L
louis91766
Guest
Have you ever heard of Joan of Arc?
NEW YORK: Lesbian [Episcopal ] Priest Nominee on List to be Next Bishop of New York
- Status
L
louis91766
Guest
Some things have been changed. For example, it was previously taught that women were to be silent in Church, but now they are readers and lead Communion services.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Are you trying to claim that everything the Church teaches is changeable and/or optional?
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Yes I have. That doesn’t answer the question.
What evidence is there that the Church taught that heretics should be burned at the stake?
C
CMatt25
Guest
"There can be no doubt that the English, partly because they feared their prisoner with a superstitious terror, partly because they were ashamed of the dread which she inspired, were determined at all costs to take her life. They could not put her to death for having beaten them, but they could get her sentenced as a witch and a heretic. Moreover they had a tool ready to their hand in Pierre Cauchon, the Bishop of Beauvais… it was only on 21 February, 1431, that Joan appeared for the first time before her judges. She was not allowed an advocate, and, though accused in an ecclesiastical court, she was throughout illegally confined in the Castle of Rouen…
So lets see. The English wanted her put to death. She was accused in an ecclesiastical court. But you’re saying the bishop who according to this Catholic Encyclopedia article, was a “tool” to the hands of the English, didn’t know Joan would be burned?
newadvent.org/cathen/08409c.htm
1
1holycatholic
Guest
What evidence is there that the Church taught that heretics should be burned at the stake?
C
CMatt25
Guest
I guess I just assumed an apostolic successor to know the teachings of the Church about burning at the stake and to teach accordingly. Burning at the stake is pretty serious stuff afterall.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
The ruling of a bishop is a farcry from the dogmatic teaching of the Church. No one’s claiming that every bishop always acted in accord with Church teaching.
The key words here being ‘some things.’ Not the dogma of the Catholic Church. Analogously, whereas it was once considered impolite to thumb one’s nose at people, I may now thumb my nose at everyone I pass on the street, and none will take offense. Randomly murdering people in the street, however, is not so much a matter of social decency as a timeless immorality. Though some things change, it does not follow that everything changes. “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” I just had to throw that in there.
Oh, and 1holycatholic and rlg94086, just a little constructive critisicm. I might suggest that you try to elaborate a little more explicitly what your arguments are, for sake of clarity. We are not all masters of subtlety.
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
Have you ever heard the saying that, whereas usually when you tell a priest you have a problem, he gives you advice, if you tell a Jesuit you have a problem, he says “I’d like to reccomend a book you should read…” Still, if the answer he’s looking for is in that book, he’ll have to wait 2-3 weeks for shipping.
C
CMatt25
Guest
I know that’s when I wonder about Matt 7:15-16.
R
ringil
Guest
The periodically unjust and even cruel treament of heretics is certainly part of the Church’s history. The policies and practices of these eras are not part of the deposit of faith however.
You will NOT find John Paul or Benedict defending “the rack”, burning at the stake, or the more ferocious practices of the Inquisition. Churchmen stood by while these things were happening and that is sad to give lame excuses and flimsy cognitive dodges does not defend the Church, indeed it insults the Glory of the Church.
The grievous shortcomings of Church history do not mar the divine nature of Christs’ Bride.
This speaks to the issue of the sex abuse crisis as well. Some will say “Well, some priests may abuse but the rate is no higher than any other Church.”
I say “who the heck cares about other churches?!?” Aren’t WE the true Church? Aren’t we part of that which Christ founded? These crimes and sins when committed in the Church and by priests are that much more heinous. Christ said “to whom much is given much is expected.”
The Church is both human and divine. Admitting fault does not shake the faith of one answering the voice of Christ in their heart, indeed recent pontiffs have shown a humility that was needed and that gives glory to the Church. Satan cannot defend against humility because he does not understand it. Satan knows hautiness. He knows pride. He knows boasting, and none of these will draw people to the fullness of Truth.
The Catholic Church (including Orthodoxy) is the very vehicle of God’s sanctifying grace on Earth.
B
BigFellaMick
Guest
I can end this debate. Christ created and gave to us His Church, the Catholic Church. It is THE ONLY correct Church. Everything else outside of it knows only partial truth at best. All others interpret things individually leading in minor cases to twisting of the Truth and in some cases downright heresy (lesbian episcopal pastors). Like it or hate it that is the truth. Accept Christ’s Church as you accept Christ and salvation shall be yours. If not, who am I to say? Maybe you’ll make it, maybe you won’t? God ultimately decides on all our fates in the end though personally, I’d take my chances in a Church Christ Himself created rather than one a mortal created in Christ’s honor. Huge difference there ya know?
R
rlg94086
Guest
What argument? I have asked a question which was unanswered. Are you saying my question wasn’t clear?Oh, and 1holycatholic and rlg94086, just a little constructive critisicm. I might suggest that you try to elaborate a little more explicitly what your arguments are, for sake of clarity. We are not all masters of subtlety.
C
CMatt25
Guest
R
rlg94086
Guest
Actually, he didn’t. It was a clear question, and he chose to answer in an unclear manner. If one accepts that some things the Church teaches will never change (i.e. de fide teaching), then the fact that some things have changed has no meaning. The fact that he continuously answers my question with “some things have changed,” leaves open the possibility that he believes that anything can change.
Bottom line…his posts are absolutely meaningless because, for example, the change in the requirement for women to wear head coverings has zero impact on the unchanging teachings of the Church.
L
louis91766
Guest
Exsurge Domine . Bull of Pope Leo X issued June 15, 1520
C
CMatt25
Guest
Well ok but it was clear enough for me and I don’t find his posts “absolutely meaningless”.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Exsurge Domine
The document states that burning heretics is wrong:
The document states that heretical documents are to be burned:
The document you cite in support of your argument actually refutes your argument.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Women EMHCs, head coverings, etc… have nothing to do with faith and morals. I.e., they are not doctrines they must be believed as part of the faith. They are disciplines that are adhered to, much like priestly celibacy.
That the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ is a doctrine. Believe in it is not optional for Catholics, and was taught by Christ and the Apostles and the Church immutably ever since.
- Status