John Huss and the Council of Constance

  • Thread starter Thread starter Odo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So was the Catholic Church essentially the Pontius Pilate of the middle ages?
 
In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:
…
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
Click to expand...
- Exsurge Domine, Pope Leo X
With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.
Click to expand...
Source-
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm#article3

As for recent popes apologising for the inquisitions, it just seems to me that the church is transformed by society, which is the case with human institutions, rather than the other way around, which would be the case if the church was really a divine institution.
 
Last edited:
dronald said:
So was the Catholic Church essentially the Pontius Pilate of the middle ages?
Click to expand...
No, think of it as Saudi Arabia today. The state is bound by religious law and is free to execute/behead/hang/stone/amputate a person who is heretical to Islam.
 
That isn’t really a good comparison. Saudi Arabi doesn’t tolerate other religions. Christianity did tolerate other religions. The issue of heretics is another mater. Also ecclesiastical courts were known for their fairness.
 
That error is part of list of the errors of Martin Luther that were condemned as “either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth.” Each of these theolofical notes or censures has a specific meaning, and unfortunately, the Pope does not say which theological note or censure applies to each proposition. Likewise, the condemnation of an error does not thereby imply the contrary, but merely a possible contradictory. Further, the condemned proposition must be understood in the sense of the author (in this case Luther).

Luther early on rejected any civil punishment for heresy (especially death) as being contrary to the free interpretation of Scripture (he quickly changed his mind and became even more intempretate than the Catholics in this regard). The fact that a contradictory could exist (many instances of the punishment of death being inflicted were believed to be justified and at least some likely were–see earlier in the thread) means that this proposition would at least be scandalous or offensive and harmful to civil peace. This is especially true since the death penalty for heresy and blasphemy was inspired by the Holy Spirit to be inflicted among the Jews in the Old Testament according to those laws.

As far as society influencing the Church, there is not a problem of this when it is a matter of human experience which increases human knowledge, rather than a particular divine command or revealed truth, which is a matter of supernatural knowledge. The Church still teaches the state can inflict punishments necessary to public order and the common good. It has never had any dogma about particular punishments for particular crimes that applied in all times. As I mentioned in my prior post, the experiences of the people in those times --who were not omniscient–led them to believe the measures they took were necessary for the common good and public order. With more accumulated experience lived in different circumstances, Catholics are now of the opinion that it was likely unncessary (and may have exacerbated things).

Being a Catholic does not give anyone perfect, omniscient wisdom–not even if you’re the Pope or a bishop. It gives us principles and then we must follow our consciences and apply them the best we can in the circumstances we find ourselves in given the facts we know.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps.
Think about it: most people are Catholic, the true religion. Most are not educated. Hearing another, dangerous heresy can endanger their souls.
So the eternal souls of untold millions or the life of one man?
It’s a difficult issue, and though you may say it is wrong, how can one harshly judge those in the past for making what appears to be a prudent judgement?

It was not like today, where nearly everyone is educated and you can easily come across many heresies and blasphemies without trying, with a wealth of information at your fingertips. Today many seem to be against the death penalty.
 
exnihilo said:
That isn’t really a good comparison. Saudi Arabi doesn’t tolerate other religions. Christianity did tolerate other religions. The issue of heretics is another mater. Also ecclesiastical courts were known for their fairness.
Click to expand...
I’ll mention that to my Jewish friends who had families murdered for being Jewish. Or were forced to convert and then, when there was a shred of Jewish practice done in secret, were deemed heretics.
 
Oh, come come — a prudent judgement? It was wickedness. We can forgive them for thinking otherwise — that was the context in which they lived. But to suggest today that it was prudent is just plain wrong. It is not prudent to burn someone alive because they do not share your religious beliefs.
 
Not in traditional Catholic theological interpretation. The simple fact that not all heretics were burned proves that in this case.
 
Genesis315 said:
To be fair, persecution of the unbaptized or punishment for their religion and forced conversion are completely contrary to Catholic doctrine as enunciated in the medieval period or today. See here for example:
Click to expand...
As I said, tell that to the Jewish community. Have you never heard of the Conversos or the Marranos?
 
I didn’t deny that people were sinned against grievously. In our day we had priests commit sexual abuse against minors–they were sinned against grievously–but likewise, that was not proclaimed as morally acceptable or some doctrine of the faith.
 
Last edited:
ComplineSanFran said:
I’ll mention that to my Jewish friends who had families murdered for being Jewish. Or were forced to convert and then, when there was a shred of Jewish practice done in secret, were deemed heretics.
Click to expand...
Also mention to them the Christians killed by Jews. Your position seems to be that because a group following an ideology commits bad acts that all ideologies are equal. But that doesn’t follow.
 
exnihilo said:
Also mention to them the Christians killed by Jews. Your position seems to be that because a group following an ideology commits bad acts that all ideologies are equal. But that doesn’t follow.
Click to expand...
Christians killed by Jews in the name of God, and sanctioned by the faith? Where in history do we see that?
 
Maybe I am somewhat progressive, but to burn any human being alive or even any living creature just doesn’t sound right in ANY way.
 
Like I said, if you think it was wrong, that’s you, but I don’t think you can fault them for a very simple idea, the free market of ideas was not believed in. The simple fact is that we believe in the immortal soul, and one person vs the eternal souls of countless led to error, it seems to me something that makes sense, from a purely logical standpoint.

They did not just kill them, they gave them MULTIPLE TIMES to repent and denounce the false teachings accused of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top