J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I just want to put my foot in and clarify something: no one is suggesting heretics SHOULD be burned, are they?
CCC traditional teaching on the Church burning heritics at the stake
- Status
B
Brendan
Guest
Mark,
What exactly is the danger of a heretic. A murder on the loose only threats the bodies of their victims.
A loose heretic kills souls. Damned to Enternal Fire.
Which are more valuable, the temoral body or the immortal soul? Which would the Church be most negligent in allowing to die.
A mass murder of bodies could be condemmed if there was no other way of stopping them, why not a mass murder of souls?
What exactly is the danger of a heretic. A murder on the loose only threats the bodies of their victims.
A loose heretic kills souls. Damned to Enternal Fire.
Which are more valuable, the temoral body or the immortal soul? Which would the Church be most negligent in allowing to die.
A mass murder of bodies could be condemmed if there was no other way of stopping them, why not a mass murder of souls?
B
Brendan
Guest
Of course not, like material murders, there are much better modern ways of protecting society.
But that was not necessarily true in previous times.
The same is true for heretics.
We have much better means of combating the damage they do to souls ( Tim Staples talks anyone
)
S
Shiann
Guest
Deo Volente:
It is truly amazing that the Church was able to advocate for accused heretics at all. The fact that they were given a year to make their determination, and were allowed time to try to convert them is truly a human right not offered to any other type of ‘criminal’.
And further- in this time, how could the Church hope to promote Christian philosophy and evangelize if there were individuals out there who publicly claimed heresy? The Church also had an obligation to protect the Faithful don’t you think?
Which they did, and do. It was the secular authorities who deterimined the punishment. It was the Church who acted as advocate for these folks, and put them under their protection for a given amount of time to denounce their heresies and embrace Christianity. Secular authorities allowed the Church to determine the innocence or guilt of a particular individual. Please review the thread I offered for the specifics of this.
This is of course true in this day. But this was hundreds of years ago. There were different societal realities and cultural norms. The Church has always advocated life, but an outright denouncing of Christianity was tantamount to murder. As Brendan rightly said, it really came down to the threat of the heretics on other Christians. It certainly isn’t how we handle things today, but there are many things that people have done in the past that we don’t do today.
As it is me, but we aren’t talking about two people living in 2005, but Church leaders living hundreds of years ago- during a time where people were often punished by death for much less.
It is truly amazing that the Church was able to advocate for accused heretics at all. The fact that they were given a year to make their determination, and were allowed time to try to convert them is truly a human right not offered to any other type of ‘criminal’.
Again, it is reprehensible to me as well, but we live in a free society- not in feudal europe during the middle ages. The Church was often the only advocate for ANY OF THE PEOPLE including heretics. The Church was often the only way people were taught how to read or write. The Church was often the only refuge people had. It made sense that the secular authorities put the Church in charge of determining heresy in an individual. But in the end the punishment for heresy was on the shoulders of secular society.
And further- in this time, how could the Church hope to promote Christian philosophy and evangelize if there were individuals out there who publicly claimed heresy? The Church also had an obligation to protect the Faithful don’t you think?
The Church advocated for and was granted by secular authorities a certain amount of time whereby to prove an individual’s innocence. If that person continued to denounce Christian tenets, how is that the Church’s fault?
Um, I realize that. My point was that the Church (the babysitter) did not spiritually abandon (stick’em outside) accused heretics (wayward child). The Church actually spent the night outside with the accused and continued to try to educate them and defend them against the wolves. At some point the wolves/dogs took authority and handed down punishment.
Because the secular authorities gave them a year.
M
marcadam
Guest
I was thinking more of the Inquisitional period which followed this. It’s hard to get a read on the import of these documents without the context of the relationship of church and state, which was in a state of flux in the first few centuries of the last millenium… much as it is in any period, I suppose. Even the concept of “the state” means something very different in other places and times.
I would still maintain that the crime of heresy was viewed as a particularly intense evil due to the centrality of the Christian religion to the moral codes (and therefore the common law) of the time. Such a ghastly spectacle of a punishment was probably seen as an appropriate retribution for such a ghastly, scandalous, and ultimately dangerous, nearly treasonous, sin. It only seems the more ghastly given the gaping chasm between our cultures.
B
Brendan
Guest
Deo Volente:
Council of Trent
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
Brendan:
But since you ask for an absolute value to be placed on either body or soul, I say this–the soul is more valuable than the body, but whatever value the body has it receives from the soul–such is the nature of hierarchy. Both, however, are essential to human experience–and because the value of the soul is imparted to the body which contains it for a time, an injury done the body as the sign or symbol of the soul is communicated to the soul of which it is the sign (though not, of course, in a material way–and I am not talking mere physical harm, but disrespect of the body damages the soul).
Regarding the danger of a loose heretic, I will remind you that we are not to fear any man, “who may kill the body but not the soul, but fear God who can kill both body and soul.” I think you give heretics too much credit when you say that they may damn others. Their influence may not be exceptional or desired, it may even be poisonous, but the poison is noxious to those who are disposed to receive it. Perversion of the truth is of course a real possibility, regardless, but protection against such perversion requires real catechesis, not the death of the perverter which is merely dealing with a symptom and not addressing the real problem–poor catechesis resulting in a flimsy grasp of truth.
The putting to death of the offender also denies the possibility of choice and the exercise of free will. An irritant can often produce a pearl. This is why we are enjoined by the desert fathers not to pray that temptations cease, but to pray that we may overcome them.
It’s easy to kill people in the name of one idea or another. It’s easy to make excuses for atrocity. People do it all the time. It does not change the fact that atrocity is atrocity. Death is death. I can understand the cultural reference points, the mindset of the time which would make extreme measures palatable, excusable, or acceptable. This does not make such things less repugnant, however. To attempt to pass off the dross of human sinfulness (and executions, state sanctioned or no, are an expression of this sinfulness) as the gold of human goodness is to play the charlatan. One can make excuses (“It’s better for all involved that so and so die”) and they may have some truth to them, but ultimately these excuses betray a lack of imagination and a lack of mercy, try as one might to justify them.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
Brendan, for the time being (as I’m sure you’re well aware), body and soul are so conjoined in such a union that they, together make the human person and condition human experience. To denigrate the one as being immaterial to the other, or less worthy of the other, is to spit on the good creation of God and make excuses for the free exercise of power which would destroy the one for the supposed good of the other. The body is not corrupt, but an instrument of the soul. The vile “flesh” often spoken of in the Epistles and elsewhere, is the complex of human passions which drags the soul (and the body) into sin.
But since you ask for an absolute value to be placed on either body or soul, I say this–the soul is more valuable than the body, but whatever value the body has it receives from the soul–such is the nature of hierarchy. Both, however, are essential to human experience–and because the value of the soul is imparted to the body which contains it for a time, an injury done the body as the sign or symbol of the soul is communicated to the soul of which it is the sign (though not, of course, in a material way–and I am not talking mere physical harm, but disrespect of the body damages the soul).
Regarding the danger of a loose heretic, I will remind you that we are not to fear any man, “who may kill the body but not the soul, but fear God who can kill both body and soul.” I think you give heretics too much credit when you say that they may damn others. Their influence may not be exceptional or desired, it may even be poisonous, but the poison is noxious to those who are disposed to receive it. Perversion of the truth is of course a real possibility, regardless, but protection against such perversion requires real catechesis, not the death of the perverter which is merely dealing with a symptom and not addressing the real problem–poor catechesis resulting in a flimsy grasp of truth.
The putting to death of the offender also denies the possibility of choice and the exercise of free will. An irritant can often produce a pearl. This is why we are enjoined by the desert fathers not to pray that temptations cease, but to pray that we may overcome them.
It’s easy to kill people in the name of one idea or another. It’s easy to make excuses for atrocity. People do it all the time. It does not change the fact that atrocity is atrocity. Death is death. I can understand the cultural reference points, the mindset of the time which would make extreme measures palatable, excusable, or acceptable. This does not make such things less repugnant, however. To attempt to pass off the dross of human sinfulness (and executions, state sanctioned or no, are an expression of this sinfulness) as the gold of human goodness is to play the charlatan. One can make excuses (“It’s better for all involved that so and so die”) and they may have some truth to them, but ultimately these excuses betray a lack of imagination and a lack of mercy, try as one might to justify them.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
S
Steven_Merten
Guest
Deo Volente:
Wow! Do you really believe that the death sentences of Ananias and Sapphira was God protecting Himself? Was not God rather seeking use their deaths to detter others from committing their sin? The biblical author seems to go out of his way to insert, and sum up, the detterant effect the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira had on the Church community. Like anathemas and capital punishment, the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira, were used to protect the Church through detterance rather than something that God needed to do to protect Himself (imo).
NAB ACT 5:1
Another man named Ananias and his wife Sapphira likewise sold a piece of property. With the connivance of his wife he put aside a part of the proceeds for himself; the rest he took and laid at the feet of the apostles. Peter exclaimed: “Ananias, why have you let Satan fill your heart so as to make you lie to the Holy Spirit and keep for yourself some of the proceeds from that field? Was it not yours so long as it remained unsold”? Even when you sold it, was not the money still yours? How could you ever concoct such a scheme? You have lied not to men but to God!" At the sound of these words, Ananias fell dead. Great fear came upon all who later heard of it. Some of the young men came forward, wrapped up the body, and carried it out for burial. Three hours later Ananias’ wife came in, unaware of what had happened. Peter said to her, “Tell me, did you sell that piece of property for such and such an amount?” She answered, “Yes, that was the sum.” Peter replied, “How could you two scheme to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? The footsteps of the men who have just buried your husband can be heard at the door. They stand ready to carry you out too.” At that, she fell dead at his feet. The young men came in, found her dead, and carried her out for burial beside her husband. Great fear came on the whole church and on all who heard of it.
Hello Mark,
Wow! Do you really believe that the death sentences of Ananias and Sapphira was God protecting Himself? Was not God rather seeking use their deaths to detter others from committing their sin? The biblical author seems to go out of his way to insert, and sum up, the detterant effect the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira had on the Church community. Like anathemas and capital punishment, the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira, were used to protect the Church through detterance rather than something that God needed to do to protect Himself (imo).
NAB ACT 5:1
Another man named Ananias and his wife Sapphira likewise sold a piece of property. With the connivance of his wife he put aside a part of the proceeds for himself; the rest he took and laid at the feet of the apostles. Peter exclaimed: “Ananias, why have you let Satan fill your heart so as to make you lie to the Holy Spirit and keep for yourself some of the proceeds from that field? Was it not yours so long as it remained unsold”? Even when you sold it, was not the money still yours? How could you ever concoct such a scheme? You have lied not to men but to God!" At the sound of these words, Ananias fell dead. Great fear came upon all who later heard of it. Some of the young men came forward, wrapped up the body, and carried it out for burial. Three hours later Ananias’ wife came in, unaware of what had happened. Peter said to her, “Tell me, did you sell that piece of property for such and such an amount?” She answered, “Yes, that was the sum.” Peter replied, “How could you two scheme to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? The footsteps of the men who have just buried your husband can be heard at the door. They stand ready to carry you out too.” At that, she fell dead at his feet. The young men came in, found her dead, and carried her out for burial beside her husband. Great fear came on the whole church and on all who heard of it.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
Brendan:
1–The church may determine what is and what is not heresy.
2–The church may determine who is and who is not a heretic.
3–Secular power may exercise its God-given authority.
4–We are obliged to obey just authority.
I cannot agree with these things:
1–Secular authority will always be just/will use its authority wisely.
2–Secular authority should and will always champion the cause of religion.
These two items seem quite delusionally myopic to me. To believe that secular authority will be just and uphold the cause of religion ignores the corruption of the fall and human sinfulness. To insist that the state should uphold religion is therefore pointless to me. To hope that it will is nice, but this sort of union of government and religion will not occur 'til Christ puts all things in order at his coming. To insist that the State be the defender of the Church is trusting, again, in the better angels of its nature, better angels which history has shown do not really exist. This, by the way, is the problem with legislating morality or using state law as a means of social engineering–all such efforts will be perverted by the powerful to their own enrichment.
I cannot, therefore, agree that it is just, or that it ever has been just, for the church to collude with civil authority in the exercise of ecclesiastical justice. It is a realm that secular authority cannot understand, and that it will only wind up diluting and perverting. Look at the apostle’s entreaties that all quarrels within the church be handled by the church without any recourse to civil authority.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
Brendan, these are things with which I can agree:
1–The church may determine what is and what is not heresy.
2–The church may determine who is and who is not a heretic.
3–Secular power may exercise its God-given authority.
4–We are obliged to obey just authority.
I cannot agree with these things:
1–Secular authority will always be just/will use its authority wisely.
2–Secular authority should and will always champion the cause of religion.
These two items seem quite delusionally myopic to me. To believe that secular authority will be just and uphold the cause of religion ignores the corruption of the fall and human sinfulness. To insist that the state should uphold religion is therefore pointless to me. To hope that it will is nice, but this sort of union of government and religion will not occur 'til Christ puts all things in order at his coming. To insist that the State be the defender of the Church is trusting, again, in the better angels of its nature, better angels which history has shown do not really exist. This, by the way, is the problem with legislating morality or using state law as a means of social engineering–all such efforts will be perverted by the powerful to their own enrichment.
I cannot, therefore, agree that it is just, or that it ever has been just, for the church to collude with civil authority in the exercise of ecclesiastical justice. It is a realm that secular authority cannot understand, and that it will only wind up diluting and perverting. Look at the apostle’s entreaties that all quarrels within the church be handled by the church without any recourse to civil authority.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
S
Steven_Merten
Guest
Hello Brendan,
What you say is what Jesus taught. Jesus gave St. Peter strict orders not to let the whole body of the Church go to hell due to the actions of a portion of the Body of the Church. St. Peter is commanded by Jesus to cut off and cast into hell that portion of the body of the Church which pulls the body of the Church into hell.
In Old Testament God commands Church leaders to “cut off” that portion of the body of people, which lead others into sin, by stoning them. Jesus swears to St. Peter,** “If you forgive men’s sins, they are forgiven them; if you hold them bound, they are held bound.”** (John 20:20). What happens to people when Jesus binds them to sin in heaven on judgement day? They are cast into hell. Church anathamas use the Christ given power to call upon Jesus to bind souls to sin which cuts them off from the body of the Church and casts them into hell. (lest they repent and the anathema removed)
Jesus teaches that it is better for the body of the Church to enter into heaven missing a few limbs than for the whole body of the Church to be cast into hell through those who lead her astray.
Please visit Throwing Stones
NAB LEV 20 Penalties for Various Sins.
The LORD said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites: Anyone, whether an Israelite or an alien residing in Israel who gives any of his offspring to Molech shall be put to death. Let his fellow citizens stone him. I myself will turn against such a man and cut him off from the body of his people: for in giving his offspring to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name."NAB MAT 5:29 Occasions of Impurity.
If your right eye is your trouble, gouge it out and throw it away! Better you lose part of your body than to have it all cast into Gehenna. Again if your right hand is your trouble, cut it off and throw it away! Better to lose part of your body than to have it all cast into Gehenna."
**NAB NUM 15:30 **
"But anyone who sins defiantly, whether he be a native or and alien, insults the LORD, and shall be cut off from among his people. Since he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken his commandment, he must be cut off. He has only himself to blame." The Sabbath-breaker. While the Israelites were in the desert,** a man was discovered gathering wood on the sabbath day**. Those who caught him at it brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly. But they kept him in custody, for there was no clear decision as to what should be done with him. Then the LORD said to Moses, "This man shall be put to death; let the whole community stone him outside the camp." So the whole community led him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD had commanded Moses.
**NAB MAT 18:5 **
"Whoever welcomes one such child for my sake welcomes me. On the other hand, it would be better for anyone who leads astray one of these little ones who believes in me, to be drown by a millstone around his neck, in the depths of the sea. What terrible things will come on the world through scandal! It is inevitable that scandal should occur. Nonetheless, woe to that man through whom scandal comes! If your hand or foot is your undoing, cut it off and throw it from you! Better to enter life maimed or crippled than be thrown with two hands or feet into endless fire. If your eye is your downfall, gouge it out and cast it from you! Better to enter life with one eye than be thrown with both into fiery Gehenna.
B
Brendan
Guest
Deo Volente:
But that is precisely why we should be less concerned about it’s fate than that of the soul.
For the body will be rejoined to the soul on the Last Judgement. But it is the fate of the soul that determines the fate of the body, everlasting paradise, or everlasting damnation.
If the soul is lost, so is the body, if the soul is saved, so is the body.
An attacker that attacks my body can do no real damage to me, one who attacks my soul can.
God commanded the death of those who tried to lure others to worship false gods.
Would the Jews who followed His command be commiting an injustice?
Was God ‘repugnant’ in His command?
Mark, I made no effort at all to denegrate the human body. It is a wonderful creation, intrinsically good and an integral part of being a human person.
But that is precisely why we should be less concerned about it’s fate than that of the soul.
For the body will be rejoined to the soul on the Last Judgement. But it is the fate of the soul that determines the fate of the body, everlasting paradise, or everlasting damnation.
If the soul is lost, so is the body, if the soul is saved, so is the body.
An attacker that attacks my body can do no real damage to me, one who attacks my soul can.
Read my post above re: Deut 13 (post #15)
God commanded the death of those who tried to lure others to worship false gods.
Would the Jews who followed His command be commiting an injustice?
Are we talking death of the body, which is a transitory event, or death of the soul, which is an eternal event?
See above about Deut 13
Was God ‘repugnant’ in His command?
B
Brendan
Guest
Deo Volente:
Is it correct for the State to protect only the body if it’s citizens, or to the whole human person?
True, there is no guarentee that the State will excercise these powers justly, to safeguard either body or soul. There have been plenty of occasions in history where State have violated both.
But does that mean that it would be entirely unjust for the State to even attempt to safeguard the full human person, body and soul, or as the Church defines a human, corporae et anima unis, body and soul united?
Romans 13
Does Paul limit the secular power to punishment for secular or physical wrongs only, or to any ‘evil doings’
Is it correct for the State to protect only the body if it’s citizens, or to the whole human person?
True, there is no guarentee that the State will excercise these powers justly, to safeguard either body or soul. There have been plenty of occasions in history where State have violated both.
But does that mean that it would be entirely unjust for the State to even attempt to safeguard the full human person, body and soul, or as the Church defines a human, corporae et anima unis, body and soul united?
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
Brendan:
Brendan:
Whether or not the Jews who followed God’s command were committing an injustice, I would say that the act of killing is still an evil. Within the context of Jewish law, it may not be unjust, however.
But–if you’re confused as to which law we are to follow as Christians, the old law or the Royal Law of Love, I suggest you take a look at James’ epistle and see what a great revolution in justice Christ’s incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension has accomplished for us–how the “wrath” of God has been changed into a nectar of mercy through Jesus’ love.
Brendan:
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
Brendan, I don’t think that even the one who attacks your soul can do damage to you unless you want him or her to do so, or invite them to do so. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Temptation (whether to heresy, to lust, to murder…) can only bear the fruit of sin and hell if it is indulged, and indulgence requires active participation. No one and no thing will do damage to your but you yourself–by inviting the damage.
Arguing from the Areopagite, anything that denegrates, corrupts, destroys, or lessens the good is an evil. If having life is a good (and it is), the destruction of life will always be an evil, regardless of context. Context may mitigate the degree of evil expressed, perhaps, but it will not make an evil act cease to be an evil act.
Whether or not the Jews who followed God’s command were committing an injustice, I would say that the act of killing is still an evil. Within the context of Jewish law, it may not be unjust, however.
But–if you’re confused as to which law we are to follow as Christians, the old law or the Royal Law of Love, I suggest you take a look at James’ epistle and see what a great revolution in justice Christ’s incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension has accomplished for us–how the “wrath” of God has been changed into a nectar of mercy through Jesus’ love.
It is not God’s nature to be repugnant. God is beyond our notions of good and evil. All that God does is Good. Let us be clear, though, that scripture represents a revelation of God to us clothed in language. The literal meaning of the text is the skin of an ocean of mystery. To believe that God is an angry tyrant who orders the death of sinners left and right (the same God who does not desire the death of a sinner…) is to form an image of God unworthy of him. I refer you to Origen who writes that when we come across an image of God in scripture that seems to contradict what we know of God through Christ, we are clearly misinterpreting the text.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
Brendan:
I do not think that it is the basic nature of the State to cooperate with the Divine. It is the nature of the State to ennoble and aggrandize itself. I forget who said this, but while democracy may well be “the best form of bad government,” it is still bad government. All government exists on account of our sinfulness, and, paradoxically, all government is infected with our sinfulness.
Brendan:
Brendan:
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
I believe Paul is speaking of an ideal state, recapitulating as he does in the earlier part of the text you quoted the classical notion of hierarchies communicating the virtue of that which is above to that which is below. The notion of hierarchy requires cooperation. Where there is no cooperation, the smooth communication from one level to another breaks down.
I do not think that it is the basic nature of the State to cooperate with the Divine. It is the nature of the State to ennoble and aggrandize itself. I forget who said this, but while democracy may well be “the best form of bad government,” it is still bad government. All government exists on account of our sinfulness, and, paradoxically, all government is infected with our sinfulness.
I trust the State to protect and/or deal with what it can properly comprehend. I am not satisfied that it can properly comprehend the health of the soul. I do not, therefore, trust it protect that health. As such, I would rather it not try.
Not unjust, but plainly misguided and doomed to failure or worse–it should remove itself from the realm of morality entirely. Government in this fallen world is unable to comprehend morality. Morality speaks a language government does not and cannot understand. Individuals can be moral–bureacracies cannot. They can follow the rules, but they cannot be moral. And morality is more nuanced than following rules.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
B
Brendan
Guest
Deo Volente:
“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.” "
Matt 5
Let us be clear, though, that scripture represents a revelation of God to us clothed in language. The literal meaning of the text is the skin of an ocean of mystery. To believe that God is an angry tyrant who orders the death of sinners left and right (the same God who does not desire the death of a sinner…) is to form an image of God unworthy of him. I refer you to Origen who writes that when we come across an image of God in scripture that seems to contradict what we know of God through Christ, we are clearly misinterpreting the text.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
God is the opposite of a tyrant. If a human considers an command of God to be tyranny (such as the death of heretics) then it is up to the person to change their concept of a just ruler, not for God’s action to be changed.
For example. yes God does order the deaths of millions, condemnations to Enternal Punishment in Hell. Is that the actions of an unjust ruler. On the contrary, it is an act of Pure Justice, which is giving to the accused the punishment they are deserving of.
In Deut 13, the punishment the heretics deserved was death. That is 100% Justice. If you disagree, your concept of Justice needs to change, not the Churchs.
Really, St. Jerome disagreed with you
“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.” "
Material Life or Spiritual Life. Can material life be lost to preserve Spiritual Life
So what you are saying here is that God command an EVIL in Deut 13?
It is Catholic Church Teaching Moral Law of the Old and the New Covenant are one and the same. The cerimonail ‘law’ of the O.T. was repealed. The Moral Law was never abrogated. Natural Law is completely unchanging.
Matt 5
Nope, not True. God has revealed his Moral Law to us in both Divine Revelation and Natural Law. God is truely Good and He has made know His Goodness to us. Our concept of Good and Evil He wrote on our hearts, specifically for our understanding.
Fine so God ordered the deaths of heretics in Deut 13. That, by defintion is a Good act
Let us be clear, though, that scripture represents a revelation of God to us clothed in language. The literal meaning of the text is the skin of an ocean of mystery. To believe that God is an angry tyrant who orders the death of sinners left and right (the same God who does not desire the death of a sinner…) is to form an image of God unworthy of him. I refer you to Origen who writes that when we come across an image of God in scripture that seems to contradict what we know of God through Christ, we are clearly misinterpreting the text.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
God is the opposite of a tyrant. If a human considers an command of God to be tyranny (such as the death of heretics) then it is up to the person to change their concept of a just ruler, not for God’s action to be changed.
For example. yes God does order the deaths of millions, condemnations to Enternal Punishment in Hell. Is that the actions of an unjust ruler. On the contrary, it is an act of Pure Justice, which is giving to the accused the punishment they are deserving of.
In Deut 13, the punishment the heretics deserved was death. That is 100% Justice. If you disagree, your concept of Justice needs to change, not the Churchs.
E
estesbob
Guest
ON MY -NOT ANOTHER WIKIPEDIA CITE!!!
Wikipedia is not a credible source-it is a compilation of peoples opinions on a subject.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
Brendan:
Brendan:
Can material life be lost to preserve Spiritual Life. No. If Christianity had different doctrines with regard to the afterlife, perhaps, but is given to us once to die and then the judgment–the life of the accused heretic perishes, soul and body. Of course, this assumes that there is no access to mercy awaiting even the most foul and unrepentant sinner on the other side of the veil–I pray that there is, but realize to posit such access is speculation based on the mercy of God and not doctrine.
If we believed in reincarnation, we might think that killing a heretic would be acceptable in order to prevent them from damaging their soul further in this life (Krishna “mercy-kills” a blasphemer in this way in the Mahabharata, and it is a great question in Buddhist circles whether it is permissable to kill man in order to prevent them from accumulating bad karma). But we do not believe in reincarnation, so all such attempts to snuff out the material life in order to save the spiritual are cavalier at best.
You may argue–is it not better to kill the one that the many may prosper? I think not, considering our Lord’s parable of the lost sheep–the shepherd who leaves his flock in order to recover the lost lamb. No lamb is expendable. Heresy should be dealt with in other ways that do not involve death. Gouge out the eye that offends, yes, say that it be better had that man never lived, sure, but the fact of his life remains and cannot be undone save through some terrifying miracle. For the representatives of the Church to place a limit on its patience with an unrepentant sinner (you quoted Aquinas above) is for those representative to betray hope.
Brendan:
I found this fascinating quotation from Lactantius (we can use it as a Christian gloss to the Deuteronomy you quoted):
“Religion, being a matter of the will, it cannot be forced on anyone; in this matter it is better to employ words than blows. Of what use is cruelty? What has the rack to do with piety? Surely there is no connection between truth and violence, between justice and cruelty . . . It is true that nothing is so important as religion and one must defend it at any cost. It is true that it must be protected, but by dying for it, not by killing others; by long-suffering, not by violence; by faith, not by crime. If you attempt to defend religion with bloodshed and torture, what you do is not defense, but desecration and insult. For nothing is so intrinsically a matter of free will as religion” (De Divinis Institutionibus, 5:10).
(CONTINUED…)
Brendan, I tend to think that Jerome was being metaphorical–what needed “putting out” was the heresy, not the life of the heretic.
Reading responses like this, sometimes I think you are subtly falling into a gnostic dualism here…
Can material life be lost to preserve Spiritual Life. No. If Christianity had different doctrines with regard to the afterlife, perhaps, but is given to us once to die and then the judgment–the life of the accused heretic perishes, soul and body. Of course, this assumes that there is no access to mercy awaiting even the most foul and unrepentant sinner on the other side of the veil–I pray that there is, but realize to posit such access is speculation based on the mercy of God and not doctrine.
If we believed in reincarnation, we might think that killing a heretic would be acceptable in order to prevent them from damaging their soul further in this life (Krishna “mercy-kills” a blasphemer in this way in the Mahabharata, and it is a great question in Buddhist circles whether it is permissable to kill man in order to prevent them from accumulating bad karma). But we do not believe in reincarnation, so all such attempts to snuff out the material life in order to save the spiritual are cavalier at best.
You may argue–is it not better to kill the one that the many may prosper? I think not, considering our Lord’s parable of the lost sheep–the shepherd who leaves his flock in order to recover the lost lamb. No lamb is expendable. Heresy should be dealt with in other ways that do not involve death. Gouge out the eye that offends, yes, say that it be better had that man never lived, sure, but the fact of his life remains and cannot be undone save through some terrifying miracle. For the representatives of the Church to place a limit on its patience with an unrepentant sinner (you quoted Aquinas above) is for those representative to betray hope.
Brendan, let’s remember that God revealed in Isaiah–“I make peace, I also create evil.” I am not saying that God commanded sin. God would not command sin. God commanded here a radical separation from the community, the doing of which is painful, and an evil. It should always be painful to take life. And all measures should be taken to avoid the taking of life.
I found this fascinating quotation from Lactantius (we can use it as a Christian gloss to the Deuteronomy you quoted):
“Religion, being a matter of the will, it cannot be forced on anyone; in this matter it is better to employ words than blows. Of what use is cruelty? What has the rack to do with piety? Surely there is no connection between truth and violence, between justice and cruelty . . . It is true that nothing is so important as religion and one must defend it at any cost. It is true that it must be protected, but by dying for it, not by killing others; by long-suffering, not by violence; by faith, not by crime. If you attempt to defend religion with bloodshed and torture, what you do is not defense, but desecration and insult. For nothing is so intrinsically a matter of free will as religion” (De Divinis Institutionibus, 5:10).
(CONTINUED…)
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
(CONTINUED…)
Brendan:
Brendan:
Also somewhat off topic, I think it is important to make a distinction (when speaking in terms of the moral) between right/wrong and good/evil. Moral realities derive their authority from Principle. Moral rightness is such because it is reflective (ideally) of the good. Although with the intrusion of cultural realities into the mix, right/wrong and acceptable/not acceptable often become confused and customs get mixed up with morals or even laws. I am advocating a distinction between metaphysical good/evil and moral right/wrong which (again ideally) reflects the metaphysical principle in human action. I do not always make this distinction, but I’m trying…
(CONTINUED…)
The Moral Law of the Old and New Covenants may have the same underlying principles and thus share a common undergirding in the person of Jesus Christ who fulfills the law and institutes the new covenenant, but the law of the old and the law of the new covenants do have differences. But if Jesus is in fact the fulfillment of the law, can we not look to his example to discover how the law should be implemented? When he saved the life of the adulterous woman about to be stoned (“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”) can we not infer something about the nature of the Old Law that Paul clearly stated in his epistles (i.e., the nature of the Old Law to expose human sinfulness)? Is not following the Royal Law of Love laid down by the gentle Lion of Judah the best way to fulfil, in ourselves, through Christ, the Moral Law of the OT?
I don’t want to get us too off track, here but attempting to apply our notion of the good to God will only get us so far. We have the unique capacity to understand God, but as limited beings, we cannot know God in God’s totality. To say then that God is good, we must also recognize that God’s goodness is beyond our understanding of what goodness is. This is the Via Negativa of the Saints. To say, then, that God is beyond good and evil is to say that our notions of the good and of the evil cannot express the totality of God’s being, particularly in the case of the evil since evil, by its nature, has no positive existence and cannot be said to “Be” in the same way that anything that has existence has being. Also, if we agree that God is the source of the Good, we imply that God is higher than the Good–that is, God being the source of the Good, from which the Good derives all being and on which the Good utterly depends, God is necessarily greater than the Good–the Good itself cannot comprehend God, but God comprehends all Goodness. The same can be said regarding God’s being–the manner in which God is is different from the manner in which we are if for no other reason than this–all being that we know of is dependant, and God’s being is entirely independent. It is therefore acceptable to say that God is even beyond being and nothingness.
Also somewhat off topic, I think it is important to make a distinction (when speaking in terms of the moral) between right/wrong and good/evil. Moral realities derive their authority from Principle. Moral rightness is such because it is reflective (ideally) of the good. Although with the intrusion of cultural realities into the mix, right/wrong and acceptable/not acceptable often become confused and customs get mixed up with morals or even laws. I am advocating a distinction between metaphysical good/evil and moral right/wrong which (again ideally) reflects the metaphysical principle in human action. I do not always make this distinction, but I’m trying…
(CONTINUED…)
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
(…CONTINUED)
Brendan:
God’s revelation of Godself is gradual and God speaks to God’s people in the ways that they can understand given their various lives, cultures, and situations. Of late, he has sent us his only Son, Jesus, to reveal his will to us, and to show us what we truly are.
Regarding God’s acts, I would argue that we should be careful here. Strictly theologically speaking, God does one act (I reference Anselm of Canterbury here)–that is, God speaks God’s Word. This is the only really Real Act that has ever been done, or that ever will be done. In this act is encompassed all of creation, and by this act of speaking the Word, God reveals God to God and, through creation, to Not-God. And since it is the same Word by which God understands Godself and by which he understands creation, God knits creation to himself in a union which is entirely majestic and gracious. But this is the one thing that is done, was done, and will be done–God speaking God’s Word. The perception that God is doing other things is due to our inability to completely comprehend what God’s speaking of the Word means in all of its vastness and glory.
Let us realize, though, that if all things depend for their subsistence (as they do) on the speaking of the Word (in other words, on the very life of the Trinity itself) this should allow us to see the various “acts” of God as intrinsically good and merciful and revelatory of God’s being. The issue, then, is not in seeing God’s directive in Deuteronomy as not good. The issue is seeing in what way it is COMPLETELY Good. And I would argue that its goodness somehow applies even to those whom God directs his people to kill–the goodness of it does not apply solely to the community rid of the bad influence.
Nonetheless, given the revelation of Jesus Christ, the mercy of God has been revealed, and it is this mercy which should provide us a gloss on all of the law as it is found in the OT, for it is in fact this mercy which reveals the complete goodness of the law.
Brendan:
Brendan:
The mystery of Hell is not that God condemns people to be there. The mystery is that, if anyone is there, they are there because they choose it. And God will not force them to love him.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
I would say this–Deuteronomy suggests that those who undermine Jewish culture through advocating idolatry should be severely punished. The term “heretic” does not appear in the text, to my knowledge–to assume that it is referring to heresy is therefore an inference and not directly supported. What is supported is that idolatry is wrong and that it is necessary to maintain a certain level of cultural vigilance against it lest the culture itself perish and be subsumed by a neighboring tribe or people.
God’s revelation of Godself is gradual and God speaks to God’s people in the ways that they can understand given their various lives, cultures, and situations. Of late, he has sent us his only Son, Jesus, to reveal his will to us, and to show us what we truly are.
Regarding God’s acts, I would argue that we should be careful here. Strictly theologically speaking, God does one act (I reference Anselm of Canterbury here)–that is, God speaks God’s Word. This is the only really Real Act that has ever been done, or that ever will be done. In this act is encompassed all of creation, and by this act of speaking the Word, God reveals God to God and, through creation, to Not-God. And since it is the same Word by which God understands Godself and by which he understands creation, God knits creation to himself in a union which is entirely majestic and gracious. But this is the one thing that is done, was done, and will be done–God speaking God’s Word. The perception that God is doing other things is due to our inability to completely comprehend what God’s speaking of the Word means in all of its vastness and glory.
Let us realize, though, that if all things depend for their subsistence (as they do) on the speaking of the Word (in other words, on the very life of the Trinity itself) this should allow us to see the various “acts” of God as intrinsically good and merciful and revelatory of God’s being. The issue, then, is not in seeing God’s directive in Deuteronomy as not good. The issue is seeing in what way it is COMPLETELY Good. And I would argue that its goodness somehow applies even to those whom God directs his people to kill–the goodness of it does not apply solely to the community rid of the bad influence.
Nonetheless, given the revelation of Jesus Christ, the mercy of God has been revealed, and it is this mercy which should provide us a gloss on all of the law as it is found in the OT, for it is in fact this mercy which reveals the complete goodness of the law.
It is also important, given the fundamental Unity and Oneness of God, that God’s mercy is not different from God’s justice.
We do not know this for a fact–we know only that Hell exists in some form and that some people may go there. The church refuses to speculate on whether or not anyone is actually in hell or will be in hell sometime in the future. I refer you to Hans Urs Von Balthasar’s work in this regard.
The mystery of Hell is not that God condemns people to be there. The mystery is that, if anyone is there, they are there because they choose it. And God will not force them to love him.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
- Status