Historical Questions about the Catholic Church

[Catherine_W]

I have some historical questions:

1. After the protestant reformation was the killing of heretics seen as ok or supported by the Catholic Church?
2. What exactly is the Divine right of kings, and did the Catholic Church ever grant this right to kings?
3. Were popes aware of their infallibility from the beginning?
4. Is there historical proof of the early Christian beliefs about papal infallibility and Marian doctrine?

(My fiancée graduate with a Bachelors degree in history, so I feel very unqualified to answer his historical questions concerning the Catholic Church, so any help would be greatly appreciated! My fiancée is an Anglican but he is learning about Catholicism and attending RCIA, but being a history major and also being told his entire life about the great necessity of the Reformation to correct the abuses in the Catholic Church, I think it is very difficult for him to be open to the Catholic Church.)

also any good book recommendations concerning historical issues concerning the Catholic Church would be great

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Hello Catherine

Most of your questions come down to what the Early Church Fathers taught and believed. To find the answers of these question (and also to extend your knowledge of their writtings in general) I recommend *The Faith of the Early Fathers *by Jurgens. It is a 3 volume set will answer these and anyother questions you have about what the early church taught.

Some other great books that I recommend:

*Catholicism and Fundamentalism *by Karl Keating is a must. Mostly apologetic, there is some history that he throws in there to refute various challenges against the Church.

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott is great in that it outlines the doctrines of the Catholic Church, offering Scripture and Tradition for their development.

and for a general overview of Catholic Church History I really liked Triumph by H.W. Crocker

being a history major and also being told his entire life about the great necessity of the Reformation to correct the abuses in the Catholic Church, I think it is very difficult for him to be open to the Catholic Church

I am also a History major and can relate to what your fiance is saying. For me however it was the rich history of the Catholic Church that drew me in. I caught the “bug” and once I started researching the Catholic Church I couldnt help but be pulled in. Before I even knew it, I was already Catholic. Also you may want to tell him that, while there was indeed abuses in the Catholic Church during the reformation, the mere abuse of something does not negate its importance or legitimacy. It was in the abuses of things such as indulgences that there was a need for a reformation.

God Bless and welcome to the forum!

 

[1ke]

1. After the protestant reformation was the killing of heretics seen as ok or supported by the Catholic Church?

The execution of heretics has never been a church policy or practice. Civil law in many countries included heresy under capital offenses, mainly because doctrinal heretics were also in many cases undermining the political authority and stability of regions and also in many cases they advocated violent overthrow of the government.

1. What exactly is the Divine right of kings, and did the Catholic Church ever grant this right to kings?

This is not a Catholic doctrine. It is a product of the Protestant Reformation.

1. Were popes aware of their infallibility from the beginning?

They were certainly aware of their authority over the entire church and their power to excommunicate (meaning the power to include or exclude, bind or loose, and to authoritatively determine doctrine and practice). This is substantiated in the extant writings of the early Church Fathers.

1. Is there historical proof of the early Christian beliefs about papal infallibility and Marian doctrine?

Yes, again the extant writings of the early Church Fathers are numerous. You can find the writings at www.newadvent.org and I also recommend the book Faith of The Fathers by Jurgens

also any good book recommendations concerning historical issues concerning the Catholic Church would be great

I highly recommend Hillaire Belloc’s excellent books on the Reformation: How the Reformation Happened and Characters of the Reformation. I also recommend his other books. And, Warren Carroll’s several volume History of Christendom is excellent. Regine Pernoud is excellent as well and I recommend her books on the middle ages and the Church.

 

[DesertAscetic]

The execution of heretics has never been a church policy or practice. Civil law in many countries included heresy under capital offenses, mainly because doctrinal heretics were also in many cases undermining the political authority and stability of regions and also in many cases they advocated violent overthrow of the government.

I tell this to people and then they say that during the Holy Roman Empire, Church and State were for all intensive purposes one and the same, and so what the State did the Church at least sanction, if not promoted. What do I say to this?

~Shaunna

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I have some historical questions:

1. After the protestant reformation was the killing of heretics seen as ok or supported by the Catholic Church?
2. What exactly is the Divine right of kings, and did the Catholic Church ever grant this right to kings?
3. Were popes aware of their infallibility from the beginning?
4. Is there historical proof of the early Christian beliefs about papal infallibility and Marian doctrine?

(My fiancée graduate with a Bachelors degree in history, so I feel very unqualified to answer his historical questions concerning the Catholic Church, so any help would be greatly appreciated! My fiancée is an Anglican but he is learning about Catholicism and attending RCIA, but being a history major and also being told his entire life about the great necessity of the Reformation to correct the abuses in the Catholic Church, I think it is very difficult for him to be open to the Catholic Church.)

also any good book recommendations concerning historical issues concerning the Catholic Church would be great

I recommend a book authored by another Anglican (who later converted to Catholicism)…

An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine
Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I have some historical questions:

1. After the protestant reformation was the killing of heretics seen as ok or supported by the Catholic Church?

There were some Churchmen who obviously supported the killing of heretics. Yet this was just as erroneous Catholic Churchmen as it was among Protestant Churchmen.

For instance, there were eight hundred executions a year during the early post-Reformation period in Protestant England (according to Sir James Stephens’ “History of English Criminal Law”).

Likewise, in Protestant countries there were many burned at the stake for witchcraft and executed for heresy. In 1553, Calvin had Michael Servetus, a fellow Protestant, arrested on charges of heresy. Calvin ordered him to be burned at the stake

A (non-Catholic) BBC study which aired in a documentary called “The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition” (June 9th, 1995), estimate 3000 to 5000 people who died during the Inquisition’s 350 year history. The BBC documenatary, stated: "Myth can only be destroyed by fact, and the fact is, that only between 3,000 to 5,000 people were killed in the 350 years of the Inquisition. During that same period 150,000 witches alone were burnt for heresy in the rest of Europe."

---

If I remember correctly, the BBC reported that they actually found secular court evidence which shows that the criminals were blaspheming on purpose so that they might be sent to the courts of the Inquisition, as they were more justly treated by them then by their secular courts.

According to non-Catholic historian Edward Peters, in his work, Inquisition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989, p. 87), states:

The Spanish Inquisition, in spite of wildly inflated estimates of the numbers of its victims, acted with considerable restraint in inflicting the death penalty, far more restraint than was demonstrated in secular tribunals elsewhere in Europe that dealt with the same kinds of offenses. The best estimate is that around 3000 death sentences were carried out in Spain by Inquisitorial verdict between 1550 and 1800, a far smaller number than that in comparable secular courts.

According to Protestant historian Raphael Holisend, Henry VIII executed 72,000 Catholics. His daughter, Elizabeth I, in very few years, also in the name of a “reformed” Christianity caused more victims than the Spanish and Roman Inquisitions together in three centuries.

As for sinfulness in the Church, it is true from these historical accounts that the Church consists of both wheat and chaff, as is described in Sacred Scripture. It was that way in the 1st century and throughout history. It is still that way now.

1. What exactly is the Divine right of kings, and did the Catholic Church ever grant this right to kings?

I’m not sure what is meant by “Divine right of kings” but if I understand this correctly, I believe it comes from Sacred Scripture. Observe…

From Romans 13:1-2 “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”

If this is what is meant by “Divine right of kings” than I’d say that the Catholic Church does indeed grant it, including St. Paul.

Furthermore, look at what St. Paul (Rom 13:3-4) affirms: “princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil… He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil”;

It seems St. Paul is explicitly describing the use of the sword for those given the **authority of the sovereign **to execute wrath against evil. In fact, he describes this as part of the sovereign’s ministry from God, doesn’t he?

1. Were popes aware of their infallibility from the beginning?

I believe this resulted from development, much like Theotokos and the Christian teachings regarding Christology authentically developed from apostolic Tradition.

John Henry Newman’s book An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine explains the authentic development of Christian doctrine very well.

 

[irishmac]

What exactly is the Divine right of kings, and did the Catholic Church ever grant this right to kings?

The Divine Right of Kings was a medieval concept that justified the actions of Henry VIII. Basically, the concept goes that a king or a monarch is Divinely consecrated by God alone, and therefore is superior to the Church. The diagram is below:

God
|
King / Ruler
|
Church
|
Man
|
Woman
|
Animals

Because the king or emperor thought that his title and position were given by God alone, the ruler would not have to follow the direction of the Church. In Henry VIII’s case, he wanted an annulment from Catherine of Aragon because she did not produce a male heir. The Pope denied the annulment. Therefore Henry VIII invoked the “Divine Right of Kings” and divorced her to wed his mistress. He also used this concept to justify the creation of the Church of England.

I don’t believe the Catholic Church ever “granted” this right to any ruler, as this right was self-assumed by a king or ruler suffering from the grandeure of power. I think the Church attempted to instruct Henry VIII pastorally. St. Thomas More attempted to gain the ear of Henry VIII, to show him the error of his ways. I think the Church did everything they could to guide Henry VIII, but the power and greed of Henry and his advisors caused Henry to remove himself from the Church. And how did this affect the Catholic Church in England? Think of all the Catholic monks and nuns who were executed and their monasteries gutted and burned to the ground. Think of all the handwritten Bibles burned. Henry VIII started his own church to justify the annulment to Catherine of Aragon.

Or, as I would also argue to the reason Henry VIII expelled the Church and began his Church of England was to retain all the Papal assets for himself in England. According to Hilaire Belloc’s How the Reformation Happened, a good portion of the gross domestic product of England were being sent to Rome. The Church owned large swathes of land. Churches were regailed in exquisite tapestries and precious metals and precious stones. Henry VIII and his lords and ministers would become tremendously wealthy by daming up that revenue stream. I would argue that the creation of the Church of England was more a money grab than a challenge of theology, much like other forums of new sprung Protestantism.

But, hey, if the water’s warm…

 

[Verita]

I tell this to people and then they say that during the Holy Roman Empire, Church and State were for all intensive purposes one and the same, and so what the State did the Church at least sanction, if not promoted. What do I say to this?

~Shaunna

Tell them that alot of Popes, Kings and Emperors from the Dark Ages through the Middle Ages would beg to differ. The Church was constantly struggling against the State. Emperors wanted to have authority over the Church while the Church insisted that in matters of faith and morals (matters that effect the soul) the Church is always supreme. They spent centuries fighting it out.

As far as the Church was concerned the role of the State was to protect and support the Church. However, most secular rulers didn’t see it that way. They wanted to run the Church and unfortunately they had armies to back them up. The Church was more often at the mercy of the State than the other way around.

I second the recommendation of any of Hilaire Belloc’s books. If your fiance is a history major he should appreciate Belloc’s brilliant way of looking at the historical process.

 

[DesertAscetic]

Tell them that alot of Popes, Kings and Emperors from the Dark Ages through the Middle Ages would beg to differ. The Church was constantly struggling against the State. Emperors wanted to have authority over the Church while the Church insisted that in matters of faith and morals (matters that effect the soul) the Church is always supreme. They spent centuries fighting it out.

As far as the Church was concerned the role of the State was to protect and support the Church. However, most secular rulers didn’t see it that way. They wanted to run the Church and unfortunately they had armies to back them up. The Church was more often at the mercy of the State than the other way around.

I second the recommendation of any of Hilaire Belloc’s books. If your fiance is a history major he should appreciate Belloc’s brilliant way of looking at the historical process.

Thank you.

It was the OP’s fiance that is a history major, but my pretty-much-fiance is a history buff as well, so “all good.” lol

 

[VociMike]

I tell this to people and then they say that during the Holy Roman Empire, Church and State were for all intensive purposes one and the same, and so what the State did the Church at least sanction, if not promoted. What do I say to this?

~Shaunna

Point out that those states constantly warred against each other. If Church and State were really one and the same this would not, could not have happened.

 

[rwoehmke]

I tell this to people and then they say that during the Holy Roman Empire, Church and State were for all intensive purposes one and the same, and so what the State did the Church at least sanction, if not promoted. What do I say to this?

~Shaunna

Anyone who would say this are ignorant of the history of the relation of secular rulers to the Popes and the Church. There was an almost constant struggle to keep secular rulers out of the business of the Church. Popes switched from ruler to ruler and country to country in attempts to gain protection and freedom to act. When one ruler and country got too uppity the Popes would look to another for help.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

1. Is there historical proof of the early Christian beliefs about papal infallibility and Marian doctrine?

For the doctrines of Mary, see here:

**Doctrines about Mary are Biblical **- View

For patristics, see here:

Assumption of Mary
Immaculate Conception of Mary
Theotokos
Perpetual Virginity
Veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Devotion to and Intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary

 

[jmcrae]

I have some historical questions:

1. After the protestant reformation was the killing of heretics seen as ok or supported by the Catholic Church?

The question of who receives the death penalty, and for what crimes they receive it, has always been a matter for the police and state. The Church gives moral guidance on this issue, but doesn’t (and has never) actually decided which crimes are Capital crimes. That’s up to the local government to decide, and it’s based on the values of the society.

In a society where it is considered a threat to the population to believe something other than Catholic Church teaching, this may be considered a death penalty offense in that country.

Catholics themselves have also received the death penalty for practicing the Catholic faith in societies that valued something else - Protestantism in England, Shintoism in Japan, Islam in Iran, and communistic Atheism in Cuba and in China.

In North America and in Europe, we value our physical lives and our money, so murder and robbery get the attention from our law makers and law enforcers - long prison sentences for murder and robbery seem just, to us - just as the death penalty for promulgating heresy seemed just in medieval society - after all, it is worse to go to Hell than it is to be murdered or robbed - and if a heretic confuses you about what we are supposed to believe, you could end up going to Hell - that’s what they believed, anyway.

 

[vladimir998]

Here is my stab, as a Church historian, at your questions:

“1. After the protestant reformation was the killing of heretics seen as ok or supported by the Catholic Church?”

At times yes. The instances were rare, but it did happen. We must remember that stealing a lady’s hankerchief was a capital crime in the seventeenth century. How much more is a man’s soul worth?

“2. What exactly is the Divine right of kings, and did the Catholic Church ever grant this right to kings?”

The Catholic Church can’t grant divine rights to anyone. Only God can grant such a right (hence the very name Divine Right). In the thirteenth century a strain of political philosophy began to develop that believed kings should have great power. Before this time, in Catholic lands, in the Middle Ages, monarchies were essentially corporate in nature. I don’t mean corporate as in business corporations. I mean that they shared a great deal of authority and power with a large cadre of nobles and even clerics (as appointed officials). Kings had little real power all on their own. They usually needed those nobles and bishops to accomplish important tasks. While the Church’s influence waned, and governmental influence increased in the Late Middle Ages divine right theorists put forward the idea that monarchs needed no one for they were granted their posts by God alone. This development coincided with the rise of Absolutist Monarchies – monarchs with total control of their states.

“3. Were popes aware of their infallibility from the beginning?”

Yes, or else they would have been much more timid in defining doctrine for the whole Church.

“4. Is there historical proof of the early Christian beliefs about papal infallibility and Marian doctrine?”

On papal infallibility, no. On Marian doctrines there is quite a bit of evidence, but it depends on which doctrine you mean.

“(My fiancée graduate with a Bachelors degree in history, so I feel very unqualified to answer his historical questions concerning the Catholic Church, so any help would be greatly appreciated! My fiancée is an Anglican but he is learning about Catholicism and attending RCIA, but being a history major and also being told his entire life about the great necessity of the Reformation to correct the abuses in the Catholic Church, I think it is very difficult for him to be open to the Catholic Church.)”

Understandable!

“*also any good book recommendations concerning historical issues concerning the Catholic Church would be great”

You MUST give your fiancee a copy of Warren Carroll’s History of Christendom series. It’s worth the money. It will blow your fiancee’s mind. Also buy him a copy of John Henry Newman’s ESSAYS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. Newman was an Anglican when he started and a Catholic when he finished. Newman was an expert historian. He once wrote something like: “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

 

[vladimir998]

Shaunna,

You wrote:

“I tell this to people and then they say that during the Holy Roman Empire, Church and State were for all intensive purposes one and the same,…”

Absolutely not. This is a common misperception about the Middle Ages. If the two were one and the same then there should have been no confrontations between the two. There were ALWAYS confrontations between the two. Also, I should point out that the old saying that the “Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor roman, nor an empire” is correct. It was a monarchial governmental system of a sort. It had nothing to do with holiness in itself. It was not roman. It was German. It was not an empire by a kingship turned into an elected imperial office. That’s right. It was an ELECTED office for hundreds of years.

If anyone ever tries the “one in the same” argument with you ask them about the Investiture Struggle. They’ll probably have never heard of it. It was a times, lasting for decades, when pope and emperor battled over who would invest bishops with the signs of office. Cleary empire and church were not one and the same or else there would have been no such disagreement. Or how about when King Philip the Fair kidnapped Boniface VIII? Does that sound like a happy union of goverment and Church?

And logically, how could government and church be one in the same when there wasn’t just one civil government? There were plenty of monarchies – all competing with one another – so how could the church be one and the same with dozens of competing governments at the same time? It’s simply impossible, literally impossible.

“… and so what the State did the Church at least sanction, if not promoted. What do I say to this?”

It is absolutely true that the Church did not oppose the state in the use of the death penalty (in the Middle Ages and early modern period) in some heresy cases. That doesn’t mean the Church did something immoral. In an age when someone could be executed for poaching the king’s deer or stealing a lady’s hankerchief, or rick-burning, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that people could be executed for destroying souls. The soul was considered precious by society in the Middle Ages – unlike today. Souls were considered precious enough that medieval man was willing to execute those who destroyed souls. We might be upset by their use of force today, but it makes sense for the time period.

 

[Mystophilus]

1. After the protestant reformation was the killing of heretics seen as ok or supported by the Catholic Church?

The Inquisitions (which did continue), the Wars of Religion, and the witch-burnings did involve the killing of people who were deemed to be heretics. These things were supported by the Catholic Church of the day, as they were, with equal vigour, by Protestants. Christians are not immune to stupidity.

1. Were popes aware of their infallibility from the beginning?

Peter certainly never made any reference to it.

The doctrine developed over time, being based upon the necessity of the early Church defending the True Teaching from the ‘death-dealing tongues’ of heretics (whence we later got the Inquisition and the witch-burnings). This became concentrated within the office of the Pope after Rome and the Eastern churches separated.

1. Is there historical proof of the early Christian beliefs about papal infallibility and Marian doctrine?

Most early Christian writers believed that the Bishop of Rome was very important. The idea that he was infallible was a later development. Had the others believed that he was infallible, there never would have been a schism between west and east!

The Marian doctrines (i.e., her Perpetual Virginity and Immaculate Conception) date from an early C2nd document called the Protoevangelium of James. Later writers made reference to the ideas, and the doctrine developed from there. In historical terms, it is pretty close to the events in question, and it does not contradict the Gospel accounts (when the Bible refers to Jesus’ “brothers”, the Greek word used is one which could be applied to a remarkably broad range of connections, including ‘people with whom you went to school’.)

You can learn a lot about the early Church by reading up on the Seven Ecumenical Councils, which determined doctrine for the united Church. They were not defined as ‘infallible’, but they represented the agreement of the Church, which meant that their decisions constituted the belief of the Church, and gave them the power to depose or anathematize (i.e., damn) those who dissented.

My fiancée is an Anglican but he is learning about Catholicism and attending RCIA, but being a history major and also being told his entire life about the great necessity of the Reformation to correct the abuses in the Catholic Church, I think it is very difficult for him to be open to the Catholic Church.

Perhaps you could suggest that he should read up on the Council of Trent, which acted to correct those abuses.

Most importantly, keep discussing these things. If you want to kill any relationship, the easiest way is to refuse to talk about something: the issue will fester until it explodes.

 

[vladimir998]

Mystophilus,

You wrote:

“The Marian doctrines (i.e., her Perpetual Virginity and Immaculate Conception) date from an early C2nd document called the Protoevangelium of James.”

I think that’s a bad way to put it. You make it sound like the doctrines come FROM the Protoevangelium. They don’t of course.

 

[Mystophilus]

“The Marian doctrines (i.e., her Perpetual Virginity and Immaculate Conception) date from an early C2nd document called the Protoevangelium of James.”

I think that’s a bad way to put it. You make it sound like the doctrines come FROM the Protoevangelium. They don’t of course.

My apologies; that is history jargon. When we say that something ‘dates from’ a period or event, we mean that that is the earliest point at which it appears in our records: we have no documents earlier than the Protoevangelium which say that Mary was immaculately conceived or that she had no other children.

From a historian’s point of view, then, that is the beginning of the belief. The Catholic view is based upon faith regarding the accuracy of the representation in that document.

 

[vladimir998]

Mystophilus,

You wrote: “My apologies; that is history jargon. When we say that something ‘dates from’ a period or event, we mean that that is the earliest point at which it appears in our records: we have no documents earlier than the Protoevangelium which say that Mary was immaculately conceived or that she had no other children.
From a historian’s point of view, then, that is the beginning of the belief. The Catholic view is based upon faith regarding the accuracy of the representation in that document.”

Um, okay…How do I put this without sounding like a prickly jerk? I understand what you’re saying, but, as someone who holds a PhD in Medieval History, I don’t know if I have ever run across someone who wrote “The Marian doctrines…date from an early C2nd document…” when he meant “The earliest textual evidence for the Marian doctrines is found in a document dating from the early C2nd called the Protoevangelium of James.”

I am familiar with “history jargon”. This isn’t it.

Look at the highlighted words in the document which you can access through the link below.

72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:wzLUA3OrHBsJ:scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html+dates+from+fourth+century&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&ie=UTF-8

Notice how the time references are written?

“These manuscripts dated from the fourth and fifth centuries and presented a text that was at least free from the accretions of a later age.”

“They are written on papyrus and date from well before the fourth century.”

The documents are placed IN A TIME. Your quote – and yes I know this is all “mountain making” on my part – places IDEAS, the Marian doctrines INTO A TIME into the document. Grammatically you are saying that the doctrines date from ONLY the second century, and only from a particular document (that happens to be an appocryphal document as well). Therein lies the danger of imprecise writing.

I apologize for making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[Mystophilus]

I don’t know if I have ever run across someone who wrote “The Marian doctrines…date from an early C2nd document…” when he meant “The earliest textual evidence for the Marian doctrines is found in a document dating from the early C2nd called the Protoevangelium of James.” …
The documents are placed IN A TIME. Your quote – and yes I know this is all “mountain making” on my part – places IDEAS, the Marian doctrines INTO A TIME into the document. Grammatically you are saying that the doctrines date from ONLY the second century, and only from a particular document (that happens to be an appocryphal document as well). Therein lies the danger of imprecise writing.
The writing is not imprecise, my friend: it means exactly what you are reading it to mean. Ideas date from times, just as texts do.

Since you are familiar with these terms, let me put it another way: the Protoevangelium of James is, in historical terms, the terminus a quo for the doctrines of the Perpetual Virginity and the Immaculate Conception of Mary, because, as is the norm for ideology, the oldest textual reference is the earliest extant evidence.

Thus, in terms of our construction of the historical record of that doctrine, it dates from that text, because we lack the evidence required to date it back any earlier.