How could Luther state that God denies the burning of heretics when hell is the eternal fire and Purgatory is the temporal fire?

[coachkfan1]

I take issue with the idea that all heretics are deliberately so. Surely the vast majority are misguided but not deliberately corrupting the faith?

All heretics who persist in heresy after being reprimanded by the Church ARE deliberately disobedient.

 

[Peter_J]

I just found this thread tonight, but I already have to say “Sigh, not this again.”

 

[Peter_J]

Here was my question, how could he state that God denys the burning of heretics when hell is the eternal fires.

Perhaps you should take this up with the current pope and the bishops, since they support a not-burning-heretics policy. (Does that mean they don’t believe in hell? )

 

[coachkfan1]

I still fail to see the difference between this ideology and what exists in Middle Eastern Islamic countries today.

The difference is the radical Islam makes everyone who is not Muslim an enemy worthy of death. This is regarding those who call themselves Christian but persist in teaching false doctrine.

 

[dronald]

The difference is the radical Islam makes everyone who is not Muslim an enemy worthy of death. This is regarding those who call themselves Christian but persist in teaching false doctrine.

Not true at all, rather all non-Muslims must take a lower standard but all apostates must be killed. Heretics are to die, just like in Catholicism. (according to this thread)

 

[M1Garand]

I still fail to see the difference between this ideology and what exists in Middle Eastern Islamic countries today.

There is a huge difference, despite what protestant propaganda trash written in the past and by some today has to say. The history is well recorded. We know from documents released by the Vatican in the 1990s that the ecclesiastical courts were extremely lenient. An accused was afforded due process that was in many cases far fairer and less biased than the secular courts. It was not uncommon for accused criminals to ask to be tried in the ecclesiastical courts because they knew that they were more lenient. The true history is that a death sentence was rarely handed down. Few people were actually executed and death was not the only sentence. The numbers are inexact but the new revised estimates are that 1.9% of all cases resulted in a burning at the stake and remember that the real charge was one of treason against the crown. This pales in comparison to the senseless brutality of Henry the VIII who is purported to have executed 72,000 of his people–he was a genocidal dictator.

An accused in the ecclesiastical court was defended and the court was governed by the rules of evidence that were the model for the rules that are used in modern trials in the US today. In contrast the secular courts were far more brutal. The accused was often denied counsel and had to bear witness against himself. Torture was routinely used in the Protestant courts of England to elicit confessions. It was rarely used in ecclesiastical courts.

Here is a good resource and one of many:
catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0075.html

We know that in the modern era by contrast there is no due process for those who break Islamic law. A single person pronounces a violation of Islamic law and the person is in many instances summarily executed which is even broadcast on youtube for those who deny this. Women, children, men every one is subject to being hung, stoned or beheaded by the Islamic fanatics. Some countries pretend to use some type of due process but it is far from fair or just.

I have decided that most people today are to programed by propaganda to know the truth of the Church but I propose this for the tiny minority that can think for themselves.

 

[dronald]

There is a huge difference, despite what protestant propaganda trash written in the past and by some today has to say. The history is well recorded. We know from documents released by the Vatican in the 1990s that the ecclesiastical courts were extremely lenient. An accused was afforded due process that was in many cases far fairer and less biased than the secular courts. It was not uncommon for accused criminals to ask to be tried in the ecclesiastical courts because they knew that they were more lenient. The true history is that a death sentence was rarely handed down. Few people were actually executed and death was not the only sentence. The numbers are inexact but the new revised estimates are that 1.9% of all cases resulted in a burning at the stake and remember that the real charge was one of treason against the crown. This pales in comparison to the senseless brutality of Henry the VIII who is purported to have executed 72,000 of his people–he was a genocidal dictator.

An accused in the ecclesiastical court was defended and the court was governed by the rules of evidence that were the model for the rules that are used in modern trials in the US today. In contrast the secular courts were far more brutal. The accused was often denied counsel and had to bear witness against himself. Torture was routinely used in the Protestant courts of England to elicit confessions. It was rarely used in ecclesiastical courts.

Here is a good resource and one of many:
catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0075.html

We know that in the modern era by contrast there is no due process for those who break Islamic law. A single person pronounces a violation of Islamic law and the person is in many instances summarily executed which is even broadcast on youtube for those who deny this. Women, children, men every one is subject to being hung, stoned or beheaded by the Islamic fanatics. Some countries pretend to use some type of due process but it is far from fair or just.

I have decided that most people today are to programed by propaganda to know the truth of the Church but I propose this for the tiny minority that can think for themselves.

I actually agree with you that Catholicism wasn’t all that bad for the time and place. I’m simply arguing against those who find any justification for burning alive heretics and claiming that such is not against the will of God.

Historically I agree that Catholics could be far more lenient than Islamic countries today, but I still must counter the thought process that “They’re guiding people away from our truth in our Religion so of course we can kill them.” This is unbiblical and can’t be justified and I feel Muslims have the same ideology today. (in certain countries)

Catholics must then resort to the OT to try and justify their actions but that doesn’t quite cut it. Jesus and the Apostles never condoned killing those who reject Him, in fact Jesus rebuked His disciples when they considered it. With this in mind, how did it somehow become the will of the Spirit that heretics could be burned 1000+ years later?

There simply is no justification and trying to justify it makes us sound like those in the backwards countries today that kill apostates.

 

[GKC]

There is a huge difference, despite what protestant propaganda trash written in the past and by some today has to say. The history is well recorded. We know from documents released by the Vatican in the 1990s that the ecclesiastical courts were extremely lenient. An accused was afforded due process that was in many cases far fairer and less biased than the secular courts. It was not uncommon for accused criminals to ask to be tried in the ecclesiastical courts because they knew that they were more lenient. The true history is that a death sentence was rarely handed down. Few people were actually executed and death was not the only sentence. The numbers are inexact but the new revised estimates are that 1.9% of all cases resulted in a burning at the stake and remember that the real charge was one of treason against the crown. This pales in comparison to the senseless brutality of Henry the VIII who is purported to have executed 72,000 of his people–he was a genocidal dictator.

An accused in the ecclesiastical court was defended and the court was governed by the rules of evidence that were the model for the rules that are used in modern trials in the US today. In contrast the secular courts were far more brutal. The accused was often denied counsel and had to bear witness against himself. Torture was routinely used in the Protestant courts of England to elicit confessions. It was rarely used in ecclesiastical courts.

Here is a good resource and one of many:
catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0075.html

We know that in the modern era by contrast there is no due process for those who break Islamic law. A single person pronounces a violation of Islamic law and the person is in many instances summarily executed which is even broadcast on youtube for those who deny this. Women, children, men every one is subject to being hung, stoned or beheaded by the Islamic fanatics. Some countries pretend to use some type of due process but it is far from fair or just.

I have decided that most people today are to programed by propaganda to know the truth of the Church but I propose this for the tiny minority that can think for themselves.

I propose, at a minimum, the books I proposed to rinnie, above. And, for detail Netanyahu’s ORIGINS OF THE SPANISH INQUISITION IN 15th CENTURY SPAIN. It’s thick as two bricks, but worth the time.

Tell about Henry’s execution of 72,000 of his subjects. Hank is a long time hobby of mine. And that figure sounds a lot like what is known (since Juderias invented the name) as the Black Legend, with respect to deaths associated with the Inquisitions.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I just found this thread tonight, but I already have to say “Sigh, not this again.”

And the subject is not even one I am particularly interested in.

GKC

 

[M1Garand]

I actually agree with you that Catholicism wasn’t all that bad for the time and place. I’m simply arguing against those who find any justification for burning alive heretics and claiming that such is not against the will of God.

Historically I agree that Catholics could be far more lenient than Islamic countries today, but I still must counter the thought process that “They’re guiding people away from our truth in our Religion so of course we can kill them.” This is unbiblical and can’t be justified and I feel Muslims have the same ideology today. (in certain countries)

Catholics must then resort to the OT to try and justify their actions but that doesn’t quite cut it. Jesus and the Apostles never condoned killing those who reject Him, in fact Jesus rebuked His disciples when they considered it. With this in mind, how did it somehow become the will of the Spirit that heretics could be burned 1000+ years later?

There simply is no justification and trying to justify it makes us sound like those in the backwards countries today that kill apostates.

I agree with you that there is no modern justification for it. I think that in a historical context you are looking at it in the wrong way. Consider this, treason in the US military still carries a death sentence. How is treason against a secular order any different than treason against a religious one that is also intertwined with the state? The state in the modern mind has supplanted religion but when, as in Spain, the Church is actually a branch of government and a check on the power of the monarchy, can rampant hearsay that subverts the order and perhaps foments an uprising be tolerated? If you view the historical context of the hearsay, minus the “enlightened modernist” mindset and egotism of the 20th and 21st century observer, it can be justified.

 

[dronald]

I agree with you that there is no modern justification for it. I think that in a historical context you are looking at it in the wrong way. Consider this, treason in the US military still carries a death sentence. How is treason against a secular order any different than treason against a religious one that is also intertwined with the state? The state in the modern mind has supplanted religion but when, as in Spain, the Church is actually a branch of government and a check on the power of the monarchy, can rampant hearsay that subverts the order and perhaps foments an uprising be tolerated? If you view the historical context of the hearsay, minus the “enlightened modernist” mindset and egotism of the 20th and 21st century observer, it can be justified.

I’m glad that we have common ground that such cannot be justified today as some of the Catholics here have given me the perception that it can be because “Pulling anyone away from the one true Faith is so terrible.” I agree that pulling one away from the truth is an awful sin and I do recognize that humans have been punished for less by God, but I don’t believe God has ever sanctioned the murder of heretics since Christ has come to this Earth. So I’m glad we agree here, even though some do not.

And I disagree with your second part as Christians were always called to take a lower position and pray for those who cannot find their way. At no point should we assume that because God gave us a political position above all that we can somehow equate people who disagree with our Religion as people committing treason. We were never meant to have so much power that we could say, “Burning heretics is not against the will of the Spirit” as I don’t believe the Apostles and especially Jesus would call for the burning of heretics.

Do I believe that a traitor against my country could be tried and killed as a man who committed treason? Perhaps from a political perspective, but when a Pope makes it a Religious issue and says that it’s not against God’s will that heretics be burned we then have an issue.

 

[M1Garand]

I’m glad that we have common ground that such cannot be justified today as some of the Catholics here have given me the perception that it can be because “Pulling anyone away from the one true Faith is so terrible.” I agree that pulling one away from the truth is an awful sin and I do recognize that humans have been punished for less by God, but I don’t believe God has ever sanctioned the murder of heretics since Christ has come to this Earth. So I’m glad we agree here, even though some do not.

And I disagree with your second part as Christians were always called to take a lower position and pray for those who cannot find their way. At no point should we assume that because God gave us a political position above all that we can somehow equate people who disagree with our Religion as people committing treason. We were never meant to have so much power that we could say, “Burning heretics is not against the will of the Spirit” as I don’t believe the Apostles and especially Jesus would call for the burning of heretics.

Do I believe that a traitor against my country could be tried and killed as a man who committed treason? Perhaps from a political perspective, but when a Pope makes it a Religious issue and says that it’s not against God’s will that heretics be burned we then have an issue.

On the second part you missed my point. I was trying to draw an analogy between treason against a secular state and treason against a state that is also intertwined with a religion. It is simply an attempt to get you to see the historic logic behind it and to show you it is not that inconceivable and has a parallel to modern law. I was not trying to justify it on a theological basis.

 

[dronald]

On the second part you missed my point. I was trying to draw an analogy between treason against a secular state and treason against a state that is also intertwined with a religion. It is simply an attempt to get you to see the historic logic behind it and to show you it is not that inconceivable and has a parallel to modern law. I was not trying to justify it on a theological basis.

Sure. And if he said, “Burning heretics is okay.” then I wouldn’t have such an issue, but instead he brought in the will of the Spirit. By bringing in the Spirit he brought in the will of God, claiming that burning heretics is okay with Him.

Politically, sure. Often people ask me if war is justified and normally I’ll say it is in certain circumstances, but a perfect Christian people with a perfect Christian Faith will always turn the other cheek and pray for their oppressors. Such should have been practiced even when the Catholic Church ruled the political world. They should have never brought God into it and claimed that He wills others to be burned.

 

[coachkfan1]

Abortion? Gay marraige? Female clergy? Liberation theology? All of these find their roots in heresy. To the evangelical who bemoans the sad state of affairs in the world today I say root out heresy, by whatever means, and your world would not be struggling with the problems that Fox News and others have found a future in prospering in.

Let me give an analogy. The United States would not be the great nation it is had the Union not won the Civil War. The Union probably would not have won the war without Sherman’s March to the Sea which involved a “scorched earth” policy. Sometimes the greater good requires harsh measures.

 

[pocohombre]

Who was it that said the ends justify the means ? Was it the Jesuits, not sure. Slippery slope.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

but when a Pope makes it a Religious issue and says that it’s not against God’s will that heretics be burned we then have an issue.

The issue is of a person claiming to know and understand the will of the Spirit of God outside His Church.*1 Corinthians 2:*11 For what person knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
Romans 11:34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?”
You are interpreting the censorship of person’s claim to speak for the will of the Spirit as if it means the opposite of the statement made in the claim of the will.

If I say: “It is the will of the Spirit that no murderer be put to death by lethal injection.”

And I get admonished for speaking authoritatively in regards to the will of the Spirit - Does it mean that my admonisher is promoting death by lethal injection? No, because the issue is not death by lethal injection. The issue is placing myself in a position to represent the will of the Spirit. That I know, understand and represent the will of the Spirit, on my own and outside the Church.

Burning heretics is not a dogma of the Catholic Church.

Here’s an article on Capital Punishment from EWTN.An excerpt from above:

The Church’s teaching has not changed, nor has the Pope said that it has. The Catechism and the Pope state that the state has the right to exact the death penalty. Nations have the right to just war and individuals have the right to self-defense. Does that means that any and all uses of force to defend oneself against a criminal, or a criminal nation, are justified? No, and most people understand that.

Here is what the USCCB say about The Church’s Anti-Death Penalty Position.And excerpt from above:

No matter how heinous the crime, if society can protect itself without ending a human life, it should do so.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

While the Old Testament includes some passages about taking the life of one who kills, the Old Testament and the teaching of Christ in the New Testament call us to protect life, practice mercy, and reject vengeance.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church #2267:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Who was it that said the ends justify the means ? Was it the Jesuits, not sure. Slippery slope.

Machiavelli (Died on 21 June 1527).

Jesuit Order was founded on August 15, 1534.

 

[batman1973]

On my last thread which was derailed over and over by a teaching of Luther that was corrected by the RCC.

The question was # 33 in his diet of worms.

1. The burning of heretics go against the will of the Spirit.

The Church has been condemned for correcting him on this, and as the truth always comes out, the Church was correct and Luther changed his mind.

Okay Pope Leo X condemned Luther for saying burning heretics was against the will of the Spirit.

When he did this, the Church was accused of saying that they believed the burning of heretics was indeed what God wanted them to do. If he did, it would be Church dogma and practiced today.

To get to the official teaching, and then my thoughts I will start here.

The Pope said it was wrong for an ordinary human to claim to know the will of God. Luther changed his mind, and in 1531 began to advocate the death penalty. Go figure:blush:

He thought it should be a capital offense to deny the resurrection or reality of heaven and hell.

Here was my question, how could he state that God denys the burning of heretics when hell is the eternal fires.

And Purgatory are the temporal fires.

How could he accept the eternal fires of hell, but yet say it goes against the will of the spirit???

I still don’t get it.

You need a hobby. Attacking someone just because you don’t agree with with them is not a healthy thing. I play World of Warcraft. Which is were I’m headed now.

 

[rinnie]

If you do try reading the contemporary history of the Inquisitions, do include Peters/INQUISITION and Kamen/THE SPANISH INQUISITION. They may be instructive. Or they may not.

GKC

Okay, its Edward Peters and Henry Kamen correct? I will order them as soon as I am sure.

And since you are so well read can you recommend a good source on the truth of Luther also. Thanks.

 

[rinnie]

Not true at all, rather all non-Muslims must take a lower standard but all apostates must be killed. Heretics are to die, just like in Catholicism. (according to this thread)

Who here ever said that heretics should die. That is surely not the teaching of the RCC. The Church is here to bring the sheep back into the fold not kill them.

What the question truly was is can anyone judge another and read their hearts?

The whole thing got started when the Church was accused of agreeing with the burning of heretics because they disagreed with the thesis of Luther.

I explained why the Church corrected Luther saying he had no way of reading the mind of Christ one way or another. This in no way said that the Church agreed with what Roman Law was at that time.

Can you provide a source here that says heretics should die?