Concerned Questions about Aquinas

[Roy5]

If the natural law supports burning people because they cannot agree with the church, it certainly cannot be the law of God. Have you read the Sermon on the Mount? If not, it’s time that you did? Can you, even for a moment, believe that Jesus (who certainly would know his natural law) would condemn those who disagree with him to death? Absurd.

Such foolishness in past history is one reason the church has suffered from a bad reputation among many historians. It burned too many people. I remember reading that after the slaughter of Protestants, who were attending a wedding in Paris, the Pope ordered a special Te Deum in the Vatican to celebrate! That was after the lamentable St. Bartholomoew's Massacre! Miserabile dictu!

You apparently believe that people are lost, go to hell, if they are or become heretics. I've always been impressed that when Jesus was asked by the attorney how he could obtain eternal life Jesus said nothing about any church or creed or doctrine. He said: love God and one another. When the lawyer wanted an illustration, Jesus gave his beautiful and powerful parable of the Good Samaritan. The Samaritans were viewed as notorius heretics by the Jews. They had intermarried, rejected traditional Judaism, etc. But Christ made a Samaritan the hero. And remember the ten lepers? Who was the only one to thank Jesus? A Samaritan. That tells us a lot.

 Fortunately, the Catholic Church (thanks to John XXIII in particular) has moved beyond that "outside the church there is no salvation" nonsense. Let us make religion a bridge and not a barrier. Let us be humble in our faith and not arrogant!

 

[awatkins69]

Christians believe that the whole Bible is the Bible, and not just the New Testament. If punishment by burning were directly contrary to the Spirit, then Leviticus is not an inspired text. “If the daughter of a priest be taken in whoredom, and dishonour the name of her father, she shall be burnt with fire.” That’s just for a sexual sin. I’m really glad I did not live in Old Testament times, but they were very strict times for God’s people.

The Bible also says clearly that heresy is damnable. Saint Paul, in Titus 3:10-11 writes: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.” And the Church hasn’t changed her position.

I’m NOT endorsing burning people! God forbid. Honestly I’m squeamish and it even makes me light-headed just talking about the idea right now. But if the lawful authority decides that it is necessary, it’s not directly contrary to the natural law or God’s law. In fact, it was a direct part of God’s Law for the Jews. So technically they didn’t do anything wrong, though I sincerely feel sorry for those who were burnt to death, just as I’m sincerely sorry when a murderer is put to death.

 

[sidbrown]

The Bible also says clearly that heresy is damnable. Saint Paul, in Titus 3:10-11 writes: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.” And the Church hasn’t changed her position.

Really? The Church has not changed her position? I don’t think so.
Here’s why.
. E. Orthodox Christians do not accept the following teachings of the Roman Catholic Church:
Papal infallibility.
Papal universal jusrisdiction and supremacy.
They do not accept submission to the Roman Pontiff as required by the papal bull Unam Sanctam.
Immaculate Conception
Filioque teaching of the RCC.
and others.
However, how can the RCC teach that these heresies are damnable, since it allows E. Orthodox Christians to receive Holy Communion in a Roman Catholic Church without requiring them to give up their beliefs.

 

[awatkins69]

Really? The Church has not changed her position? I don’t think so.
Here’s why.
. E. Orthodox Christians do not accept the following teachings of the Roman Catholic Church:
Papal infallibility.
Papal universal jusrisdiction and supremacy.
They do not accept submission to the Roman Pontiff as required by the papal bull Unam Sanctam.
Immaculate Conception
Filioque teaching of the RCC.
and others.
However, how can the RCC teach that these heresies are damnable, since it allows E. Orthodox Christians to receive Holy Communion in a Roman Catholic Church without requiring them to give up their beliefs.

Well, first of all, there is the difference between formal and material heresy. Secondly, “no salvation outside of the Church” does not necessarily mean that salvation is impossible for non-Catholic Christians. God is not bound by His own laws. What little truth people might have might be enough.

 

[Contarini]

Christians believe that the whole Bible is the Bible, and not just the New Testament. If punishment by burning were directly contrary to the Spirit, then Leviticus is not an inspired text. .

All of Scripture (including Leviticus) is divinely inspired in the sense it bears when read as a whole, in the context of Sacred Tradition, according to the analogy of faith and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is not true to say that each document making up the Bible is divinely inspired in the sense it bears when read in a purely historical sense. To say this is to fall into the monstrous and immoral error into which you have fallen, justifying cruelty because it is mandated in a passage of Scripture.

Edwin

 

[awatkins69]

All of Scripture (including Leviticus) is divinely inspired in the sense it bears when read as a whole, in the context of Sacred Tradition, according to the analogy of faith and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is not true to say that each document making up the Bible is divinely inspired in the sense it bears when read in a purely historical sense. To say this is to fall into the monstrous and immoral error into which you have fallen, justifying cruelty because it is mandated in a passage of Scripture.

Edwin

So Leviticus only makes sense when the Bible is read as a whole? What does that mean exactly? Nobody could correctly understand Leviticus until the entire Bible was written? Was it not inspired by the Holy Spirit until the New Testament was finished? How is that even possible? It would seem that a text is inspired insofar as its content is inspired. If it retains the exact same content I don’t see how it could be any more inspired by age. If age is the criterion for inspiration then we have much holier texts than the Bible. If it is that the content is both holy and old, then Leviticus is more inspired than the New Testament. But this doesn’t make much sense to me.

Either way, in your opinion, was the Levitical law contrary to the Holy Spirit? Was the God of Moses different than the God of Saint Paul? If He was not, then execution is not contrary to the Holy Spirit. If He was, then at least the Pentateuch is wrong, along with the Church and its Sacred Tradition.

 

[Betterave]

All of Scripture (including Leviticus) is divinely inspired in the sense it bears when read as a whole, in the context of Sacred Tradition, according to the analogy of faith and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is not true to say that each document making up the Bible is divinely inspired in the sense it bears when read in a purely historical sense. To say this is to fall into the monstrous and immoral error into which you have fallen, justifying cruelty because it is mandated in a passage of Scripture.

Edwin

This is God’s world and those are God’s scriptures, full of cruelty both. It may repulse you, but that’s no reason to abandon reason and to fall back on self-righteous indignation and ad hominem, question-begging argumentation.

 

[Betterave]

If the natural law supports burning people because they cannot agree with the church, it certainly cannot be the law of God. Have you read the Sermon on the Mount? If not, it’s time that you did? Can you, even for a moment, believe that Jesus (who certainly would know his natural law) would condemn those who disagree with him to death? Absurd.

Such foolishness in past history is one reason the church has suffered from a bad reputation among many historians. It burned too many people. I remember reading that after the slaughter of Protestants, who were attending a wedding in Paris, the Pope ordered a special Te Deum in the Vatican to celebrate! That was after the lamentable St. Bartholomoew's Massacre! Miserabile dictu!

You apparently believe that people are lost, go to hell, if they are or become heretics. I've always been impressed that when Jesus was asked by the attorney how he could obtain eternal life Jesus said nothing about any church or creed or doctrine. He said: love God and one another. When the lawyer wanted an illustration, Jesus gave his beautiful and powerful parable of the Good Samaritan. The Samaritans were viewed as notorius heretics by the Jews. They had intermarried, rejected traditional Judaism, etc. But Christ made a Samaritan the hero. And remember the ten lepers? Who was the only one to thank Jesus? A Samaritan. That tells us a lot.

 Fortunately, the Catholic Church (thanks to John XXIII in particular) has moved beyond that "outside the church there is no salvation" nonsense. Let us make religion a bridge and not a barrier. Let us be humble in our faith and not arrogant!

You write what you just wrote, then conclude with: “Let us be humble in our faith and not arrogant!”? Are you at all sensible to the irony of this statement, Roy?

 

[Contarini]

So Leviticus only makes sense when the Bible is read as a whole? What does that mean exactly? Nobody could correctly understand Leviticus until the entire Bible was written?

Certainly no one could correctly understand Leviticus–or any part of the Old Testament–until the coming of Christ. See 2 Cor. 3:12-18.

Was it not inspired by the Holy Spirit until the New Testament was finished?

It was inspired, but its divinely inspired sense was understood only in an imperfect, “shadowy” manner.

Either way, in your opinion, was the Levitical law contrary to the Holy Spirit?

A literal application of it would be, yes. Jesus was rightly killed according to a literal application of OT law (though as far as I can tell, the manner of His trial was highly irregular according to Jewish “human tradition” or “oral Torah”).

Unless we are willing to accept the radical possibility that both Judaism as we know it and Christianity as we know it are willed by the Holy Spirit. There was an article in First Things some months ago by a Jewish author suggesting that Jesus was truly sent by God and that the Jewish leaders were doing right to kill Him. But one could argue that that position really *is *relativistic!

Edwin

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Fortunately, the Catholic Church (thanks to John XXIII in particular) has moved beyond that “outside the church there is no salvation” nonsense. Let us make religion a bridge and not a barrier. Let us be humble in our faith and not arrogant!

I think John Paul II, or Paul VI, or maybe Blessed John, apologized for the Church burning people. Though I’m not a huge fan of “apology by proxy”, I’m impressed with the sentiment.

Also, it’s of note to point out that one, or maybe all three, of these great men thought that burning heretics was a bad idea (otherwise, why apologize for it?). Benedict XVI certainly would be a far less impressive scholar than he is if many of his instructors and peers (Lutherans, many of them) had been lit on fire.

 

[Contarini]

This is God’s world and those are God’s scriptures, full of cruelty both. It may repulse you, but that’s no reason to abandon reason and to fall back on self-righteous indignation and ad hominem, question-begging argumentation.

How have I abandoned reason? Rhetoric and reason are not incompatible, and if basic moral intuitions are not a sound basis for argument, then I don’t see how we can call anything “good” at all.

I would not have a reason to believe in God if not for the same kinds of intuitions that lead me to conclude that the literal, historical sense of certain parts of Scripture cannot be divinely inspired.

Persuade me that the Biblical God wanted the Israelites to kill children, and you have persuaded me that the Biblical God is false.

Note: that’s a more clear-cut case than the executions of adults, though the burning of young women for sexual immorality comes close. If we only had the execution passages I could bring myself to accept them. But the presence of the “genocide” passages tips the scale–God can’t have willed that His people do this, or God is not God.

Edwin

 

[awatkins69]

Certainly no one could correctly understand Leviticus–or any part of the Old Testament–until the coming of Christ. See 2 Cor. 3:12-18.

So the Jews were just lost for that time? They had no revelation?!

It was inspired, but its divinely inspired sense was understood only in an imperfect, “shadowy” manner.

Understood, yes. But this isn’t that hard to understand. It was shadowy insofar as it predicted the fullness of truth, which is Christ. But it wasn’t shadowy in itself.

A literal application of it would be, yes. Jesus was rightly killed according to a literal application of OT law (though as far as I can tell, the manner of His trial was highly irregular according to Jewish “human tradition” or “oral Torah”).

Jesus was not rightly killed according to the OT law, because he was not actually blaspheming. He was actually speaking the truth.

Unless we are willing to accept the radical possibility that both Judaism as we know it and Christianity as we know it are willed by the Holy Spirit. There was an article in First Things some months ago by a Jewish author suggesting that Jesus was truly sent by God and that the Jewish leaders were doing right to kill Him. But one could argue that that position really *is *relativistic!

No. Judaism and Christianity are not the same religion. However, you seem to make some great discontinuity between the OT and the NT. Modern Jews, and the Jews of Jesus’ time, are *NOT *the heirs of the OT. The Church which Christ established is the heir of the OT.

All the best.

 

[adstrinity]

Right, I haven’t read past half of the first page, but, concerning us being happy that those in Hell are suffering, two things:

1. It is found in the Book of Revelation that the saints ask God how much longer until He pours out His justice on Earth.
2. We know God is all merciful and all just. He demands justice which is why Hell exists. In Heaven, which no unclean thing can enter, our wills will be so focused on God and in line with God’s, that of course we’ll be happy to see the damned burn. The reason for this is because they did not choose God; we will be happy to see those who rejected God get what they chose. This is how I read it from…somewhere. I didn’t like the idea at first, but, it does make sense.

 

[awatkins69]

How have I abandoned reason? Rhetoric and reason are not incompatible, and if basic moral intuitions are not a sound basis for argument, then I don’t see how we can call anything “good” at all.

I would not have a reason to believe in God if not for the same kinds of intuitions that lead me to conclude that the literal, historical sense of certain parts of Scripture cannot be divinely inspired.

Persuade me that the Biblical God wanted the Israelites to kill children, and you have persuaded me that the Biblical God is false.

Note: that’s a more clear-cut case than the executions of adults, though the burning of young women for sexual immorality comes close. If we only had the execution passages I could bring myself to accept them. But the presence of the “genocide” passages tips the scale–God can’t have willed that His people do this, or God is not God.

Edwin

God wills people to die every day. If he didn’t will them to die, He would stop it from happening, since nothing falls outside of God’s providence. All being is derived from God, and if death exists then it is because God allows it to. However, I’m not sure how this would disprove the Biblical God. I’m not sure in what sense we can say God is obligated by any law to do anything for anyone

 

[Betterave]

How have I abandoned reason? Rhetoric and reason are not incompatible, and if basic moral intuitions are not a sound basis for argument, then I don’t see how we can call anything “good” at all.

I can agree with much of what you say, but with due respect I think you abandoned reason in favor of ad hominem straw-man question-begging with this statement: “To say this is to fall into the monstrous and immoral error [question-begging] into which you have fallen ad hominem (though not necessarily fallacious)], justifying cruelty because it is mandated in a passage of Scripture [straw man].” You can’t see it? You want to call it ‘rhetoric’ instead? I’m not buying it.

 

[Ignatias20]

How would you know a Good thing if you never had knowlege of what was Bad?

If you always lived in a building that was kept at 72 degrees F, don’t you think you’d enjoys the A/C more if for a week you went out and lived where the temp was 100 degrees?

I’d think a person who ate all his meals which were prepared by a Chief Chef all his life would be bored. But send that guy to the homeless shelter for a month and the Chef’s cooking will taste a loy more enjoyable.

This is in reference to the Tomastic statement, Souls in heaven can view the suffering of those in hell - this makes their joy better. Or words to that effect.