D
dronald
Guest
I’m sorry; was it me you intended to quote? Because we were discussing murdering heretics and how it relates to Peter and Ananais. What’s your point? Or are you making a new one?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
D
dronald
Guest
I’m sorry my friend but I don’t speak Latin. Although Contarini did a great job showing Aquinas and the persecution during his time; as well as interpretations of these councils and certain papal bulls.This is a translation I suspect slightly weighted. Image obtained? The Catholic Church is the Dalek civilization.
Can you supply the original text?
D
Darryl_B
Guest
Okay then. Different direction. You can tell quite plainly from the surrounding text that the issue is Islamic invasion and defense of Catholic countries.I’m sorry my friend but I don’t speak Latin. Although Contarini did a great job showing Aquinas and the persecution during his time; as well as interpretations of these councils and certain papal bulls.
Your issue really comes down to the question of self defense. It is not martyrdom for the Kingdom of God’s sake that we are talking here. It is self defense against an extreme aggressor intend on exterminating infidels (including women and children).
So a question. Supposing you are at Church on Sunday and a group of ten men burst in with guns blazing and take out the back three rows. It is easy to sit back and expect others to solve complex situations, but ultimately you want some form of third party authority to intervene probably with violent means and certain amounts of death.
It is great to sit back and preach the hippy Jesus until the biker gang shows up (sorry obscure historical reference) but in the days of the Lateran Council the authority just happened to be the Catholic Church and it made a very difficult decision, we were not there, and it is very easy to sit back and condemn and at the same time reap the benefits.
I don’t however believe that to be good judgment.
D
Darryl_B
Guest
Ananais and Sapphira was an act of self-defense.You might have an argument if Peter took out a sword and stabbed them both in the stomach; but their lives were God’s taking. An example would be Jesus’s rebuke when Peter cut off a mans ear.
D
dronald
Guest
The canon speaks of Priests, laymen, and basically heresies. Nothing of Islam.Okay then. Different direction. You can tell quite plainly from the surrounding text that the issue is Islamic invasion and defense of Catholic countries.
Your issue really comes down to the question of self defense. It is not martyrdom for the Kingdom of God’s sake that we are talking here. It is self defense against an extreme aggressor intend on exterminating infidels (including women and children).
So a question. Supposing you are at Church on Sunday and a group of ten men burst in with guns blazing and take out the back three rows. It is easy to sit back and expect others to solve complex situations, but ultimately you want some form of third party authority to intervene probably with violent means and certain amounts of death.
It is great to sit back and preach the hippy Jesus until the biker gang shows up (sorry obscure historical reference) but in the days of the Lateran Council the authority just happened to be the Catholic Church and it made a very difficult decision, we were not there, and it is very easy to sit back and condemn and at the same time reap the benefits.
I don’t however believe that to be good judgment.
D
dronald
Guest
It was deceit, but whatever you call it Peter did not pull out a sword and stab them both.Ananais and Sapphira was an act of self-defense.
D
Darryl_B
Guest
Im seeing removal from office, excommunication and being handed over to the court system for priests and laymen, expulsion from the land for the invading aggressors.The canon speaks of Priests, laymen, and basically heresies. Nothing of Islam.
I cannot be so flippant with history sorry.
D
dronald
Guest
Or extermination for people preaching beliefs like mine.Im seeing removal from office, excommunication and being handed over to the court system for priests and laymen, expulsion from the land for the invading aggressors.
I cannot be so flippant with history sorry.
G
GKC
Guest
I haven’t done it line by line, but, in English, this seems the same as found at the Fordham University Medieval Sourcebook site:Okay then. Different direction. You can tell quite plainly from the surrounding text that the issue is Islamic invasion and defense of Catholic countries.
Your issue really comes down to the question of self defense. It is not martyrdom for the Kingdom of God’s sake that we are talking here. It is self defense against an extreme aggressor intend on exterminating infidels (including women and children).
So a question. Supposing you are at Church on Sunday and a group of ten men burst in with guns blazing and take out the back three rows. It is easy to sit back and expect others to solve complex situations, but ultimately you want some form of third party authority to intervene probably with violent means and certain amounts of death.
It is great to sit back and preach the hippy Jesus until the biker gang shows up (sorry obscure historical reference) but in the days of the Lateran Council the authority just happened to be the Catholic Church and it made a very difficult decision, we were not there, and it is very easy to sit back and condemn and at the same time reap the benefits.
I don’t however believe that to be good judgment.
fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp
The context, given the times, is aimed primarily at the Manichean/Cathar/Albigensian heresies, particularly during the Albigensian Crusade, and treating those secular authorities who supported them.
GKC
S
spina1953
Guest
I’m sorry but so far I know and understand the CC never abandoned what Jesus taught, however, there were those who did abuse and lived a life contrary to what Jesus taught and the CC did not teach differently. Not every person will live as Jesus taught and not every person will abide by what the CC Teaches and there will always be those inside as well as outside the CC that although having authority will not live in the way and manor that Jesus and the CC teaches.The issue I personally have with this sort of moral relativist thinking is that Jesus was born in a time that you’re describing. Except Jesus came with a new way of thinking that was abandoned for a while by the CC. I can’t imagine Jesus or the Apostles encouraging others to exterminate anyone; and yet they lived during an old time.
D
dronald
Guest
So beginning of the Canon, can you explain this:I’m sorry but so far I know and understand the CC never abandoned what Jesus taught, however, there were those who did abuse and lived a life contrary to what Jesus taught and the CC did not teach differently. Not every person will live as Jesus taught and not every person will abide by what the CC Teaches and there will always be those inside as well as outside the CC that although having authority will not live in the way and manor that Jesus and the CC teaches.
“We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that raises against the holy, **orthodox and Catholic faith **which we have above explained”
Is this a different Orthodox Catholic Church than the one now or the same one?
S
SoMissCatholic
Guest
Well, considering that in1215 beliefs like yours were still several hundred years away from being developed, I don’t think that is a fair conclusion to make. You have to remember that the men who approved these decrees had no concept of different Christian denominations. To them, to be Christian was to be Catholic. Being separated from the Church meant the eternal damnation of the soul. So to their minds, condemning a belligerent heretic who obstinately persisted in his heresy after being given multiple chances to repent was seen as the better option than allowing them to continue to spread their heresy, leading hundreds or thousands of souls to hell. To them, it was akin to God’s commandment to Joshua and Israel to exterminate completely the pagan inhabitants of the promised land in order to prevent the errors of their paganism from corrupting the Jewish faith. Was it the best way to handle it? Probably not, but what we can’t do is impose on them a 21st century world view of which they had no concept.Or extermination for people preaching beliefs like mine.
S
spina1953
Guest
According to the dictionary 1) anathematize : to pronounce an anathema against; excommunicate; anathema a ecclesiastical denunciation. curse 2) excommunicate: to eject from the communion of the Church; to expel from fellowship. So in affect every heresy, that is anything contrary to what the CC teaches that have been passed on by the Apostles that had learned it from the mouth of Jesus Himself means that it is not allowed. Also it seems to me that anyone who teaches something different than what the Church teaches having learned it and having been passed on to the Church by the Apostles can not ever be accepted And a heresy is a religious belief opposed to the orthodox doctrines of the Church.So beginning of the Canon, can you explain this:
“We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that raises against the holy, **orthodox and Catholic faith **which we have above explained”
Is this a different Orthodox Catholic Church than the one now or the same one?
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi SoMiss Catholic: I agree with your statement and it also shows that we as modern people need to remember to see it from the eyes of those at that time and not interject our own ideas as to what they thought different from what they actually thought. It is easy for us in the modern sense to see it in a way based on how we understand things but to those of that time they may have understood it very much differently The way we live in our day and age is very much different from the way they lived and viewed the world around them.Well, considering that in1215 beliefs like yours were still several hundred years away from being developed, I don’t think that is a fair conclusion to make. You have to remember that the men who approved these decrees had no concept of different Christian denominations. To them, to be Christian was to be Catholic. Being separated from the Church meant the eternal damnation of the soul. So to their minds, condemning a belligerent heretic who obstinately persisted in his heresy after being given multiple chances to repent was seen as the better option than allowing them to continue to spread their heresy, leading hundreds or thousands of souls to hell. To them, it was akin to God’s commandment to Joshua and Israel to exterminate completely the pagan inhabitants of the promised land in order to prevent the errors of their paganism from corrupting the Jewish faith. Was it the best way to handle it? Probably not, but what we can’t do is impose on them a 21st century world view of which they had no concept.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
What is wrong with anathemizing that which needs to be separated from the Church? Wasn’t God’s throwing down of Satan and the fallen angels the same act? And weren’t the Apostles effectively anathemizing the doctrines of the Judaizers?
P
Peter_J
Guest
Well said, Edwin.Originally Posted by benhur
Actually you are right that actively my position is that Protestantism is the most catholic or closer to original.
By way of illustration (not only for benhur but also for dronald and anyone else) of how we cannot map the present exactly onto the past, let me present the following argument (as an example): The East was in full communion with Rome in the first millennium; ergo, the modern day Orthodox cannot be the true church since they are not in communion with Rome. Needless to say, the Orthodox do not accept this argument (and Catholic apologists generally don’t bother making it), but it would follow immediately from trying to map the present exactly onto the past.
B
benhur
Guest
Thanks but…kindly disagree to a point. Look at the letters to the seven churches in Revelations. There is such a thing as stepping in the river twice, especially if you got out or went down the wrong tributary, and need to get back into the proper flow of things. There is such a thing as "repenting’’, getting back on track, on many issues. Things amongst us can be qualified and quantified, as is for each generation. In some ways nothing is new, and in some ways He and we don’t change thru the ages. There is continuity of some things. This can be applied to doctrine and to practice. Of course i agree to some relativity to culture and times, but certainly we can attain to the many of the absolutes of our forefathers. And let each judge for themselves as to how they stack up.I don’t think this is historically credible. You can’t step in the same river twice. Protestants who claim to have recovered original Christianity are just deluding themselves. Without going back and becoming an ancient person, you can’t recover original Christianity. It’s gone beyond recall.
Attempts to recover the more remote past by breaking with the more recent past always result in radical change, because you don’t have the context to interpret the texts you are using as your basis for the reconstruction. So you will inevitably fill in the gaps from your own culture. How else to you explain that when sixteenth-century people try to recover first-century Christianity, the result reflects the preoccupations of the sixteenth century, and when nineteenth-century people do it, it reflects their preoccupations, and so on. Ancient Christianity, as Schweitzer said (for the same excellent reasons) about the historical Jesus, is a mirror in which we see ourselves reflected.
Edwin
B
benhur
Guest
Yes, that is what I sensed also, this “relativity”. Jesus has not changed. Human nature has not changed. List our top ten doctrines and at their core they have not changed ( “apostles creed”). Relativity is nice in doing away with accountability, nice in lending to compromise. All that is needed is time and the enemy of our souls entices us in that direction, as was in the beginning, in the Garden.The issue I personally have with this sort of moral relativist thinking is that Jesus was born in a time that you’re describing. Except Jesus came with a new way of thinking that was abandoned for a while by the CC. I can’t imagine Jesus or the Apostles encouraging others to exterminate anyone; and yet they lived during an old time.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Yes, some. I can agree with that completely.Thanks but…kindly disagree to a point. Look at the letters to the seven churches in Revelations. There is such a thing as stepping in the river twice, especially if you got out or went down the wrong tributary, and need to get back into the proper flow of things. There is such a thing as "repenting’’, getting back on track, on many issues. Things amongst us can be qualified and quantified, as is for each generation. In some ways nothing is new, and in some ways He and we don’t change thru the ages. There is continuity of some things. This can be applied to doctrine and to practice. Of course i agree to some relativity to culture and times, but certainly we can attain to the many of the absolutes of our forefathers. And let each judge for themselves as to how they stack up.
S
SoMissCatholic
Guest
I don’t have an original text, but here is another translation:This is a translation I suspect slightly weighted. Image obtained? The Catholic Church is the Dalek civilization.
Can you supply the original text?
We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and catholic faith which we have expounded above. We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under. They have different faces indeed but their tails are tied together inasmuch as they are alike in their pride. Let those condemned be handed over to the secular authorities present, or to their bailiffs, for due punishment. Clerics are first to be degraded from their orders. The goods of the condemned are to be confiscated, if they are lay persons, and if clerics they are to be applied to the churches from which they received their stipends. Those who are only found suspect of heresy are to be struck with the sword of anathema, unless they prove their innocence by an appropriate purgation, having regard to the reasons for suspicion and the character of the person. Let such persons be avoided by all until they have made adequate satisfaction. If they persist in the excommunication for a year, they are to be condemned as heretics. Let secular authorities, whatever offices they may be discharging, be advised and urged and if necessary be compelled by ecclesiastical censure, if they wish to be reputed and held to be faithful, to take publicly an oath for the defense of the faith to the effect that they will seek, in so far as they can, to expel from the lands subject to their jurisdiction all heretics designated by the church in good faith. Thus whenever anyone is promoted to spiritual or temporal authority, he shall be obliged to confirm this article with an oath. If however a temporal lord, required and instructed by the church, neglects to cleanse his territory of this heretical filth, he shall be bound with the bond of excommunication by the metropolitan and other bishops of the province. If he refuses to give satisfaction within a year, this shall be reported to the supreme pontiff so that he may then declare his vassals absolved from their fealty to him and make the land available for occupation by Catholics so that these may, after they have expelled the heretics, possess it unopposed and preserve it in the purity of the faith – saving the right of the suzerain provided that he makes no difficulty in the matter and puts no impediment in the way. The same law is to be observed no less as regards those who do not have a suzerain.
Catholics who take the cross and gird themselves up for the expulsion of heretics shall enjoy the same indulgence, and be strengthened by the same holy privilege, as is granted to those who go to the aid of the holy Land. Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend or support heretics. We strictly ordain that if any such person, after he has been designated as excommunicated, refuses to render satisfaction within a year, then by the law itself he shall be branded as infamous and not be admitted to public offices or councils or to elect others to the same or to give testimony. He shall be intestable, that is he shall not have the freedom to make a will nor shall succeed to an inheritance. Moreover nobody shall be compelled to answer to him on any business whatever, but he may be compelled to answer to them. If he is a judge sentences pronounced by him shall have no force and cases may not be brought before him; if an advocate, he may not be allowed to defend anyone; if a notary, documents drawn up by him shall be worthless and condemned along with their condemned author; and in similar matters we order the same to be observed. If however he is a cleric, let him be deposed from every office and benefice, so that the greater the fault the greater be the punishment. If any refuse to avoid such persons after they have been pointed out by the church, let them be punished with the sentence of excommunication until they make suitable satisfaction. Clerics should not, of course, give the sacraments of the church to such pestilent people nor give them a Christian burial nor accept alms or offerings from them; if they do, let them be deprived of their office and not restored to it without a special indulgence of the apostolic see. Similarly with regulars, let them be punished with losing their privileges in the diocese in which they presume to commit such excesses.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.