Do you agree with Aquinas?

[Novocastrian]

Our Lord punishes people quite severely both in this life and the next. In my catechism, there are a plentitude of stories of people bursting asunder or being eaten alive on account of their sin, along with all of the chastisements in the Old Testament. I think that Our Lord is actually being merciful to us by allowing the execution of heretics because it prevents more people from falling into heresy and thereby losing their souls. It is better to have one man burnt at the stake than to see hundreds or even thousands of people fall into Hell on account of that one man’s heretical preaching.

“It is better that one man should die for the people…”

 

[Porknpie]

Honestly it upsets me that any Catholics think this way; just as it upsets me that Muslim converts to Christianity are murdered…

Interesting rdonald that you start a post objecting to how Catholic’s discipline Catholics. It’s not clear to me that the post should even be in the non-Catholic forum but that’s not my call. The title of the post is very dividing. Better to have titled it: “why did St. Aquinas believe so.” What did the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church profess that caused Thomas to react the way he did? And for how long did the Church profess the beliefs that St. Thomas espoused, that were being questioned by heretics? Answer those questions St. Thomas’ reaction will be clearer.

 

[dronald]

Are you sure? As far as I know the Church does not endorse burning heretics at the stake. I certainly haven’t found it in the catechism.

Also, I want to point out the Bull against Luther in response to your comment here.

"Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

…3. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit"

papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

As you can see, there’s quite a trend.

 

[dronald]

Interesting rdonald that you start a post objecting to how Catholic’s discipline Catholics. It’s not clear to me that the post should even be in the non-Catholic forum but that’s not my call.

The topic is in regards to the issue of heresy; which Catholics would accuse the first Protestants of. Absolutely it belongs here because it relates to the history of dissension, disagreement and eventual reformation of the Catholic Church.

I wouldn’t call it Catholics disciplining it’s own members, but rather those who separate from it.

The title of the post is very dividing. Better to have titled it: “why did St. Aquinas believe so.” What did the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church profess that caused Thomas to react the way he did? And for how long did the Church profess the beliefs that St. Thomas espoused, that were being questioned by heretics? Answer those questions St. Thomas’ reaction will be clearer.

To be honest I am looking for personal opinions from those inside and outside the Catholic Church on what Aquinas taught here. I think you’ll get a firm “No” from any non-Catholic to the answer of this question.

And yes, Catholics can be pretty divided on this topic which is what makes it so interesting. You can certainly answer those questions you posed above as a response to the topic at hand; and I’ll likely still say that I disagree with the measures taken against heretics.

 

[fhansen]

Also, I want to point out the Bull against Luther in response to your comment here.

"Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

…3. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit"

papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

As you can see, there’s quite a trend.

Yes, I’m aware of Exsurge Domine. And it-the point in question-simply never became Catholic doctrine, which is the reason you won’t find it as a teaching in any Catholic catechism. For a believer to agree with the sentiment of his times, where execution by burning at the stake was a common enough practice, is one thing, albeit still an unfortunate one. For a believer to consider it proper behavior today would make us no better than ISIS. We’re to love and forgive even our enemy, not torture and slaughter him, which is no more than a worldly, pre-Christian, anti-Christian, response to a perceived menace, harmful as he may be. Christianity is to offer something better to the world, rather than simply continue to conform to its ways.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Yes, I’m aware of Exsurge Domine. And it-the point in question-simply never became Catholic doctrine, which is the reason you won’t find it as a teaching in any Catholic catechism. For a believer to agree with the sentiment of his times, where execution by burning at the stake was a common enough practice, is one thing, albeit still an unfortunate one. For a believer to consider it proper behavior today would make us no better than ISIS. We’re to love and forgive even our enemy, not torture and slaughter him, which is no more than a worldly, pre-Christian, anti-Christian, response to a perceived menace, harmful as he may be. Christianity is to offer something better to the world, rather than simply continue to conform to its ways.

ISIS cannot be equated with the burning of heretics by the Catholic Church. ISIS kills all people that do not convert to Mohammedanism while the Church only executed arch-heretics, it never supported the execution of non-Catholics nor those who refused to convert to the Catholic Faith (except, perhaps, some bad clerics that acted against the Church).

Once Christianity dominated with Catholics as government officials, the burning of heretics was done. The Middle Ages, when the Catholic Church was quite strong in a very Christian world, had the burning of heretics. A heretic is not a perceived menace if he is rotting the Church from within. If it wasn’t a sin to execute heretics back then, it wouldn’t be a sin today. It may not be in the Catechism, but Popes & councils have certainly shown that it was not sinful nor an anti-Christian practice.

 

[fhansen]

ISIS cannot be equated with the burning of heretics by the Catholic Church. ISIS kills all people that do not convert to Mohammedanism while the Church only executed arch-heretics, it never supported the execution of non-Catholics nor those who refused to convert to the Catholic Faith (except, perhaps, some bad clerics that acted against the Church).

Once Christianity dominated with Catholics as government officials, the burning of heretics was done. The Middle Ages, when the Catholic Church was quite strong in a very Christian world, had the burning of heretics. A heretic is not a perceived menace if he is rotting the Church from within. If it wasn’t a sin to execute heretics back then, it wouldn’t be a sin today. It may not be in the Catechism, but Popes & councils have certainly shown that it was not sinful nor an anti-Christian practice.

Maybe you could find a way to pose the question to Pope Francis or Benedict. Would they-do they-support the burning of heretics?

 

[Porknpie]

I wouldn’t call it Catholics disciplining it’s own members, but rather those who separate from it.

Separated? What then was the name of their new Church?

St. Aquinas is addressing wayward fallible Catholics at the time, who out of pride, believed that they knew better than the Church (the pillar and bulwark of Truth)

 

[Porknpie]

And yes, Catholics can be pretty divided on this topic which is what makes it so interesting.

Yes, and you are fueling and enjoying the division, rather than examining the theological causes behind St. Aquinas’ words. Understanding the latter is a means of unifying what divides us.

 

[Tomdstone]

ISIS cannot be equated with the burning of heretics by the Catholic Church. ISIS kills all people that do not convert to Mohammedanism while the Church only executed arch-heretics, it never supported the execution of non-Catholics nor those who refused to convert to the Catholic Faith (except, perhaps, some bad clerics that acted against the Church).

Once Christianity dominated with Catholics as government officials, the burning of heretics was done. The Middle Ages, when the Catholic Church was quite strong in a very Christian world, had the burning of heretics. A heretic is not a perceived menace if he is rotting the Church from within. If it wasn’t a sin to execute heretics back then, it wouldn’t be a sin today. It may not be in the Catechism, but Popes & councils have certainly shown that it was not sinful nor an anti-Christian practice.

What you say is false. It is not true that: " ISIS kills all people that do not convert to Mohammedanism " A report in Roman Catholic newspapers shows that your claim is not true:
catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2014/10/03/the-iraqi-christian-who-told-isis-if-you-want-to-kill-me-for-my-faith-i-am-prepared-to-die-here-now/

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Maybe you could find a way to pose the question to Pope Francis or Benedict. Would they-do they-support the burning of heretics?

Previous Popes have already stated their position on the matter throughout history, as well as Bishops and a saint. If the current Pope opposes it, that doesn’t mean it is suddenly wrong.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

What you say is false. It is not true that: " ISIS kills all people that do not convert to Mohammedanism " A report in Roman Catholic newspapers shows that your claim is not true:
catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2014/10/03/the-iraqi-christian-who-told-isis-if-you-want-to-kill-me-for-my-faith-i-am-prepared-to-die-here-now/

Thank you for the correction. I should have said that ISIS almost always kills people that don’t convert to Mohammedanism.

 

[fhansen]

Previous Popes have already stated their position on the matter throughout history, as well as Bishops and a saint. If the current Pope opposes it, that doesn’t mean it is suddenly wrong.

And by the same token, if previous pope’s supported it, that doesn’t make it right. And certainly the Church doesn’t accept everything that even Augustine and Aquinas said as 100% inerrant or necessarily consistent with the gospel in every case.

 

[dmar198]

Previous Popes have already stated their position on the matter throughout history

I’m very interested to find examples. Do you have any?

To be clear, I didn’t know that any popes had stated their position on burning heretics, except perhaps a few who opposed it in some individual cases. Assuming that you are not talking about the death penalty in general, but the death penalty for heresy, and perhaps by the specific means of burning, you seem to be saying that popes “throughout history” have stated their position on it. Am I understanding you correctly? If so, can you give me names? Maybe even citations? Thanks!

 

[fhansen]

I’m very interested to find examples. Do you have any?

To be clear, I didn’t know that any popes had stated their position on burning heretics, except perhaps a few who opposed it in some individual cases. Assuming that you are not talking about the death penalty in general, but the death penalty for heresy, and perhaps by the specific means of burning, you seem to be saying that popes “throughout history” have stated their position on it. Am I understanding you correctly? If so, can you give me names? Maybe even citations? Thanks!

The Papal bull, Exsurge Domine, is the most widely referenced. In it Pope Leo X rejects the belief that burning heretics is against the wishes of the Holy Spirit. It’s all about what some people will do for love. Jesus died for it, while the rest of us often apparently seem to think it’s ok to kill for it. Because love is the heart of Christianity-it’s the gift God gives to us and the singular treasure that’s worth protecting and offering to the world by us, by the Church.

 

[dmar198]

The Papal bull, Exsurge Domine, is the most widely referenced. In it Pope Leo X rejects the belief that burning heretics is against the wishes of the Holy Spirit.

Thanks for that, I imagine that Confiteor has other examples. I like Exsurge Domine, including the part you mentioned, and I think it can be defended from the charge that it approves the burning of heretics. Confiteor does his homework in other threads, and I don’t think he would use Exsurge Domine as an example of a pope “stating his position” on burning heretics unless it was one in a list of several others. (For one thing, rejecting a thesis is not the same as affirming the contrary. Rejecting a thesis doesn’t affirm anything except that something is wrong with the thesis, and one can affirm that there is something wrong with Luther’s thesis without implying that burning heretics is ordinarily okay.) I expect Confiteor will have more info and good, helpful info from history, which he so often does.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

I’m very interested to find examples. Do you have any?

To be clear, I didn’t know that any popes had stated their position on burning heretics, except perhaps a few who opposed it in some individual cases. Assuming that you are not talking about the death penalty in general, but the death penalty for heresy, and perhaps by the specific means of burning, you seem to be saying that popes “throughout history” have stated their position on it. Am I understanding you correctly? If so, can you give me names? Maybe even citations? Thanks!

I was referring to the quote that I gave from the Catholic Encyclopedia in which Popes ordered heretics to be handed over to the secular authorities to be burned, not something they would do if they were against it.

Pope Sixtus IV authorized the Spanish Inquisition. Pope Nicholas IV authorized an inquisition in Bosnia, and Pope St. Pius V served in the inquisitions and was named the inquisitor general for all of Christendom by Pope Paul II. As we know, the inquisitions handed over heretics to the government to be executed.

This legislation [laws against heretics by secular governments] remained in force and with even greater severity in the kingdom formed by the victorious barbarian invaders on the ruins of the Roman Empire in the West. The burning of heretics was first decreed in the eleventh century. The Synod of Verona (1184) imposed on bishops the duty to search out the heretics in their dioceses and to hand them over to the secular power. Other synods, and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) under Pope Innocent III, repeated and enforced this decree, especially the Synod of Toulouse (1229), which established inquisitors in every parish (one priest and two laymen). Everyone was bound to denounce heretics, the names of the witnesses were kept secret; after 1243, when Innocent IV sanctioned the laws of Emperor Frederick II and of Louis IX against heretics, torture was applied in trials; the guilty persons were delivered up to the civil authorities and actually burnt at the stake. Paul III (1542) established, and Sixtus V organized, the Roman Congregation of the Inquisition, or Holy Office, a regular court of justice for dealing with heresy and heretics. Catholic Encyclopedia

Also

Officially it was not the Church that sentenced unrepenting heretics to death, more particularly to the stake. As legate of the Roman Church even Gregory IV never went further than the penal ordinances of Innocent III required, nor ever inflicted a punishment more severe than excommunication. Not until four years after the commencement of his pontificate did he admit the opinion, then prevalent among legists, that heresy should be punished with death, seeing that it was confessedly no less serious an offence than high treason. Nevertheless he continued to insist on the exclusive right of the Church to decide in authentic manner in matters of heresy; at the same time it was not her office to pronounce sentence of death. The Church, thenceforth, expelled from her bosom the impenitent heretic, whereupon the state took over the duty of his temporal punishment.
Frederick II was of the same opinion; in his Constitution of 1224 he says that heretics convicted by an ecclesiastical court shall, on imperial authority, suffer death by fire (auctoritate nostra ignis iudicio concremandos), and similarly in 1233 “praesentis nostrae legis edicto damnatos mortem pati decernimus.” In this way Gregory IX may be regarded as having had no share either directly or indirectly in the death of condemned heretics. Not so the succeeding popes. In the Bull “Ad exstirpanda” (1252) Innocent IV says:

‘When those adjudged guilty of heresy have been given up to the civil power by the bishop or his representative, or the Inquisition, the podestà or chief magistrate of the city shall take them at once, and shall, within five days at the most, execute the laws made against them.’

Moreover, he directs that this Bull and the corresponding regulations of Frederick II be entered in every city among the municipal statutes under pain of excommunication, which was also visited on those who failed to execute both the papal and the imperial decrees. Nor could any doubt remain as to what civil regulations were meant, for the passages which ordered the burning of impenitent heretics were inserted in the papal decretals from the imperial constitutions “Commissis nobis” and “Inconsutibilem tunicam”. The aforesaid Bull “Ad exstirpanda” remained thenceforth a fundamental document of the Inquisition, renewed or reinforced by several popes, Alexander IV (1254-61), Clement IV (1265-68), Nicholas IV (1288-02), Boniface VIII (1294-1303), and others. The civil authorities, therefore, were enjoined by the popes, under pain of excommunication to execute the legal sentences that condemned impenitent heretics to the stake.
Catholic Encyclopedia

From the article it is seen that Pope Gregory IV stated that he supports the execution of heretics, and Pope Innocent IV supported Frederick II’s burning of heretics in his bull which was then supported by the listed Popes. --My apologies for the long quote; Catholic Encyclopedia can be quite wordy at times.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Thanks for that, I imagine that Confiteor has other examples. I like Exsurge Domine, including the part you mentioned, and I think it can be defended from the charge that it approves the burning of heretics. Confiteor does his homework in other threads, and I don’t think he would use Exsurge Domine as an example of a pope “stating his position” on burning heretics unless it was one in a list of several others. (For one thing, rejecting a thesis is not the same as affirming the contrary. Rejecting a thesis doesn’t affirm anything except that something is wrong with the thesis, and one can affirm that there is something wrong with Luther’s thesis without implying that burning heretics is ordinarily okay.) I expect Confiteor will have more info and good, helpful info from history, which he so often does.

Thank you for the kind compliment. I am not sure if I can live up to it in this matter since I am not so strong in Church history and occasionally misspeak.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

ISIS cannot be equated with the burning of heretics by the Catholic Church. ISIS kills all people that do not convert to Mohammedanism while the Church only executed arch-heretics, it never supported the execution of non-Catholics nor those who refused to convert to the Catholic Faith (except, perhaps, some bad clerics that acted against the Church).

Once Christianity dominated with Catholics as government officials, the burning of heretics was done. The Middle Ages, when the Catholic Church was quite strong in a very Christian world, had the burning of heretics. A heretic is not a perceived menace if he is rotting the Church from within. If it wasn’t a sin to execute heretics back then, it wouldn’t be a sin today. It may not be in the Catechism, but Popes & councils have certainly shown that it was not sinful nor an anti-Christian practice.

The Roman Catholic Church killed thousands of non Catholics who were not arch heretics .

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

The Roman Catholic Church killed thousands of non Catholics who were not arch heretics .

As far as I know, this is not condoned by St. Thomas Aquinas nor the Church and is a sin. As I said, it is possible that this was simply the misdeed of bad clergy. Is there a specific inquisition that you are referring to?