Church Authority and Church Atrocities

[oneofmany]

I don’t mind the Church now, I think I have been consistent with this point. The issue is the time and the place, and the people who peacefully stood against tyranny. When a Pope thinks he has the authority to dig up the remains of a dead person who committed no crime other than speak out against Catholicism, give a mock execution and burn the remains, throwing them into water; perhaps one ought to rethink their position whether or not they want to be in that Church at that time?

For me to stand with the apostate and say, “Yeah, you can’t do that, you’re being evil!” Then likewise be burned at a stake, again, perhaps there’s a group of Christians who really do believe in giving everything to the poor, preaching Christ, the Bible, etc that won’t murder me if I disagree. Waldo tried, Hus tried, Wycliffe tried, Luther succeeded. And how has the Catholic Church been ever since? Yes, perhaps there is an English Church, a “Evangelical Catholic” Church, or Evangelicals who follow much of what Hus and Waldo taught, but we’re needed to stop one Church to claim absolute authority and begin murdering others.

The CC is doing well now, and I’m happy for them.

I am taking the study, “EPIC, the history of the Catholic Church” and I don’t think the Pope ordered that. The King did and the Pope agreed but dragged his feet for as long as he could because he didn’t want it done and it never was done. You have to remember the state was very strong in the church during that time and Kings could have a huge say on how the church was run. Plus the church had a long time of weak leaders and that accounted for a lot of evil things.

It’s kinda silly to decide on what church to join when you only want to look at it’s history and nothing else. The Middle Ages were a very harsh time to live for everyone.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You’re way off in what I’m getting at.

So you would support your Church if it’s killing the innocent out of fear that you may be killed as well? Or would you be killed? Or what if a Christian group is being murdered, you wouldn’t support them?

Well, reading from all your posts, including other threads, it is extremely hard for me to see it any other way.

I know what I would do, but that is something I have been trained for my entire life to protect and to serve others. Things are not black and white all the time, and what you might perceive as a wrongful act is not that when all things are taken into account. This is not an excuse for specific acts that might come to your mind and that you are happy to post, but a general way of being dilligent and just before we start pointing the finger.

The question would be:

Would you stay and fight for the preservation and reform of the Church? Or Would you abandon Her and not fight for what is true?

Would you make every effort to correct the wrongs? Or Would you run and hide ad pretend you were never part of the Church?

Would you pray for the Lord to give you strength and face the leadership? Or Would you hide and do nothing but criticize and let someone else take the risk?

We can’t be double minded, we must take a stand and fight for what is truth. It starts with the plank in our eye…

 

[mardukm]

Dear jinc,

Thank you for the well thought-out reply. You are correct that my last post to you was not very detailed. I hope to supply that want in this post.

After carefully considering your points, I do think that we will just have to agree to disagree on the issue of burning heretics. While I agree with you that Jesus was not necessarily a radical pacifist (Peter did carry a sword!), I think the argument can reasonably be made that a captured individual, imprisoned and bound, is virtually never the kind of threat required of the death penalty. There is quite a difference between binding a person and setting them on fire and shooting an intruder breaking into one’s house or engaging in a justified and moral war.

It’s not that they are not a threat while in prison, it is that they were a threat (were actually violent) before being caught, and, because of non-repentance, the secular court would convict them and sentence them to whatever appropriate punishment.

Please understand that the only thing ecclesiastical courts were competent to determine was whether the accused was a heretic or not. They were not competent to determine his crimes against the state. If the Church determined he was a heretic and, after giving extensive chances to renounce (such as with Waldo, Wycliffe, Hus, etc.), they would be turned over to the State. Since they chose to be outside the Church, the Church no longer had any authority over them. Hence, they were turned over to the State. Does that make more sense? Then the State would hold its own trial (ideally) to determine if the person had a history of violence, or if he had the potential for violence, or to incite violence, or was a danger to the peace of the State, etc. If the secular court made a positive determination, an appropriate punishment was meted out. Sometimes, like in the case of Wycliffe, the sentence was merely censure. It appears that during that time, the State did not really have a stake in the matter and did not mete out harsh punishment to heretics. But later on, apparently the State saw heretics as an actual danger to the peace of the State - heresy was itsel a civil crime, worse than murder - and hence meted out much harsher punishments.

Today, we consider burning at the stake to be unconscionably cruel. But please consider this important fact – the Church courts never determined the corporal punishment - the secular State courts did. Even in the Papal States, this was the case.

Please seriously consider this question: In what sense is a method of execution regarded as a doctrine so that it can be stated that “the Church taught the burning of heretics?” Sure, the burnng of heretics was a reprehensible act, no one will deny. But what is the justification for claiming these acts were a doctrine?

I think the larger point I was making was not that this one particular argument about burning or “exterminating” heretics is keeping me from being Catholic…It’s numerous other similar teachings that have been delivered by the Pope infallibly (or at least some claim this) as well as some of the decisions of councils (such as the one we discussed regarding the Fourth Lateran Council).

That is fair.

Other issues also create a lot of problems…the awarding of indulgences for engaging in the Crusades

It was a normative practice for bishops to grant indulgences to Catholic soldiers before they went to war. Even the Eastern Orthodox did so during the High Middle Ages. What makes the Pope’s granting of indulgences so out of the ordinary?

and the treatment of the Jews are two other examples.

There were ups and downs on this. Several Church Fathers are styled anti-Semitic for their rhetoric. Both Catholics and Orthodox in their respective domains early on would be guilty of this. I believe the Catholic Church (not Catholic secular rulers) was more liberal with Jews much earlier than the Orthodox, if official pronouncements are any indication.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

I just don’t believe that these teachings could be valid based on the teachings of Christ in plain language AND based on the fact that Church has reversed its position on some of these issues. Forgetting for a moment the issue of infallibility (because one could dispute whether any or all of these teachings I have an issue with are infallibly true or not by Church standards), the simple fact that the Church mandated that these teachings be held by the faithful at large and secular authorities is proof enough of the Church’s failures.

To be honest, I’m not sure what you are classifying as “teachings.” The Catholic Church, along with other Apostolic Churches, have a very specific definition of the term “teaching” and also a very specific definition for the term “Church.” “Teaching” refers to doctrine that has been handed down from the Apostles, not individual actions that might influence people for bad or good. The “Church” is a supernatural entity that is sacramentally identified with Christ Himself. I’m sure you are not saying that if a priest commits murder, he is claiming that it is a doctrine that you should commit murder. And I’m sure you are not saying that Christ Himself committed murder. You are obviously using those two terms in a sense that Apostolic Christians normally would not use those two terms. I mean, I understand what you are trying to say, but I felt that clarification was necessary.

I wonder how many Catholics today would stay attached to the Church if it were to come out and say “Jews can no longer hold positions in civil governments.” This is precisely what the Church taught in 1254, and regardless of the “changing times,”

Society did not allow Jews to hold positions in civil government because society as a whole was theocratic during those times. Did Jews allow non-Jews to hold positions in their civil government before the Jewish nation was dispersed? Please answer that question.

It was wrong.

It was ethically wrong by modern standards, but it was not doctrinally wrong because the form of government is a civil compact and really has nothing to do with Church doctrine.

The Church isn’t supposed to “change with the times,”

The Church does not change with the times in her doctrine. Governments and forms of government is not a matter of Church doctrine, so that can change.

it’s supposed to be teaching infallible truths from the very start. It’s supposed to be guiding people toward Christ…Is mistreating Jews guiding others toward Christ? I don’t believe so.

Who you want running your government in a theocratic society is not “mistreating Jews.” If the Jews had a State at that time, they would have been doing the same thing. That is not mistreatment - according to the secular ethical standards of the time. And it was not immoral according to doctirnal standards because forms of government (civil compacts) has nothing to do with Church doctrine per se.

This, of course, doesn’t mean the Church is engaging in such matters today (although I do think there are some errors the Church is teaching.) What it does mean for me, however, is that the Church is capable of authoritatively mandating erroneous teachings, and that is enough to worry me.

Again, I respectfully ask that you reconsider what the term “teaching” actually means to Apostolic Christians.

I would love to see the whole of Christianity united again, but it will never happen so long as the Church demands nearly absolute obedience and fails to fully live up to its mistakes in the past. Personally, I don’t believe the Eastern Orthodox are close to reuniting to the Church for these very same reasons.

The Eastern Orthodox were “guilty” of the same things in their own lands. If they are not close to reuniting with us based on the matters above, they would only be guilty of inconsistency and hypocrisy. In all, the things mentioned in this thread are not proper criteria to determine to what Church you should belong. I hope you will agree.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Hi Dronald,

Here’s the promised detailed response to this prior post from you:

People will believe strange things and I do think your belief is strange

What you claim is my belief is not my belief. What I am doing is attempting to determining the thinking of the people during those times and offering you the results of that determination. What is strange is that you cannot tell the difference. As someone else stated, your position indeed comes off as someone sitting on a high horse, prematurely judging others intentions and beliefs without rightly discerning what is going on.

Christians believe the same thing Muslims believe when it comes to killing off those who try and convert one away from the faith.

In what ways do you think that what occurred during the Middle Ages is the same thing Muslims believe. Please be specific, then I will tell you the several reasons that it was not the same.

This is more of a political issue and there are many variables to each case, wouldn’t you agree?

Yes, I would agree. So would I be correct that you are not claiming that the Church was TEACHING (that word according to the strict doctrinal meaning of the term) that heretics should be burned, but that your concern is that there were many in the Church who BELIEVED that it was OK for heretics to be burned.

Perhaps you can give me a less general example of a situation and I’ll give it my best. Should someone who is about to murder my daughter be stopped even if it means his life? Yes, I believe so. Should he be murdered for trying to change my daughters beliefs? No.

I’m not speaking of a situation, but a principle. Is the principle that the State should only execute VIOLENT persons an immoral principle? I’m not sure what the State’s standards were for executing violent persons - it normally would have been evidence of prior violence for which the person was convicted; it could have been mere potential for violence; it could have been his violent behavior while incarcerated; it could have been the possibility of his inciting violence in the society. I don’t know. What we do know is that secular rulers at the time, theocratic society that it was, often considered heresy a crime against the State. My main point is that it was the STATE that determined both (1) the criteria for execution and (2) the method of execution, not the Church.

Luckily for us, when it comes to passages like this Jesus always gives us context. The reason wasn’t given that “there might be some good people in that city” the reason was “The Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” Immediately after explaining that the Disciples do not know what matter of Spirit they are of.

That fits right in with what I stated. The righteous would be those who in God’s foreknowledge would be saved. Those people needed to have a chance to hear the Gospel, and then accept, repent, or reject. The sons of thunder did not take into account Jesus’ message of repentance. Now the question for you, Dronald, is: Did the Church give heretics who were eventually burned a chance to repent?

]It would have been better that “Judas would have never been born” as well, and yet Jesus did not kill him
Jesus know, being God, that Judas had a role in the plan of salvation.

and when the Disciples fought, Jesus rebuked them.

Because they had no reason to fight. I’m sure Jesus would not have rebuked the Church for arguing with the Judaizers, or does the pacificism you propose extend to even that?

we’re meant to follow His example.

I do sense an overtly and overly pacifist interpretation from you, though you are obviously not a pacifist since you admit you would kill for the sake of your daughter. So I’m not sure, to be honest, where the “high horse” attitude comes from. The State at the time (theocratic society that it was) seems to have thought that heresy was a sufficiently criminal act (worse than murder) to merit execution. Our secular pluralistic society judges those standards as archaic and wrong. But that’s just the form of government that existed back then. Please try to look at it from an objective historical perspective, instead of an emotional perspective to judge others for motives that don’t exist simply because we are trying to understand the motives of those past times.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

There’s a reason the Apostles didn’t go around killing others that rejected them, and why their letters are so honest that Christianity must be spread by love. If someone is causing another to stumble, we must act in love, pray, and do our best to show such a person the right path. Trust in God.

Amen. But I hope you realize the slippery slope of your position form a biblical-historical perspective. St. Paul taught that once you rebuke your brother several times, then you hand him over to the secular authorities - presumably because that brother has willfully chosen to no longer be part of the Church. Was the Church wrong in following St. Paul’s directive? Was St. Paul wrong? According to you, he was. I suppose you might argue, “Well turning them over to the State was a practical death sentence because the Church knew what the result would be. So the Church is just as culpable for turning the heretics over to the State as if they committed the murder as well.” OK, but you know what? You can bet that St. Paul knew that the State would treat these people (unrepentant Christians or Judaizers) harshly, possibly even execute them just for being Christians. So St. Paul, according to you, was a murderer. If you say “not so,” what reason can you offer otherwise (according to your standard)?

I’ve read historical commentaries (Protestant, Catholic, and secular) that during those days, the idea behind burning at the stake or torture was to cause people to repent. Crimes against the soul were more repugnant to people in those days than crimes against the body. Since Scripture says that hellfire is worse than anything we can experience here on earth, If people’s souls were saved (by repentance), then the sufferings of the body would be, comparably, a small price to pay (this was, of course, in opposition to the extreme teaching of sects like the Albigensians who taught that matter itself was evil and that destruction of the body itself - not repentance - was the way to salvation). Either you have never heard this historical perspective, or, if you have, you apparently don’t have the wherewithal to even attempt to understand it, but can only judge what went on in the past according to today’s standards.

Stop and think, Dronald. IF you lived in those times, in such a theocratic society, what would be your response to heresy?

I know exactly what they did in the middle ages and I’m glad it’s not that way any more.

So do we all (though I know Catholics who prefer monarchy instead of representative government )

And if you disagree with every one of those individuals who all believe their Church is acting Christ like, and know speaking out could get you labelled a heretic then burned at a stake you do what?

I’m not sure what your point is here. The one who made a decision to burn people at the stake was the secular authority, not the Church. I agree that burning people at the stake is reprehensible. I do not agree with your attribution of the act to the Church herself. The act was done by individuals, not the Body of Christ.

This confuses me… Christianity as it is practised properly now is morally the same and just as perfect as it was meant to be practised before. So no, Christianity has never been bad by today’s standards; in fact it was way ahead and continues to be ahead.

We actually agree here, but your terminology is telling of your Protestant background, as distinguished from my own Apostolic Christian background. The way you use the term “Christianity” is identical to the way I use the term “Church.” The “Church,” according to apostolic Christianity, is a supernatural body, sacramentally the Body of Christ Himself. That is why I thoroughly disagree with your attribution of these acts to the “Church” - in the same way you would disagree with the attribution of these acts to “Christianity.” My statement was a bit of a reductio ad absurdum - that is, if you would attribute these acts to “the Church,” then you might as well attribute every evil act perpetrated by a member of a certain religion to the religion itself. You are obviously not willing to do that. So either (1) your argument is inconsistent or (2) we are simply using terms differently, but saying the same thing,

I believe we should render unto Caesar what is his.

That’s a pretty noncommittal statement from someone who has judged a whole Church by the actions of its members. The point I was trying to get at is that the Church did not have as much authority as you might think over the secular authorities. Sure, the Church might have had the power to excommunicate, and some in their high horse would probably insist the Church should have used this power to curb the executions – but it is an historical fact that rulers during the Middle Ages would regularly disregard such threats if their self-interests for the State overrode it.

Blessings

 

[dmar198]

St. Paul taught that once you rebuke your brother several times, then you hand him over to the secular authorities - presumably because that brother has willfully chosen to no longer be part of the Church. Was the Church wrong in following St. Paul’s directive? Was St. Paul wrong? According to you, he was. I suppose you might argue, “Well turning them over to the State was a practical death sentence because the Church knew what the result would be. So the Church is just as culpable for turning the heretics over to the State as if they committed the murder as well.” OK, but you know what? You can bet that St. Paul knew that the State would treat these people (unrepentant Christians or Judaizers) harshly, possibly even execute them just for being Christians.

Mardukm,

At several points during this discussion, you and another poster have brought up a quotation where St. Paul supposedly said, “…and if he will not listen even to the Church, hand him over to the civil authorities.”

The actual quotation is from Matthew 18:17 – “If a man refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen or the tax collectors.”

I’m not aware of any place where St. Paul spoke of turning excommunicates over to civil authorities for prosecution. And I don’t think they approved of the ways the civil authority used the death penalty in those days. In the early Church, both before and after Christianity was made the State religion, there are often written records where Christian leaders pleaded with the civil authorities to use the death penalty more leniently and mercifully, and to allow freedom of religion. St. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and St. Ambrose all come to mind in this regard, and their pleas inform the current doctrine of the Church concerning the death penalty.

In the medieval period you still find Church leaders calling upon the government not to use the death penalty against Jews and pagans, and general exhortations to avoid using the death penalty whenever possible, but you find an increasing number of authors arguing that coercion may be used in the case of heretics, and St. Thomas Aquinas even seems to say that they may be put to death.

The reason I bring all this up is because I don’t think your argument, if I understand it, is sufficient; that is, if you are arguing that, because the State authorities were the ones executing the heretics, therefore the Church hierarchy was free from guilt in this matter, I think it is more complicated than that. The medieval Church had inherited a patristic tradition which, with only a few exceptions, called for nonviolence and freedom of religion for non-Catholics, and stood up to the State bravely to call attention to this teaching. I think the medieval Church leaders had a responsibility to do the same, and in most cases that I’ve reviewed, it appears that they did not, or did so in mixed ways – arguing that Jews and pagans should be tolerated, for example, but not heretics.

What I would want to point out is, first, they did not reverse the teaching of the early Fathers on this point, neither in Council nor in any papal document, but they certainly (in many cases) didn’t stand up as bravely to the sin of persecution, and in some cases they seem to have actively counseled it. This shows a deep misunderstanding of the truth on their part, which needs to be addressed in our apologetics. How could the leaders of the Church fail to do their duty? How could they, in fact, counsel the opposite of the early Church’s teaching on this point? (And did they? To what extent?) Does it mean the teaching was gone?

Those difficult questions are the ones I think we need to be addressing, and I think a good place to start is to review the medieval Church’s record on these points for an honest assessment of where they were at, and to identify what recourse the faithful had when evil actions were counseled, left unrebuked, or, if they ever were, even commanded. My contribution so far is in posts 55-56 and 89, so far, and I wonder if you could give me your thoughts on those posts in light of the points I’ve made here. God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother dmar,

At several points during this discussion, you and another poster have brought up a quotation where St. Paul supposedly said, “…and if he will not listen even to the Church, hand him over to the civil authorities.”

The actual quotation is from Matthew 18:17 – “If a man refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen or the tax collectors.”

I’m not aware of any place where St. Paul spoke of turning excommunicates over to civil authorities for prosecution. And I don’t think they approved of the ways the civil authority used the death penalty in those days.

Please check out Romans 13. Also St. Peter’s teaching in 1 Peter (sorry I don’t have my concordance with me).

The reason I bring all this up is because I don’t think your argument, if I understand it, is sufficient; that is, if you are arguing that, because the State authorities were the ones executing the heretics, therefore the Church hierarchy was free from guilt in this matter,

I never argued that the Church hierarchy was free from guilt. I argued that one cannot assign guilt to the Church as a whole (and thereby reject the Church) because of the actions of certain or many individuals within the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Those difficult questions are the ones I think we need to be addressing, and I think a good place to start is to review the medieval Church’s record on these points for an honest assessment of where they were at, and to identify what recourse the faithful had when evil actions were counseled, left unrebuked, or, if they ever were, even commanded. My contribution so far is in posts 55-56 and 89, so far, and I wonder if you could give me your thoughts on those posts in light of the points I’ve made here. God bless!

I believe your contributions have been excellent and well thought out. I offer no counter to them (except your last post which indicated some misunderstanding of my intentions, which is due to my own lack of clarity).

Blessings

 

[robwar]

I am not going to waste time debating the Papal Bull of 1520 or the Fourth Lateran Council. Nothing was doctored. I pulled the quote directly from a Catholics apologetics website (if I remember correctly), but I have read the canons featured on Fordham’s (a Catholic university) website and my position is exactly the same.

AT BEST, even if we are to assume the Church had no idea that their commands would end in the death of heretics, the canons specifically require secular authorities to essentially ruin the lives of “heretics.” They are to be expelled from their home kingdoms, their professions are to be disregarded, their families are forced to leave the only communities they have ever known…How can you defend such a position?

Again, this is a major problem with Catholic apologetics. No one ever wants to admit to historical facts, and everyone pretends that all of these very specific and clear quotes don’t mean what they obviously mean.

I urge anyone who is interested to simply read the original documents yourself and tell me if it fits into the various commands of Jesus. Are these commands of love or commands of intolerance?

Theologically, I am quite conservative, but Jesus gave people a choice! He didn’t say, “If you don’t believe what I am telling you, we are going to kill you, force you to leave our communities, mistreat you, force you into a ghetto, etc.” He commanded that we should love our neighbors. I guess that only applies to our Christian neighbors.

Like I said…if you are interested, read the canons of the Fourth Lateran Council yourself, including the canons towards the end regarding treatment of the Jews. This was held to be authoritative in the Catholic Church and I think it’s reasonable to say that these kinds of decisions make it very difficult for modern Catholics to know when we should be obedient and when we should say “No.” No one can give me a definitive answer on this, and that really does disturb me.

Do you see the current modern Catholic Church going after heretics and killing them? Then I think you can put the two documents back in their historical perspective instead of cutting and pasting different things said in the past and using that to justify not being Catholic. In the time of the fourth counsel, the concept of religious freedom and speech and ideas didn’t exist at all. Governments basically had a state religion whether we like it or not in our modern eyes. So the if the State was lead by a Christian, then that was the religion that everyone was suppose to follow. We are trying to understand these past times with our modern understanding of freedom of religion and thought which didn’t exist then anywhere in the world Christian or not. You need to put these things in the times they were written and understand them as such.

 

[dronald]

Hi Dronald,

Here’s the promised detailed response to this prior post from you:

What you claim is my belief is not my belief. What I am doing is attempting to determining the thinking of the people during those times and offering you the results of that determination. What is strange is that you cannot tell the difference. As someone else stated, your position indeed comes off as someone sitting on a high horse, prematurely judging others intentions and beliefs without rightly discerning what is going on.

The onus is now on you to quote where I have sat on a high horse in my disagreements. I would appreciate it if you give me the exact quote(s) where I have done so.

I most certainly do disagree with any interpretation of the Bible that you have quoted which can be interpreted to say burning heretics, or killing them in any way for the crime of heresy is permissible. If I have become confused in your attempt to defend the mindset of those people, causing me to think that you share that mindset then I wouldn’t really find that all too strange. You’re defending a position and I’m disagreeing with it, I don’t know if you agree with the position you defend or not; regardless I’m here to counter it.

In what ways do you think that what occurred during the Middle Ages is the same thing Muslims believe. Please be specific, then I will tell you the several reasons that it was not the same.

The idea that if I remove you from Catholicism and bring you to another branch of Christianity, I could be punished or killed. Similar things go on in the Middle East at this time.

Yes, I would agree. So would I be correct that you are not claiming that the Church was TEACHING (that word according to the strict doctrinal meaning of the term) that heretics should be burned, but that your concern is that there were many in the Church who BELIEVED that it was OK for heretics to be burned.

The strict doctrinal meaning? No. Were they teaching it? Sure.

I’m not speaking of a situation, but a principle. Is the principle that the State should only execute VIOLENT persons an immoral principle? I’m not sure what the State’s standards were for executing violent persons - it normally would have been evidence of prior violence for which the person was convicted; it could have been mere potential for violence; it could have been his violent behavior while incarcerated; it could have been the possibility of his inciting violence in the society. I don’t know. What we do know is that secular rulers at the time, theocratic society that it was, often considered heresy a crime against the State. My main point is that it was the STATE that determined both (1) the criteria for execution and (2) the method of execution, not the Church.

I don’t understand this Apologetic strategy, as if the Church had no influence on the State. If what was happening was morally wrong, why would the Church not speak out (assuming the Church wasn’t responsible at all.) The CC didn’t actually have a problem with what was happening, because as you said; it was theocratic.

That fits right in with what I stated. The righteous would be those who in God’s foreknowledge would be saved. Those people needed to have a chance to hear the Gospel, and then accept, repent, or reject. The sons of thunder did not take into account Jesus’ message of repentance. Now the question for you, Dronald, is: Did the Church give heretics who were eventually burned a chance to repent?

Again, I didn’t originally want to get into this. So I will let the reader decide what Jesus meant in Luke 9:54-56.

Jesus know, being God, that Judas had a role in the plan of salvation.

While being a perfect moral example for the rest of the world; I also made that clear in the part you did not quote.

Because they had no reason to fight. I’m sure Jesus would not have rebuked the Church for arguing with the Judaizers, or does the pacificism you propose extend to even that?

Again, I’ll let the reader do the work and look up John 6:15 and Matthew 26:52. Jesus argued all the time, I never said arguing was an issue.

 

[dronald]

I do sense an overtly and overly pacifist interpretation from you, though you are obviously not a pacifist since you admit you would kill for the sake of your daughter. So I’m not sure, to be honest, where the “high horse” attitude comes from. The State at the time (theocratic society that it was) seems to have thought that heresy was a sufficiently criminal act (worse than murder) to merit execution. Our secular pluralistic society judges those standards as archaic and wrong. But that’s just the form of government that existed back then. Please try to look at it from an objective historical perspective, instead of an emotional perspective to judge others for motives that don’t exist simply because we are trying to understand the motives of those past times.

Oh, I understand where they’re coming from but I’m just saying they were wrong. “We think Spiritual death is worse than murder so we’re going to kill you” could have been the mentality, I just disagree with the killing part.

Amen. But I hope you realize the slippery slope of your position form a biblical-historical perspective. St. Paul taught that once you rebuke your brother several times, then you hand him over to the secular authorities

Can you cite chapter and verse please? I was as confused as dmar when I first read this:

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’

I read Romans 13, but I can’t find that quote. I do see “Do not murder” in verse 9 and I do believe that’s what the Catholics did to John Hus and Waldo’s followers who only wanted to preach Christ.

I’ve read historical commentaries (Protestant, Catholic, and secular) that during those days, the idea behind burning at the stake or torture was to cause people to repent. Crimes against the soul were more repugnant to people in those days than crimes against the body. Since Scripture says that hellfire is worse than anything we can experience here on earth, If people’s souls were saved (by repentance), then the sufferings of the body would be, comparably, a small price to pay (this was, of course, in opposition to the extreme teaching of sects like the Albigensians who taught that matter itself was evil and that destruction of the body itself - not repentance - was the way to salvation). Either you have never heard this historical perspective, or, if you have, you apparently don’t have the wherewithal to even attempt to understand it, but can only judge what went on in the past according to today’s standards.

Again, I understand the mentality at the time; I just don’t agree with it and I certainly won’t defend it.

Stop and think, Dronald. IF you lived in those times, in such a theocratic society, what would be your response to heresy?

I can’t think of a more appropriate time to insert a, “When in Rome” joke.

I’m not sure what your point is here. The one who made a decision to burn people at the stake was the secular authority, not the Church. I agree that burning people at the stake is reprehensible. I do not agree with your attribution of the act to the Church herself. The act was done by individuals, not the Body of Christ.

And people certainly had every right to distance themselves from said “secular authorities” or whoever is turning them over to the authorities to be murdered. Except, they didn’t have those rights; it was “believe what we believe or be killed eventually.”

That’s a pretty noncommittal statement from someone who has judged a whole Church by the actions of its members.

The actions of the Church were a reflection of its teachers. The Church has great teachers now, but I don’t blame people from being afraid of it in the middle ages.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The actions of the Church were a reflection of its teachers. The Church has great teachers now, but I don’t blame people from being afraid of it in the middle ages.

That’s a broad brush, my friend.

Joan of Arc
Thomas Becket
The Venerable Bede
Thomas Aquinas
Albertus Magnus
Fra Angelico
Bernard of Clairvaux
Bonaventura
Dominic
Francis of Assisi
Ignatius of Loyola

Just to name a few saints from the Middle Ages. Some of the greatest teachers of all Christian history are from the Middle Ages.

Don’t just focus on the bad…

 

[dronald]

That’s a broad brush, my friend.

Joan of Arc
Thomas Becket
The Venerable Bede
Thomas Aquinas
Albertus Magnus
Fra Angelico
Bernard of Clairvaux
Bonaventura
Dominic
Francis of Assisi
Ignatius of Loyola

Just to name a few saints from the Middle Ages. Some of the greatest teachers of all Christian history are from the Middle Ages.

Don’t just focus on the bad…

And I don’t! But for the sake of this thread I am focusing on the “atrocities.” The Catholic Church is wonderful and I love it, although I’m not Catholic. But I can certainly understand that those who had a knowledge of Scripture and saw the atrocities would try to find a way to distance themselves, even if it meant death.

 

[TRH1292]

I understand your concern dronald. But I think some of the facts as you presented them were not 100% accurate. You seemed to imply that everyone who spoke out against what they saw as evil in the Church were punished at that time. Really, I think the exact opposite was true. Many of the “religious humanists” of the time pretty much made a living out of criticizing Church practice. Erasmus is a great example. He criticized the Church hierarchy almost non-stop, and yet he was extremely respected by most people, including the Popes. It was a very common thing all through that time, and people were not getting burned for it.

It was only when people separated themselves from the Church and started there own Church or challenged dogma that things got serious. That doesn’t justify what happened. But it does paint a slightly different picture from the “Soviet Union” like situation you seemed to be describing.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

And I don’t! But for the sake of this thread I am focusing on the “atrocities.” The Catholic Church is wonderful and I love it, although I’m not Catholic. But I can certainly understand that those who had a knowledge of Scripture and saw the atrocities would try to find a way to distance themselves, even if it meant death.

Like writing a treatise of advice to the Pope?



Check out St. Bernard of Clairvaux’s “On Consideration”

It was addressed to Pope Eugene III.

 

[dronald]

Like writing a treatise of advice to the Pope?



Check out St. Bernard of Clairvaux’s “On Consideration”

It was addressed to Pope Eugene III.

Oh my goodness I have homework tonight.

However, what if said person went around preaching a symbolic Eucharist without recant?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Oh my goodness I have homework tonight.

However, what if said person went around preaching a symbolic Eucharist without recant?

kpeople: Release the hounds!!!

Ok, ok.

The person would be given the opportunity to recant. Today, the person would be excommunicated. At the time, if it was considered a crime by the State, the person’s denial to recant would constitute a crime and be turned over to State custody.

 

[dronald]

I understand your concern dronald. But I think some of the facts as you presented them were not 100% accurate. You seemed to imply that everyone who spoke out against what they saw as evil in the Church were punished at that time. Really, I think the exact opposite was true. Many of the “religious humanists” of the time pretty much made a living out of criticizing Church practice. Erasmus is a great example. He criticized the Church hierarchy almost non-stop, and yet he was extremely respected by most people, including the Popes. It was a very common thing all through that time, and people were not getting burned for it.

It was only when people separated themselves from the Church and started there own Church or challenged dogma that things got serious. That doesn’t justify what happened. But it does paint a slightly different picture from the “Soviet Union” like situation you seemed to be describing.

This is a fair point. I also don’t like how they would sometimes flee and be hunted down.

 

[dronald]

kpeople: Release the hounds!!!

Ok, ok.

The person would be given the opportunity to recant. Today, the person would be excommunicated. At the time, if it was considered a crime by the State, the person’s denial to recant would constitute a crime and be turned over to State custody.

So are you saying that the Church leaders (often and most likely with agreement) took a moral high ground by handing them over to authorities to be murdered over their beliefs instead of doing it themselves?

That seems to be the argument that is consistently put forth to me, even if it wasn’t true that the CC would support the actions of the authorities.