Infallible list of infallible teachings

[PRmerger]

Nobody has provided me with an infallibly declared list of infallible RCC teachings, simply because none exists.

Correct.

That’s okay; I’ll ask the question in a different way, since it’s obvious the original question cannot be answered or is too difficult to answer. Here: One person in this thread has said that there is only one infallibly declared dogma that he knows of. Do you agree with him?

No, this poster is incorrect.

Here is a nonexhaustive list of infallible teachings:

• Papal infallibility and primacy of jurisdiction
• Priestly ordination is reserved only to men
• The illicitness of euthanasia
• The illicitness of prostitution and fornication
• The legiticmacy of the election of the supreme pontoff or of the celebration fo an ecumenical council
• The canonization of saints
• The declaration of Pope Leo XII on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations

as limned by Jimmy Akin in “How to Weigh Church Teachings”

 

[PRmerger]

Correct.

No, this poster is incorrect.

Here is a nonexhaustive list of infallible teachings:

• Papal infallibility and primacy of jurisdiction
• Priestly ordination is reserved only to men
• The illicitness of euthanasia
• The illicitness of prostitution and fornication
• The legiticmacy of the election of the supreme pontoff or of the celebration fo an ecumenical council
• The canonization of saints
• The declaration of Pope Leo XII on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations

as limned by Jimmy Akin in “How to Weigh Church Teachings”

Continued:

Dogmas:

• The articles of faith of the Creed
• Various Christological dogmas and Marian dogmas
• The doctrine of the instittution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace
• The Doctrine of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the sacrificial nature of the eucharistic celebration
• The foundation of the Church by the will of Christ
• The doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman pontiff
• The doctrine on the existence of original sin
• The doctrine on the immortality of the spiritual soul and the immediate recompense after death
• The absence of error in the inspired sacred texts
• The doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being
• Papal infallibility and primacy of juriscidction after these were made dogmas at Vatican I

-source: ibid

 

[Koineman]

OK, let’s. I’ll give you my email. I’ll make note here as to whether you agree.

I sent you a PM a little while ago. I told you in that PM to feel free to start a thread on this, and I’ll discuss it with you. I have the Catholic edition of Logos, so I can certainly do some looking. Last night, in fact, I already came across an interesting comment from Tertullian. But now that I think of it, I’ll start the thread. I’ll call it “The ECFs: SS or STC?”

Yes, SS says “tradition and the church are not infallible.” And STC says that all three organically-related are. But STC as the CC defines it is the preexisting position which those who advocate SS must address to show why one is rationally compelled to abandon it and adopt SS.

Only if STC is, in fact, the preexisting position. We’ll delve into that in our other thread.

SS–and you have yet to address this issue squarely–does not mean “The Bible is the only and sufficient rule of faith.” It means, by of the nature of reading a text, my interpretation of the Bible alone here in 2013 is the only and sufficient rule of faith.

That’s your conclusion of SS, but it’s not historically what it means.

Alright, let’s analyze 2 Tim–in context.

In 2 Tim 3:14 Paul tells Timothy to remain faithful to what he learned likely from his own mother and grandmother (1:5) and no doubt from Paul’s preaching, which earlier (2:2) he told Timothy to share orally with others who should in turn share it orally with yet others (also 1 Thess 1:8). After this in (3:15) he says “AND from infancy you have known the sacred scriptures” which could only refer to books of the OT. He follows (3:16) by telling Timothy that scripture is inspired and is suitable for teaching, etc. so that having both Paul’s teaching AND scripture (OT) he will be fully equipped (3:17). A few verses later (4:1-2) Paul charges Timothy to “proclaim the word . . . through teaching.”

But what does this show? SS does not deny the need for teachers, oral teaching in the church, etc. Also, let’s stick to what the text actually says. Paul does NOT say that it’s his teaching plus the Scriptures that are sufficient; he just says Scripture.

Even the language doesn’t necessitate a SS reading. Going camping once my mom said “Take your flash light. I what you to have everything you need”. . . be fully equiped. Does that mean all I needed was my flashlight?

No, of course not. But if your mom packed everything you needed for camping in your backpack, not just the flashlight, then you’d be fully equipped. That is the meaning in 2 Tim. 3.

 

[PRmerger]

Paul does NOT say that it’s his teaching plus the Scriptures that are sufficient; he just says Scripture.

Interesting, this.

So it appears that you are arguing too little here. Firstly, you seem to be denying the inspiration of Paul’s teachings, yes?

Is your argument really that Paul’s teachings are not inspired?

And, as the Scripture to which St. Paul was referring to was the Old Testament (as the NT had not yet been put to writ), it appears as if you are arguing for Sola Old Testament.

 

[Koineman]

Interesting, this.

So it appears that you are arguing too little here. Firstly, you seem to be denying the inspiration of Paul’s teachings, yes?

Paul was not addressing that issue in this passage, and it doesn’t seem to enter his mind at all. I’m simply trying to honor the text and not make it say something it does not. It had been said that Paul’s point in this passage was that his teachings plus Scripture were sufficient, but that is not what the text says.

And, as the Scripture to which St. Paul was referring to was the Old Testament (as the NT had not yet been put to writ), it appears as if you are arguing for Sola Old Testament.

This is an area where Catholics often get confused when discussing this text. It must be borne in mind that this passage discusses the sufficiency of Scripture, not the extent of the canon of Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

So, we can then say that the Protestants of the 16th century declared that the Bible was the only source of faith. Having rejected the Vulgate version, they returned to the original texts and immediately devoted themselves wholeheartedly to the Bible.

And, having rejected the authority of the Church, the Protestants in regard to the principles of supernatural interpretation made their own analogy of faith. When they accepted their dogmas of faith, as in their symbols of faith, they appointed themselves or their synods as the sole judges of interpretation.

Indeed yes. Things are different today, though. Protestant Reformers put to death, tortured, and imprisoned those who did not agree with their interpretations, especially Calvin. Nowadays, when they disagree, they just schlep down the street and open a new “church”.

 

[Tomster]

Indeed yes. Things are different today, though. Protestant Reformers put to death, tortured, and imprisoned those who did not agree with their interpretations, especially Calvin. Nowadays, when they disagree, they just schlep down the street and open a new “church”.

Schlep.

Succinct and to the point.

 

[guanophore]

I am not a catholic, so I am called a protestant. I live in a terrible world unsatisfied by either. I can see the failures of both institutions, and the strengths of both, but neither are perfect, neither are complete.

I see how the sola scriptura, and everyman a priest has divided the faith down many roads. Protestants lack a strong enough authority to hold the sheep together, they divide forever.

I remember the old catholic church. That much authority became a terrible, terrible, terrible thing. I tremble when I think of the things done in the name of God.

Indeed the Holy Spirit does work through non-Catholic ecclesial communities to bring people to Himself. We can embrace this work, and the fruit produced by it.

I think, at this point, it is very important to remember that the Church is a separate entity from the individuals that are grafted into her. One of the most damaging modern heresies is the redefinition of “church” from what the Apostles taught, into “the body of believers here on earth”. This corruption of the meaning of Church has encouraged us to pin the sins of evil persons attached to the Church with the Church itself, which is Holy, Immutable, and infallible. The Church, like Christ, is incarnational, in that she has a Divine nature and a human nature in one. The Church Divine cannot sin, or err, and yet, the fallible persons attached to her can (and do).

“That much authority” (what Christ gave to the Church) is not terrible at all, but when humans corrupt authority by misusing/abusing it terrible things can happen. But it is not the authority itself that is the problem, only the fallen character of man.

Where should I go? I need the catholics and I need the protestants and you need me. Each of us needs all those in Christ. I am too terrified to unite the institutions into what they were before. But I also grieve over what we as protestants have lost by not having the catholic, and what the catholic has lost by not having the protestant.

This is a struggle that many of us have had for years, or even decades. You are right that we all need one another, but it is not for us to “unite the institutions”. Jesus’ mystical body is already one, and completely united on a spiritual level. Our separeated brethren are joined into His One Body, the Church through baptism, and we are siblings in Christ. It is our duty to make every effort to remove the separations between us, and to grow in faith and love for one another. But Christ alone is the builder of the Church. He is not really interested in “uniting institutions (a human structure)” but uniting souls.

We are all meant to be together in love, not separated in bickering and superstitious rumors about each other. Let us be two institutions, but united as one in love and compassion for each other.

Catholics are not at liberty to support more than the one institution founded by Christ, but yes, we are united by His love, and we can continue to forgive, understand, and teach one another so as to reduce the bickering and ignorance and foster that unity that already exists spiritually.

Let the catholic celebrate their authority and let the protestant celebrate their freedom.

I think this myth is one of the greatest fallacies that undermines Christendom. When we are under the authority of God, we are as free as we can be. God created mankind to live this way, and when we do not, we fall under the slavery of sin. So this false dichotomy (freedom - vs- under authority) is part of what eats away at Christendom. The lack of authority causes divisions and separations, which is not Jesus’ intention for His bride.

Each one beholds their own treasure with great love and admiration. Then lets come together and put our treasures in the house of God side by side united in love and purpose.

Amen!

 

[Tomster]

Since dogmatic definitions of an ecumenical council are infallible, they are irreformable, but its disciplinary measures are subject to modification by one superior to the council itself, i.e. the Roman Pontiff.

Now, how many infallible teachings are there in the Berean sect you belong to? :compcoff:

Koineman,

I was just getting started. I didn’t want to overload you.

PR has provided a nice list for you. Thank you PR.

The reason I started with that particular infallible teaching is pretty evident. It goes right to the heart of your question. The Catholic Church can and has defined many infallible teachings through the infallible teaching magisterium.

Back to my question. How many de fide truths has your sect promulgated?

:compcoff:

 

[PRmerger]

Nowadays, when they disagree, they just schlep down the street and open a new “church”.

The fruit of the this unholy trinity of “Me, my Bible and the Holy Spirit” paradigm is that every day there are churches being opened that look like this:



with their own (fallible and therefore going to be in error) popes.

One man disagrees with another man’s interpretation of a verse, and soon enough there are 4 or 5 who follow this man’s interpretation…and then we have the plethora of man-made institutions with no authority save their own to preach their erroneous and fallible and man-made doctrines.

 

[guanophore]

No, that truth did not set us free. It led to murder and terror.

There was murder and terror on both sides of the Reformation, ,but we live in a different world today. People who espouse heresies are no longer considered traiters to the realm.

It is people abusing authority that cause murder and terror, not the authority itself.

Some of it were certainly necessary. Also, murder implies killing of innocents. If the said people were guilty of promoting heresy when warned, then there is nothing wrong with the death penalty.

It really depends on the perspective. If Catholics were indeed the true Church, they were right in trying to to quench error.

Do you have any Scripture to support your assertion that heretics should be put to death?

Would you kill me if you had the power? My other question is are you representative of the catholic church?

Jesus never taught that those who did not embrace the One Faith should be put to death. He said they would die in their sins for their lack of faith, but did not teach that this process should be accelerated by His disciples.

We are all 'representatives" of the Church, though some of us are very poor ones. Most Catholics on this forum are laypersons,and we don’t have any official post with any authority in the Church.

 The ones that should have fallen to the inquisition should have been the likes of Luther or Calvin. They would have either been kept in confinement or given the death penalty, in either case, preventing the great catastrophe that they created in Christianity. They would indeed be guilty of being heretics as well.

No, killing people for what they believe does not stop the spread of ideas. If this were the case, Rome lopping off the heads of the first 8 popes, and countless martryrs for the faith would have stamped out Christianity in the first century.

Besides, the Church already tried putting people to death for heresy before the Reformation, and it never worked. The deeds of the Albigensians, Tyndale, and many others just fueled the fires of the Reformation.

But as for you, even if I was part of the inquisition, I would not go after you Rather, if anything, I would think the inquisition would use that power and means to polarize the perception of the public against arbitrary assent and to make sure Catholics priests or Bishops who stray from the faith are warned and promptly removed from office. In other words, the primary goal of the inquisition is the purity of the faith. Not the death of anyone.

Yes, but it seems clear that torture and death does nothing to purify the faith.

The causing of death was always seen as a side-effect to preserve purity and perhaps a punishment for the sin of misleading others. I have heard a modern historian point out how Hitler would not have been able to cause any trouble, had the inquisition been around. He would have been seen as an apostate and would have been promptly dealt with.

It can also be said that the brutality of the inquisitors is what fed the Reformation. One cannot stamp out ideas using such methods. On the contrary, such force only fans the flames of rebellion.

And when did Jesus ever say that such methods should be used to spread the faith?

But in today’s world, deaths are not necessary and imprisonment for life or till recanted would be a better solution of those Catholics who stubbornly stray from the faith and mislead others.

This statement seems to represent a mindset of gaining and exercising control over others. This is not the kind of leadership that Jesus promoted - in fact, quite the opposite. I seem to recall Him saying something like “love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you”.

It also seems like a very angry statement, and anger does not accomplish the will of God.

As for whether I am representative of all Catholics, I cannot say. I try my best to be Catholic. That is all I can do. Others would have certainly succeeded more than me but that is not my concern and neither should it be yours, yes? Unless you of course want to correct me and advise me on a matter that I can improve on being more Catholic (which I would welcome!) Our concern should be in following the truth, as much as it has been made known to us through the providence of God.

I agree, each of us has a responsibility to follow the Truth most eagerly. I don’t think that includes punishing those that don’t see things our way.

 

[PRmerger]

Paul was not addressing that issue in this passage, and it doesn’t seem to enter his mind at all.

LOL!

That you can claim to see what enters into St. Paul’s mind is bemusing and amusing indeed.

This limns quite well the perilous path which SS treads–being able to declare, from reading a text, what is in the mind of the author, independent of the Faith which gave you this text.

I’m simply trying to honor the text and not make it say something it does not. It had been said that Paul’s point in this passage was that his teachings plus Scripture were sufficient, but that is not what the text says.

I would disagree.

Now what?

What is your solution to 2 different people reading an inspired text and coming to contrary interpretations?

In the Catholic model, we take our differing interpretations to the Church and it is the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth, which speaks for the mind of God.

In your model, to whom do we seek succor?

This is an area where Catholics often get confused when discussing this text. It must be borne in mind that this passage discusses the sufficiency of Scripture, not the extent of the canon of Scripture.

Well, again, it speaks to the sufficiency of the Old Testament, if we are to speak of sufficiency at all.

You seem to be arguing for Sola Old Testament, which is a treacherous position to take for a Christian.

 

[Tomster]

Yes, I have learned this here on CAF. It is very convenient that SS “assumes a canon”. That way, we can just take the authority God gave to His One Church our of the discussion. SS cannot admit that it required an authority outside of itself to create and canonize the Scriptures. This is because the question of how the canon was formed PROVES the error of SS, as do the Scriptures themselves, who clearly testify to the authority given to the Church. Nowhere does the Scripture claim the doctrine of SS, so it is, by definition, an extrabiblical human tradition.

Close, but not quite. The Catholic position is that the church is not an “agent”, but the living Body of Christ, of which He is the Head. She is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. It is these divine elements that maker her infallible. And yes, since the Scripture is His Word, He is the only one with the authority to interpret it correctly. He gave this authority to His Church.

How is that any different than debating with the Scriptures alone?

Here is an example. You used this verse:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

To support the notion of SS. You claimed that this verse says the Scriptures “fully equip” the man of faith. However this is not what the verse says.

I find that this verse is often misunderstood by those reading it. You are right, it says that scripture is inspired. Coming from God as it does it is “profitable”, and in some translations “useful”. This verse does NOT say we don’t need anything else, or that Scripture is the be all and end all of God’s revelation to man.

Next we look at what type of activities in which Scripture is profitable (useful). These activities include teaching, reproof, correction and training in rightousness. These are all parts of the Christian process of sanctification. What is the goal of all this teaching, reproving, correcting and training? That the man of God may be equipped. Scripture is useful in equipping the tasks of forming disciples.

Nowhere does it say that Scripture alone accomplishes these tasks. In fact, we find the contrary. To whom did God give these tasks?

Eph 4:10-14
10 He who descended is the same one who ascended far above all the heavens, so that he might fill all things.) 11 The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ.

Jesus gave the gift of teaching and pastoring to PEOPLE, and these PEOPLE are charged with the responsibilty to equip the saints for the work of the ministry. These PEOPLE find scripture useful/profitable in the tasks of equiping the saints.

Scripture by itself is not sufficient to “fully equipt” the man of God. You need the people appointed and gifted by Jesus to equip you for the work of the ministry. You need to benefit from their use of the Scripture as they reprove, correct and teach you according to the gifts that God has established. And in the next verses he concludes:

Eph 4:14-16
We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. 15 But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the **whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love. **

You need it because Jesus established His Church, and He is building that Church in love. He provided the gifted people to profitably use the scriptures for the purpose of bringing us all to maturity. You need those people because that is the way Jesus set it up.

Scripture is inspired and profitable - especially in the hands of those that God has authorized to do the work of equipping the saints. Jesus did not write 27 new books of the Bible and leave them with a note that said “these writings will fully equip all who believe”. No, he created a Church, and appointed authorities, and gave gifts to that Church so that the Scripture would be profitable in their hands.

So you see, we both read the same scripture verses, but we understand them differently. You read them through the lens of the Reformation, where Catholics read them through the lens of Sacred Tradition, which is the Teaching of the Apostles infallibly preserved in the Church.

So whether it is scripture, or the fathers, or the council documents, endless debate can, and does occur.

Guanophore,

I am glad you made mention of the revealed doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ. I was hoping others would have made mention of it for herein lies the answer to all of Koineman’s questions. It is the absolute best apologetic to explain the whole matter.

The doctrine of the Mystical Body, the Church, is not one open to free discussion; it is not a systematized opinion of this author or of that saint, a theological solution begotten of man’s study. It is, in the fullest sense of the word, a doctrine revealed.

 

[guanophore]

I don't need to. The existence of various interpretations does not prove that the text cannot be clearly grasped. People can see a text clearly for what it says but then reject it because it differs from their pet theory or beliefs.

Yes, I think this is human nature, which is why Jesus needed to establish an authority empowered by the HS to settle such disputes.

However, I think you are perhaps being over generous. There are many people who read the text and really honestly cannot see it for what it says. For example “This is my Body” is read by all of Christendom,and yet, very sincere Christians have mutually exclusive ideas of what that really means.

Let’s apply this to the RCC. Do all Catholics agree about the number of infallible teachings of the RCC?

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

I think we have already established that there are many people who have been baptized Catholic, and reject the Teachings of the Apostles that are infallibly preserved in the Church.

Does Judas’ betrayal of Jesus invalidate what He taught?

Then why do Catholics still disagree?

The difference is that we do not see such dissent and separation as legitimate, whereas, in the rest of Christendom, everyone is supported in following their own conscience, even if it means abandoning the doctrines of the faith.

But we’re not talking about teaching it to others. We’re talking about being able to read the text, understand it, and use that to discern the truth of what someone else teaches.

While it’s always good to have your understanding of a biblical text checked by others in the church, that’s a far cry from saying that I cannot interpret that text, understand it, and use it to discern whether someone else is preaching the truth.

What you expect me to do is throw away discernment. You want me to stop thinking that I can discern whether a particular teaching is biblical or not and instead run my understanding by someone else for approval.

Not at all! What we are asked to do is to discern by using the Apostolic Faith, rather than our own ideas. The lens through which we read is to be the same one through which the writers authored the books. That way, we understand them in the way they are intended.

There are two problems with this:

1. It’s dangerous to throw away discernment when it comes to matters that pertain to the soul.
2. Even if I were to do what you suggest, I’d be relying on someone else’s private interpretation of the text, whether it be that of a priest, bishop, or some other church leader, so it wouldn’t solve the problem as you see it.

Not only dangerous, but immoral I would say. We have been commanded by God to discern, and to fail to do so is a sin!

But relying on the Apostolic framework s not a “private interpretation of text”. It is reading the text according to the mindset that produced it.

You are right that relying on someone eles’ private interpretation is not a solution either. That is where the Reformers could not create a cohesive church either.

It’s perfectly reasonable. We both agree that Scripture is inspired, so that is a reasonable starting point for both of us. It’s also reasonable because you have already accepted, through your preferred method of natural reason, the authority of the RCC. That authority, which you have determined to be genuine, affirms the Holy Spirit.

By the way, this thread is not about determining which religion is true.

I agree that Scripture is a good place to start. So, since Scripture does not say there is such a thing as an infallible list of infallible teachings, shall we move on to another subject?

  Well, then, if we can’t look at a text and determine what it means because it’s just our interpretation, then this whole thread with you is pointless because it applies to everything you write here, too, not to mention your interpretation of historical claims that you read about (which you have used in your natural reason argument to show the authority of the RCC).

Obviously you and I are wasting our time.

Dialogue about disagreements need not be a waste of time. That being said, I think you will have to agree that many sensible and fervent believers look at the text, and still come up with mutually exclusive interpretations. If this were not the case, then Christendom would not be so splintered.

 

[guanophore]

 This applies also to disagreements among Catholics about RCC teaching.

No, it does not. The Teaching is the same, whether people reject it, or not. The faith is One, the doctrine is One. We are forbidden to teach or accept any different doctrine. We are not allowed to create our own doctrines. Those who do so have left the One Faith.

 Also, it doesn't prove that the correct interpretation cannot be identified. Just because people disagree does not mean we can't read a text to determine what it means. As before,  your conclusion doesn't follow.

I will stipulate that the inablity to interpret is not the only problem. You are right, that preference for one’s own ideas is an issue, but there are many who in sincere ignorance, misunderstand the Scriptures. Scripture itself testifies to this.

It’s not a straw man. There is indeed no list of infallible teachings, but the RCC claims to have the authority to teach infallibly.

The CC is not “Roman”.

Yes, Jesus gave the gift and responsibility to th eChurch to teach infallibly. He did this by commiting to them a way of life, a world view, not a “list”.

Those infallible teachings must be recognized by individual Catholics. But do all Catholics agree on which teachings are infallible and which are not? If they did, they would agree on the exact number of those teachings. Do they?

It is irrelevant. The infallible Truth is what it is whether a majority of people reject it, or not. The One Church is not a matter of democratic or popular opinion/vote. The faith was completed in the first century. It was handed down “once for all” and cannot be changed or divided. When people attempt to do so, they have left the One Faith.

 

[Semangelof]

Jesus never taught that those who did not embrace the One Faith should be put to death. He said they would die in their sins for their lack of faith, but did not teach that this process should be accelerated by His disciples.

You have no idea how much you minister to my soul right now. I can’t explain to you how much it hurt my heart to see that terrible claim by him go unchallenged by anyone. You have refreshed my heart.

 

[eamonnroma]

Has the Roman Catholic Church ever produced an infallible list of its infallible teachings?

Of course it depends on the defenition of infallible. The popes first defined themselves as infallible during the 1st Vatican council. The only infallible definition since then was the Dogma of the Assumption in 1950.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Do you have any Scripture to support your assertion that heretics should be put to death?

Why are you asking me to support something that I did not say? I was saying that the Church has a RIGHT to put to death a heretic. The Church itself has validated that right as it exercised it and saints commended the executions as well.

Jesus never taught that those who did not embrace the One Faith should be put to death. He said they would die in their sins for their lack of faith, but did not teach that this process should be accelerated by His disciples.

The one who does not embrace the one Faith is not a heretic. One who belongs to the One Faith but insists on error is indeed a Heretic. You first have to learn what the Church means by heretic.

We are all 'representatives" of the Church, though some of us are very poor ones. Most Catholics on this forum are laypersons,and we don’t have any official post with any authority in the Church.

Sure, but if they were to proclaim error when the Church authority continues to warn them, then they would indeed be heretics.

No, killing people for what they believe does not stop the spread of ideas. If this were the case, Rome lopping off the heads of the first 8 popes, and countless martryrs for the faith would have stamped out Christianity in the first century.

Besides, the Church already tried putting people to death for heresy before the Reformation, and it never worked. The deeds of the Albigensians, Tyndale, and many others just fueled the fires of the Reformation

Do you see any of the heresies that the Church forcefully quenched today? No, yes? So what is your point?

In any case, we are not even debating the efficacy of having an Inquisition, I am only stating that the Inquisition is morally justified in executing heretics.

Yes, but it seems clear that torture and death does nothing to purify the faith.

Depends on how informed one is on history I guess. Are you aware that certain dangerous heresies were indeed vanquished because of the execution of heretics?

It can also be said that the brutality of the inquisitors is what fed the Reformation. One cannot stamp out ideas using such methods. On the contrary, such force only fans the flames of rebellion.

And when did Jesus ever say that such methods should be used to spread the faith?

When did Jesus ever say pray to Mary? When did Jesus say have vestments at mass? When did Jesus ever say explicitly that God was a Holy Trinity? When did Jesus ever say that he was fully human and fully Divine before his death and resurrection?

Anyway, “When did Jesus say…” is not a valid line of argumentation since you don’t really know everything Jesus said or that our religion is limited to what Jesus said.

On the other hand, did you know the God had no problem asking Israelites to kill off entire cities so that they will not become tainted with their errors? I would say, you should take that hint, no?

This statement seems to represent a mindset of gaining and exercising control over others. This is not the kind of leadership that Jesus promoted - in fact, quite the opposite. I seem to recall Him saying something like “love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you”.

Yes, but he did not say “Love the errors of your enemies”. Just like Capital Punishment is a valid method of punishment and “War” is justifiable under correct circumstances, so is execution of heretics.

It also seems like a very angry statement, and anger does not accomplish the will of God.

I can assure you that nothing was said in anger.

I agree, each of us has a responsibility to follow the Truth most eagerly. I don’t think that includes punishing those that don’t see things our way.

Aah, but it can be necessary under correct circumstances to save the others from being lead astray. God himself thought of it as a valid mechanism to use against Canaanites and other nations. If I recall, it was indeed the failure of Israelites to eliminate everyone and everything when they captured the Promised land that later lead to the downfall at the time of Judges.

Anyway, lets not try to sugar coat the history of the Church through the eyes of 21st century “politically correct” attitudes and equally retarded concepts of “love”, ok? There was a Church before that and there were Saints who had no problem with the execution of heretics.

 

[PRmerger]

There was a Church before that and there were Saints who had no problem with the execution of heretics.

 

[Eufrosnia]

http://media.tumblr.com/c0569ea4b1d95d1133a9d9c861572681/tumblr_inline_mhf45fEQkh1qz4rgp.gif

Is that you?

Anyway, if you mean to say that no saints approved of execution of heretics, please the read the following

newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm#I

Also, are you aware of any writings of saints that lived during these times and condemned such actions? It would help if you posted those instead rather than a picture of you, yes?

In all of this, are you forgetting that when St. Peter was lied to regarding the sale of property (not even heresy and just a temporal matter), both Ananias and Sapphira dropped dead (Acts 5:1-11)? How much more guilty is one who spreads error against the authoritative teaching of the Church?