D
dronald
Guest
And thus, I’m not Catholic.
- Status
P
pablope
Guest
And you are happy and fulfilled with that?
G
Gary_Sheldrake
Guest
Good Evening Pablope: I think so, yes, but I don’t think God has to come down from anywhere.
M
mikekle
Guest
I understand what you are asking, but in modern times, it is rare that churches ask anything of their parish members, whether or not this is a good thing or not is up for debate though.
I personally feel ALL christian parishes probably should be asking its members to fight abortion more aggressively…I feel God will stand with those who engage in such actions as well and will probably be blessed for their actions.
Plus, the enemy sees no problem with bringing out the big guns (literally) and using them, to protect its killing grounds, why should Gods people be any different in the fight against this genocide?
With God backing the church and its members, the fight would not last long and I dont think I need to say who would come out on top and win!
The problem is though, most people (myself included) are too worried about their lifestyle and the possibility of them going to jail for something, even if they know it is the right thing to do in their heart…after all, if someone had fought against Hitler and his soldiers back then, TODAY, they would be considered heroes and be praised for their actions, but back then, they probably would have been jailed, the same thing would happen to any group that stood up to the powers that be and put a stop to all abortions, short term, they would likely be called domestic terrorists, but long term, they would be considered heroes.
My opinion anyway.
I personally feel ALL christian parishes probably should be asking its members to fight abortion more aggressively…I feel God will stand with those who engage in such actions as well and will probably be blessed for their actions.
Plus, the enemy sees no problem with bringing out the big guns (literally) and using them, to protect its killing grounds, why should Gods people be any different in the fight against this genocide?
With God backing the church and its members, the fight would not last long and I dont think I need to say who would come out on top and win!
The problem is though, most people (myself included) are too worried about their lifestyle and the possibility of them going to jail for something, even if they know it is the right thing to do in their heart…after all, if someone had fought against Hitler and his soldiers back then, TODAY, they would be considered heroes and be praised for their actions, but back then, they probably would have been jailed, the same thing would happen to any group that stood up to the powers that be and put a stop to all abortions, short term, they would likely be called domestic terrorists, but long term, they would be considered heroes.
My opinion anyway.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
This is very interesting. I wonder why people aren’t responding to it.
1
1ke
Guest
No, it doesn’t. You have been duped.
po18guy
Well-known member
Look into Protestant history. Ask the Anabaptists how they were treated by the reformers. Ask the Catholic martyrs in England how they were treated by the Church of England. How were the suspected “witches” in Salem (New England) treated?
There are bloody hands all round.
F
frobert
Guest
Did the church know that the heretics they handed over to the civil authorities were destined to be tortured and killed? If not why not? If the church did know does it have any culpability for their deaths? If the church did not know were they just refusing to see?
D
dronald
Guest
Makes my Church look pretty good now doesn’t it?
Hahah. Just kidding.
In all seriousness though, I would never join a Church that condones murder like the CC did at one point. The CC is pretty cool with not burning heretics to death, digging up remains of heretics to be burnt, or turning them over to the authorities all Pontius Pilate like. So I may join it one day, since it has been reformed; but to say that it didn’t need some serious keeping in line like other Church’s do now is false.
F
frobert
Guest
I am confused. I don’t think you mean “the church gets a pass because there are bloody hands all around” but that seems to be the implication.
po18guy
Well-known member
I don’t think there is a person on earth that would claim the Church never needed reformation. Christ founded His Church on Peter and, with His next breath, revealed that Peter was the first in need of reformation. The Church is comprised of sinners, and constantly needs internal reformation. It is we who must repent - no one can do it for us. In fact, the best of all reformers are relatively unknown today - they remained in the Church, quietly working in full communion and made no names for themselves.
While there are millions of reasons (and pseudo-reasons) to remain outside of the Catholic Church, there is only one reason to join: Jesus Christ, in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
po18guy
Well-known member
No! Those with bloody hands, whether Catholic, Protestant or whatever, must face God with that blood on their hands. Just pointing out that we all suffer from a fallen nature. Period. Protestant abuses are frequently ignored or forgotten, and what we forget we are condemned to repeat. No more to it than that.
N
Nita
Guest
Thank you. Expel and exterminate (in our current understanding of the meaning of the words) are 2 different things. And when the paragraph is read, it becomes pretty obvious that the meaning is expel, and not exterminate/kill.
Links to the two translations:
“exterminate” - fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp
“expel” - ewtn.com/library/councils/lateran4.htm#2
(Surprisingly, if you click on the link for Lateran IV provided by Fordam at their following website, you’ll get the ewtn translated text.
fordham.edu/halsall/sbook2.asp )
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
Even more confusing to me is that both sources cite the same translation of canon 3 by H. J. Schroeder. In fact, I can’t find any translation of canon 3 other than Schroeder’s.Thank you. Expel and exterminate (in our current understanding of the meaning of the words) are 2 different things. And when the paragraph is read, it becomes pretty obvious that the meaning is expel, and not exterminate/kill.
Links to the two translations:
“exterminate” - fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp
“expel” - ewtn.com/library/councils/lateran4.htm#2
(Surprisingly, if you click on the link for Lateran IV provided by Fordam at their following website, you’ll get the ewtn translated text.
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
I might tend to agree except for the fact that this canon was apparently specifically promulgated to address the Albigensian heresy and those heretics ended up being killed by the secular authorities.
Even more confusing to me is that both sources cite the same translation of canon 3 by H. J. Schroeder. In fact, I can’t find any translation of canon 3 that isn’t Schroeder’s.(Surprisingly, if you click on the link for Lateran IV provided by Fordam at their following website, you’ll get the ewtn translated text.
N
Nita
Guest
The Encyclopedia entry on the Albigenses is very informative – and depressing when one reads what the Albigensians preached.
EG. … The dualism of the Albigenses was also the basis of their moral teaching. Man, they taught, is a living contradiction. Hence, the liberation of the soul from its captivity in the body is the true end of our being. To attain this, suicide is commendable; it was customary among them in the form of the endura (starvation). The extinction of bodily life on the largest scale consistent with human existence is also a perfect aim. As generation propagates the slavery of the soul to the body, perpetual chastity should be practiced. Matrimonial intercourse is unlawful; concubinage, being of a less permanent nature, is preferable to marriage.
newadvent.org/cathen/01267e.htm
(The entry mentions Lateran III, but nothing about Lateran IV.)
C
Cathoholic
Guest
jinc1019.
In your original post you said:
I would rather suggesting asking yourself: “What does this teaching mean in its historical context? And “What does it NOT mean in its historical context?”
What it DOESN’T mean is that the Church wants all heretics burned at the stake. OK?
The Church never DEMANDED heretics be burned at the stake (or any other way) in their Apostolic teachings.
What it MAY mean is people who are very subversive to the societal order (i.e. treason), if the Government is going to carry out capital punishment are not necessarily doing something intrinsically evil (recall back then they were addressing at least in some instances, Governments who chose to incorporate religion into their social fabric i.e. Catholicism). The Catechism teaches the same thing today.
(Incidentally. Many modern countries have incorporated Catholicism to differing extents into their society: Malta, Ireland, Andorra, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, San Marino, and others.)
SOME heretics may have been viewed by Governments as treasonous back then.
All the Church MAY be asserting here is that WHEN the STATE commits capital punishment upon some of these guys for treason, they are not necessarily transgressing God’s will. Heresy may have been seen as treasonous by the GOVERNMENTS.
Just like even in America today treason is still a capital offense:
QUOTE:
Treason against the United States, as well as treason against the states of Arkansas, California, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Missouri are capital offenses.[45] (here)
If the Vatican today put out a memoir that said if countries (i.e.USA) commit capital punishment for treason, that in and of itself does not necessarily mean they are transgressing God’s will (this would probably not get much attention).
I am not asserting this is what the Church meant about the heretics in this case, but I am saying we would need authority (the Church) and the appropriate historical context to even assess what they were saying, that’s all.
I know full well that the Church didn’t run around back then encouraging burning everyone that had a post-baptismal denial of the faith.
I also know full well that there were STATES and even Churchmen who carried out ABUSES (such as burning St. Joan of Arc at the stake).
But Governments and “abuses” by people do NOT make approbation in all instances by the Church. And these statements certainly don’t make “DEMANDS (on) its members (to) engage in immoral activities.”
My caution is: Even if an old teaching is politically incorrect and SEEMS wrong, don’t reject it out of hand. At least have a full understanding of what the Church was talking about at the time. Then if it is not more clear, society (or a Bishop) can ask the Vatican for clarification (A “Dubium”) if it is a . . . (you know what I am going to say) . . . a “burning issue”.
In your original post you said:
It also DOES say:
Lastly in your original post you also said:
The Church has never demanded that we engage in immoral activities as Apostolic teachings.
In your original post you said:
Let me focus on this portion for now please.
I would be careful about rejecting anything out of hand when taught by the Church.
I would rather suggesting asking yourself: “What does this teaching mean in its historical context? And “What does it NOT mean in its historical context?”
What it DOESN’T mean is that the Church wants all heretics burned at the stake. OK?
The Church never DEMANDED heretics be burned at the stake (or any other way) in their Apostolic teachings.
What it MAY mean is people who are very subversive to the societal order (i.e. treason), if the Government is going to carry out capital punishment are not necessarily doing something intrinsically evil (recall back then they were addressing at least in some instances, Governments who chose to incorporate religion into their social fabric i.e. Catholicism). The Catechism teaches the same thing today.
(Incidentally. Many modern countries have incorporated Catholicism to differing extents into their society: Malta, Ireland, Andorra, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, San Marino, and others.)
SOME heretics may have been viewed by Governments as treasonous back then.
All the Church MAY be asserting here is that WHEN the STATE commits capital punishment upon some of these guys for treason, they are not necessarily transgressing God’s will. Heresy may have been seen as treasonous by the GOVERNMENTS.
Just like even in America today treason is still a capital offense:
QUOTE:
Treason against the United States, as well as treason against the states of Arkansas, California, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Missouri are capital offenses.[45] (here)
If the Vatican today put out a memoir that said if countries (i.e.USA) commit capital punishment for treason, that in and of itself does not necessarily mean they are transgressing God’s will (this would probably not get much attention).
I am not asserting this is what the Church meant about the heretics in this case, but I am saying we would need authority (the Church) and the appropriate historical context to even assess what they were saying, that’s all.
I know full well that the Church didn’t run around back then encouraging burning everyone that had a post-baptismal denial of the faith.
I also know full well that there were STATES and even Churchmen who carried out ABUSES (such as burning St. Joan of Arc at the stake).
But Governments and “abuses” by people do NOT make approbation in all instances by the Church. And these statements certainly don’t make “DEMANDS (on) its members (to) engage in immoral activities.”
My caution is: Even if an old teaching is politically incorrect and SEEMS wrong, don’t reject it out of hand. At least have a full understanding of what the Church was talking about at the time. Then if it is not more clear, society (or a Bishop) can ask the Vatican for clarification (A “Dubium”) if it is a . . . (you know what I am going to say) . . . a “burning issue”.
In your original post you said:
I went back and read my Fourth Lateran Council on the Heretics section and all it says is that the heretics should be handed over to the Government authorities “for due punishment”. It doesn’t say these heretics should be killed!
It also DOES say:
How can these GOVERNMENTS be dealing with the heretics who have already been excommunicated for a year (but not even PUBLICLY proclaimed as a heretic yet much less been killed) a year later if they are already killed as “demanded” by the Church?
Lastly in your original post you also said:
You are conflating several things here and muddling the issue for yourself. You are mixing in, the Church, Catholic people, what the Church TEACHES and how Catholics BEHAVE. I admit that Catholics are sinners.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Quick clarification:
I am reading through my post and I want to make it clear in my hypothetical; I am not saying God DESIRES treasonous people be subjected to Capital punishment.
I am just saying WHEN a Government feels capital punishment is necessary for the protection of society as a whole, that the act of capital punishment is not in and of itself an “intrinsic evil”.
I am not even trying to assert “heresy” should have been viewed as an act of treason by those Governments.
But I am saying some of the Governments back than “MAY” have thought of some acts of heresy as “treasonous” (actually I know they did but I admit am too lazy to look up the sources to cite so I made a less strong statement as “may” instead of “did” so I won’t be asked to cite my source).
I am reading through my post and I want to make it clear in my hypothetical; I am not saying God DESIRES treasonous people be subjected to Capital punishment.
I am just saying WHEN a Government feels capital punishment is necessary for the protection of society as a whole, that the act of capital punishment is not in and of itself an “intrinsic evil”.
I am not even trying to assert “heresy” should have been viewed as an act of treason by those Governments.
But I am saying some of the Governments back than “MAY” have thought of some acts of heresy as “treasonous” (actually I know they did but I admit am too lazy to look up the sources to cite so I made a less strong statement as “may” instead of “did” so I won’t be asked to cite my source).
D
Deconi
Guest
Umm, didn’t you ‘hear’ Paul?
“…and if he will not listen even to The Church, [after his brother, his brother and 2 witnesses] hand him over to the civil authorities…”
Seems your question is better posed to God Himself!
Just sayin’
D
Deconi
Guest
I can never understand why people who have discovered that the Reformers ACTUALLY added words to, and ‘removed’ books from Scripture, insist on using ‘reformers’ citations/websites of Catholic documents to base accusations against The Church?!?
If ‘they’ changed words of Scriptures, how can one trust ANY, THING, ELSE, found amongst ‘them’ to be authentic?
Just sayin’
- Status