thread. I see no proof there that the Church asks for the death penalty for heresy currently.
 
Nobody is joking. It’s a serious matter. You can see that the death penalty for heretics is believed by your own colleagues on this thread.

But yes, I think we have spoken a long time on this issue. I trust you agree that I’ve given you what information I have.

If you can show me reason to believe that this teaching of Rome has changed in the past century or so, please produce it. The evidence is the very opposite, as already shown.

Regards
 
Mike, the worst part of this is that he is basically doing what the Muslims did to Pope Benedict when Benedict quoted from a medieval source the words of a speaker in that document about Islam.

Fr. Marianus was quoting from an obsolete law regarding the then civil penalty for heretics being death. Not only did Fr. Marianus note that the law was obsolete, but he went on specifically to say that civil authorities, having chosen to stop issuing the death penalties in cases of heresies, should never again try to issue the death penalty.

However certain groups (and certain members of those groups) take the ‘quote’ of approval of the civil authority at that time, the 15th or 16th century, regarding a particular recusant group which had not only expressed heresy but had also engaged in other criminal activities, and acts as though it was “the Catholic Church” which had the authority to execute (it did not); acts as though Fr. Marianus approves of the death penalty (he does not) and acts as though Catholics today ‘still’ call for the death penalty and that the church ‘still’ teaches it. Much as one poster said, this smacks of the old “beating the wife” chestnut, where one is damned if one says yes, and equally damned if one says no.

It is an artificial and totally false argument, engineered to try to prove a fallacy and rooted in deceit. There is no excuse to perpetrate an error when supposedly the person stating this canard about Fr. Marianus has the access to the entire document and can read that Fr. Marianus’ words are in direct reference to the quoted document, etc.

The fact that someone conveniently ignores this and just continues to reiterate a cherry picked phrase. . . is far more telling regarding said person’s agenda, IMO.
 
Then, Tantum Ergo, please produce for the Roman Catholic faithful evidence that the death penalty is no longer the penalty for heretics. Show us a text, a reference, a source, when, in fact, you have now had ample evidence that the position of your church on this issue is unchanged today from that of the Middle Ages.

If you cannot provide evidence of a change then, by definition, no such change has occurred.

Such things are very, very simple. May we have evidence of change ?
 
robert_newman said:
Let’s be honest. …
Therefore, Sir, the onus is on you to produce evidence that canon law and the treatment of heretics has changed within the Roman Catholic Church. If you cannot provide even a single reference then, in all fairness, we must conclude that the position of Rome remains the same now on heretics as it was in the Middle Ages.

So the choice is entirely yours. You can do nothing. Or you can check these things for yourself. Either way, I am responsible for the truth, the same as you.

That is only fair and just.

Yours in Christian Service
Click to expand...
Have ya seen any heretics burnin’ at the stake lately? Have you heard of any Catholics executing same? Regardless of your silly document citations (Gee, is it me or are there still Protestant denoms that have the Pope listed as the anti-christ and our most holy faith as the whore of Babylon in their statements of belief? And all very proud of being “reformed”) the fact is that these things have not happened in a long long time and won’t. So…what’s your point aside from bashing the Catholic faith instead of dealing with the real doctrinal errors that make you a heretic in Catholic eyes?

Why don’t you drop this thread and deal with the real issues, beginning with the indefensible heresy of Sola Scriptura, (in whatever variant form you believe it).
Open a new thread on SS and defend your doctrine if you think you can, if you’re such a Protestant scholar.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
 
You are continually making the error that I am a Protestant. I am a Christian.

Secondly, this thread is exclusively on ‘Catholic Heretics and the Death Penalty’.

So, as long as this thread exists let us be true to its subject.

I will not dispute with you on the divine inspiration of the bible, since its inspiration is clearly stated in the bible itself. That all scripture is inspired by God. Such things are so simple and so clear that a fool does not need to make a mistake.
 
robert_newman said:
It is not the duty of a Christian to live in the past but in the present.

You have a real problem with Christians who, as in the time of the Reformation, voted with their feet to get out of what they saw was a totally corrupt insitution. That was their choice. And papal medals were struck to celebrate when they were murdered,

You speak of Ireland. But the Papacy itself gave the island of Ireland to the English king with the command that he send missionaries there to convert them. (This was before the Reformation at a time when the English king was a Roman Catholic). These things are history.

You are of course fully entitled to believe what you please within the context of the laws of the land. I defend your freedom. Toleration is a hallmark of true Christianity.

Yours sincerely
Click to expand...
Christianity without the Eucharist isn’t really Christianity. Without the The Real Present of Christ/Eucharist, church is just gathering of the community. How many quotes will be needed to be provided to prove that point?

It is my responsiblity to tell you the truth so you will not be mislead by a minister or preacher in a non-catholic church to believe otherwise.
 
Christianity is the spirit of the law of God.

You speak of the eucharist as being central to Christianity.

In fact, the center of Christianity is Jesus Christ.

The eucharist is a memorial. Not a presence. ‘This do in MEMORY of me’ - i.e. in the absence, not the presence, of the Lord Jesus Christ.

To suggest, therefore, that the the bread and wine are literal body and blood of Christ is an error. They are symbols. This do, in memory of me. And so the church does so. Rightly.
 
robert_newman said:
Then, Tantum Ergo, please produce for the Roman Catholic faithful evidence that the death penalty is no longer the penalty for heretics. Show us a text, a reference, a source, when, in fact, you have now had ample evidence that the position of your church on this issue is unchanged today from that of the Middle Ages.

If you cannot provide evidence of a change then, by definition, no such change has occurred.

Such things are very, very simple. May we have evidence of change ?
Click to expand...
"

THE PUNISHMENT OF DELICTS IN GENERAL (Cann. 1311 - 1312)

Can. 1311 The Church has the innate and proper right to coerce offending members of the Christian faithful with penal sanctions.
Can. 1312 §1. The following are penal sanctions in the Church:
1/ medicinal penalties, or censures, which are listed in cann. 1331-1333;
2/ expiatory penalties mentioned in can. 1336.
§2. The law can establish other expiatory penalties which deprive a member of the Christian faithful of some spiritual or temporal good and which are consistent with the supernatural purpose of the Church.
§3. Penal remedies and penances are also used; the former especially to prevent delicts, the latter to substitute for or to increase a penalty"

You will find no evidence that death is a penalty for any offense (delict) in any of the referenced canons. Whether they have changed, I cannot say as I don’t have access to prior versions of these canons.
Whether any individual member of the Church endorsed the death penalty is immaterial, as it would not be binding on its members.
 
robert_newman said:
Christianity is the spirit of the law of God.

You speak of the eucharist as being central to Christianity.

In fact, the center of Christianity is Jesus Christ.

The eucharist is a memorial. Not a presence. ‘This do in MEMORY of me’ - i.e. in the absence, not the presence, of the Lord Jesus Christ.

To suggest, therefore, that the the bread and wine are literal body and blood of Christ is an error. They are symbols. This do, in memory of me. And so the church does so. Rightly.
Click to expand...
Not quite correct!
Mark 14:22024 - Take and eat. This is my body …this is my blood wich will be shed for you.

1 Cor. 11: 27-29: anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

So, the word “in memory of me” makes the verses symbolic? I dont think so.
Tell me if this is symbolic, No?

PS: this might take a whole new thread to discuss; however, this has explained millions of time. 🙂 How one cannot see the real presence of the Lord!
 
Dear David,

Thanks for this.

In reply to the main question of whether things have changed since the Middle Ages (in respect of the death penalty for heretics) you write -

*‘Whether they have changed, I cannot say’ *

Yes, I respect your answer.

Many Catholics here (some even on this thread) believe the death penalty is still in force for heretics. We have already discussed two works by leading writers in Rome (papally approved) during the 20th century saying exactly the same.
 
Well, the body and blood of Jesus Christ was offered ONCE only, for the sins of the world. Not a million times. Once.

But this memorial is a duty of the church.

I do not wish to debate such things and I completely respect your right to believe on them as you see them. Each person is given a different level of faith, of understanding, and whether we agree or not on this issue the important thing is to have toleration one for the other.

The fact that these issues were of huge importance during the middle ages merely proves that different people see things differently. We may disagree on these things. Fine. Let us not disagree on our attitude towards one another.

I would rather be right in my attitude and wrong in my doctrine than vice-versa. And yet I do not wish to be ignorant and am responsible for what I see, as are you.
 
robert_newman said:
Christianity is the spirit of the law of God.

You speak of the eucharist as being central to Christianity.

In fact, the center of Christianity is Jesus Christ.

The eucharist is a memorial. Not a presence. ‘This do in MEMORY of me’ - i.e. in the absence, not the presence, of the Lord Jesus Christ.

To suggest, therefore, that the the bread and wine are literal body and blood of Christ is an error. They are symbols. This do, in memory of me. And so the church does so. Rightly.
Click to expand...
In fact, Christ is the Eucharist. To suggest otherwise, is unchristian. These are the facts of christianity. Not everyone that claims to be christian understands that. It is my responsibility to inform anyone who doesn’t understand that of the Truth.
 
Quoting Canon Law from the Vatican’s own website:

PENALTIES FOR INDIVIDUAL DELICTS

TITLE I.

DELICTS AGAINST RELIGION AND THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 1364 - 1369)

**Can. 1364 §1. **Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
**§2. **If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.

**Can. 1365 **A person guilty of prohibited participation in sacred rites (communicatio in sacris) is to be punished with a just penalty.

**Can. 1366 **Parents or those who take the place of parents who hand offer their children to be baptized or educated in a non Catholic religion are to be punished with a censure or other just penalty.

**Can. 1367 **A person who throws away the consecrated species or takes or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; moreover, a cleric can be punished with another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.

**Can. 1368 **A person who commits perjury while asserting or promising something before ecclesiastical authority is to be punished with a just penalty.

**Can. 1369 **A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty.

You have said that members of the Catholic Church need to be taught that their Church teaches that heretics should be put to death; why should we be taught a lie? It doesn’t!

Maybe you think we ought to be taught that the Church has, in the past, recommended putting heretics to death by the civil authorities. Guess what? WE KNOW!

The only question that remains is the one I pose to you:

[sign]SO WHAT?[/sign]

We are aware of our Church’s history and teachings. We are aware (as you seem not to be) that not everything the Pope, a Bishop or a priest approves of is considered Sacred Doctrine or Dogma.

The only reason I can concieve for you to come in here and ask such a question is that you’re spoiling for a fight. This is rude.
 
robert_newman said:
I have no problem with this verse at all.
If you look in the same Chapter (Luke 19.11-28) you can see clearly that Jesus is teaching by parables.

Now, that is crystal clear. He is speaking in parables.
Click to expand...
Who is the judge in the parable? This is the parable of the talents from Matthew 25. The judge is Jesus.
If you still don’t agree do you recall that at the moment of Jesus arrest in the garden of Gethsemane he expressly told his disciples to put away their swords?
Click to expand...
That is because he did not want them to fight to free him, since His purpose for coming down from heaven was to sarifice Himself for our sins.

But at another time Jesus told His apostles to purchase a sword:

“The he (Jesus) said to them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip: and he that hath not, let him sell his coat and buy a sword… but they said: Lord, behold here are two swords. And he said to them: It is enough” (Luke 22:35,37).
So you see, the gentle, meek Jesus did NOT call for capital punishment.
Click to expand...
The gentle and meek Jesus is God - the same God who authored the Old Testament.

You said that the death penalty is barbaric, yet God (Jesus) commanded it in the Old Testament. There are not two Gods: one of the Old Testament and one of the New. It is one and the same God.

In the Old Testament we are told that God punished Israel until they killed the person who broke the law. The person even confessed and said he was sorry.

Josue: "And the Lord said to Josue… Israel hath sinned, and transgressed by covenant… Neither can Israel stand before his enemies, but he shall flee from them: because he is defiled with anathena. I will be no more with you, till you destroy hm that is guilty of this wickendess… And Achan answered Josue, and said to him: Indeed I have sinned against the Lord, the God of Israel, and thus and thus have I done. … **Where Josue said: Because thou hast troubled us, the Lord trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him: **and all things that were his, were consumed with fire. And they gathered together upon him a great heap of stones, which remaineth until this present day. And the wrath of the Lord was turned away from them" (Josue 7:19-26)
And, finally, in the Sermon on the Mount, he clearly taught that we should love those who are our enemies, to do good to those who were against us, etc etc etc.
Click to expand...
The Christian church does not approve of capital punishment. We who claim to be Christian must NOT think ourselves beyond the grace of Jesus Christ. If we do we are under judgement of the law ourselves. That is the New Testament delivered to the apostles.

I’m not sure what that meant, but the death penalty is not used for vengence. It is used for those who break the law, in order to protect society.

Think of all the harm that a single person can do (Hitler or Stallin, for example). If their plans had been uncovered, and they were put to death ahead of time by the rightful authority, then millions of innocent people would not have been murdered. The death penalty is just and benefits society. It is clearly sanctioned in the Old Testament, alluded to in the New, and it has been a practice since the beginning.

But, as has been said, the Church never puts anyone to death. It only approves of the practice of the State employing the death penalty.
 
robert_newman said:
Christianity is the spirit of the law of God.

You speak of the eucharist as being central to Christianity.

In fact, the center of Christianity is Jesus Christ.

The eucharist is a memorial. Not a presence. ‘This do in MEMORY of me’ - i.e. in the absence, not the presence, of the Lord Jesus Christ.

To suggest, therefore, that the the bread and wine are literal body and blood of Christ is an error. They are symbols. This do, in memory of me. And so the church does so. Rightly.
Click to expand...
I CORINTHIANS 17-32
BUT TO THE FOLLOWING INSTUCTIONS I DO NOT COMMEND YOU, BECAUSE WHEN YOU COME TOGETHER, IT IS NOT FOR THE BETTER BUT FOR THE WORSE. FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE, WHEN YOU ASSEMBLE AS A CHURCH, I HEAR THAT THERE ARE DIVISIONS AMONG YOU; AND I PARTLY BELIEVE IT, SO THERE MUST BE FACTIONS AMONG YOU IN ORDER THAT THOSE WHO ARE GENUINE AMONG YOU MAY BE RECOGNIZED. WHEN YOU MEET TOGTHER IT IS NOT THE LORDS SUPPER THAT YOU EAT…
FOR I RECEIVED FROM THE LORD WHAT I ALSO DELIVERED TO YOU, THAT THE LORD JESUS ON THE NIGHT HE WAS BETRAYED TOOK BREAD AND WHEN HE HAD GIVEN THANKS, HE BROKE IT AND SAID, " THIS IS MY BODY THIS IS MY BODY THIS IS MY BODY WHICH IS FOR YOU FOR YOU (ROBERT NEWMAN ). DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME". IN THE SAME WAY ALSO THE CUP AFTER SUPPER SAYING"THIS CUP IS THE NEW COVENANT IN MY BLOD. DDO THIS AS OFTEN AS YOU DRINK IT, IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME". FOR AS OFTEN AS YOU EAT THIS BREAD AND DRINK THE CUP, YOU PROCLAIM THE LORD’S DEATH UNTILL HE COMES.
29; FOR ANYONE WHO EATS AND DRINKS WITHOUT DISCERNING THE BODY EATS AND DRINKS JUDGEMENT UPON HIMSELF; RSV CE

Reading this thread and your statements have strengthened my faith in Jesus and the RCC because Jesus said that is His body and that is what He proclaimed Luke 22; 19-20 He was present and we have Paul’s statement and that is good enough for me ! How about you? 👍 return from the desert
 
Fine - read what you sent again -

DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME". IN THE SAME WAY ALSO THE CUP AFTER SUPPER SAYING"THIS CUP IS THE NEW COVENANT IN MY BLOOD. DO THIS AS OFTEN AS YOU DRINK IT, IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME
 
If you want to discuss John 6, Robert, please open a new thread.

Once again, The Catholic Church has never ‘put heretics’ to death. Civil authorities have done this.

You have been shown this over and over.

I think that most of us understand that ‘you cannot prove a negative.’

You see, since the Catholic Church never put heretics to death, there is no way to find a document that says, "Church policy is to put a heretic to death.’

What you will find in documents going back for centuries are the spiritual penalties. What you will find is documentation for what the **civil authorities ** throughout the centuries judged to be punishment for capital crimes–one of which was heresy.

What you will find–and yet you still have not addressed this, is that civil governments for non-Catholic Christian countries or kingdoms did exactly the same. The churches (non-Catholic Christian or Catholic Christian) made the judgment as to what was ‘heresy’ (which is why Anglicans found Catholics ‘heretics’ in England, and why the royal government put those Catholics to death).

So I am not going to ask ‘when did the Anglican Church change their policy on executing heretics’ as though the "anglican church’ had a policy requiring this and as though ‘their church’ killed Catholics.

I will ask, why are you **only ** concerned about the Catholic Church, and not the Anglicans, the Luttherans, the Baptists etc.
 
It is not that I am disinterested in other events or other churches. But this is a Roman Catholic answer forum. I am therefore focused on the Roman Catholic Church and on what it has done, what is believes, what it teaches, etc. etc. This is perfectly normal. You see clearly (and there is simply no doubt of this) many modern Catholics believe the death penalty IS still an appropriate punishment for heresy, as did 2 papally approved writers on this subject in the 20th century.

Now, I must change the subject since you seem determined to talk of other issues. You write -

*What you will find–and yet you still have not addressed this, is that civil governments for non-Catholic Christian countries or kingdoms did exactly the same. The churches (non-Catholic Christian or Catholic Christian) made the judgment as to what was ‘heresy’ (which is why Anglicans found Catholics ‘heretics’ in England, and why the royal government put those Catholics to death).

So I am not going to ask ‘when did the Anglican Church change their policy on executing heretics’ as though the "anglican church’ had a policy requiring this and as though ‘their church’ killed Catholics’ *

Well, you make a series of very clumsy mistakes in writing this.

Let me ask you a simple question. When did the government of England kill Catholics ? Please tell us this ? In which year were they put to death as heretics ? Such talk is sheer fiction.

But if you can provide some evidence for your story, please do. I think 400 years of such misinformation deserves a fair and honest discussion. The Roman Catholic Church (and Roman Catholics) were never, at any time in the whole of English history arrested and killed for being Catholics. Nor were they killed for heresy.

But if you can show evidence to the contrary, please do. I look forward to your reply.

Thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top