No one was burnt in the Salem trials. They were hung (plus one who was killed, peine forte et dure, trying to coerce testimony).
Jon, are you acquainted with Bishop Bo Giertz, Diocese of Gothenburg, a noted Lutheran theologian in the Church of Sweden? His book, **Christ’s Church: Her Biblical Roots, Her Dramatic History, Her Saving Presence, Her Glorious Future **(2010 transl] uses the terminology, ‘Evangelical Catholic’ to describe Lutheranism.
Hi joe371: I agree. It seems to me that the evil one will do all he can to destroy the Church built on Peter and tries his best to do it from within. That is one reason why we have had bad Popes Bishops and bad priests, and if that was not enough those from the outside trying to tear down its walls. yet the Church still stands after all these years and will continue to do so till Christ’s return. Torture was the main thing and thinking of the times, might makes right as they used to say. it was thought that torture was the way to get at the truth. In our day and age we at least or most of us think torture is wrong and that one will say anything in order to stop the torture, I am sure it was the same during that time also. it was not right then and it is not right now but we have to understand that that was how people thought at that time.
Only in passing, EC. He is often mentioned, as well as people such as Piepkorn, and Robert Jenson, when there is discussion of Evangelical Catholicity.
If I find the book I will read it. However from what I had read in years past it was claimed that those thought to be witches were burned and also some were tossed into a lake and if the drowned they were not witches but if they did not drown they were witches Some were pressed by using heavy rocks in order to confess their sinfulness, yet, the real purpose was to get their property, So what I am saying is that killing heretic’s was wrong but was done in different ways by both sides, Catholic civil authorities as well as Protestants.
Yes, Bishop Giertz’s work was well recognized in the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue.
Peter’s book has 3 pages that mention the Salem trials, but not in the sense of describing them. It will tell you nothing about how the executions were carried out. Google can help you, there. What Peter’s book will tell you, esp. in the 2 chapters I mentioned, is the origin and development of the relationship between the Church, and the secular governments, with respect to the execution of heretics.
The propositions listed are all teachings of Luther which the bull is saying are mistaken.
Witches are not exactly the same as heretics.
Spina, Edwin is correct here. Papal Bulls were sent to leaders of countries like Kings etc. they were not written to the Church to be believed everywhere. (I learned the foregoing from a talk given by a Professor from a Catholic University but have looked that up online and I can’t find it anywhere) The papal bull does not say “we define and declare” I’m sure that the Pope believed that but he was wrong and we do not have to embrace it.The propositions listed are all teachings of Luther which the bull is saying are mistaken.
As you say, the document says “some of these errors we have decided to include. . . .” so obviously the statements that follow (including "burning heretics is against the will of the HS) are seen as errors.
There have been many ingenious attempts to get around this passage, but you take the simplest method: just assert boldly that it says the exact opposite of what it really says
Edwin
Edwin this language was used in the Bull declaring the Assumption of our Lady.Witches are not exactly the same as heretics.
Yes, Protestants and Catholics both killed witches. (Countries that had a formal Inquisition, such as Spain, did so much less than countries that didn’t, and some Catholics have mistakenly concluded from this that Catholics didn’t kill witches.)
Sometimes witches were burned, but not at Salem.
Protestants did sometimes execute heretics (as distinct from witches). This happened in Switzerland, England, and the Netherlands, to my knowledge.
The point here is simply that the practice was upheld in a papal bull, which doesn’t have to cause Catholics problems, but does if you’re going to insist that everything in papal bulls is authoritative teaching and authoritative teaching never changes. All you have to say is that this statement doesn’t meet the criteria for infallibility, and you’re off the hook
Protestants don’t have papal bulls, obviously, or claim infallibility, so the fact that they once executed heretics does not present them with the same problems. Protestants believe that the Church’s teaching can and does change. That is why they can claim to be a continuation of the historic Catholic Church.
Edwin
Annie, I thought I made it clear that I’m not saying that Exsurge Domine #33 is infallible. I’m aware that it isn’t on the same level of teaching as an ex cathedra statement, which is why I’m so frustrated by Catholics (not you) who twist themselves into knots trying to make the statement say something other than it says instead of just saying “it’s not infallible.”Edwin this language was used in the Bull declaring the Assumption of our Lady.
Is there any language like that in the Bull under question?
- Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.
- In order that this, our definition of the bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary into heaven may be brought to the attention of the universal Church, we desire that this, our Apostolic Letter, should stand for perpetual remembrance, commanding that written copies of it, or even printed copies, signed by the hand of any public notary and bearing the seal of a person constituted in ecclesiastical dignity, should be accorded by all men the same reception they would give to this present letter, were it tendered or shown.
I think I’m going to write a letter to that professor
Annie
Hi GKC: Thanks for the information I will do the Google thing and see what there is on the subject. I was trying to only be general in my thoughts and not trying to be exact as it .had or has been quite some time since I read that history of those times. The motives as you stated are correct one needs to understand what they were and not all torture was for religious differences, and not all were for civil differences. I think I remember that up to the mid 1800’s here in the USA kids were hanged as young as 7 or 8 and in England kids were after hung for stealing etc. Yet, there came the time when that was no longer done. Thinking changes as time goes by with better understanding etc.
It’s also not that easy though - as #33 was used as reasoning to excommunicate someone.
Good point. To be fair, #33 was just one relatively small point. I don’t know of anyone who was excommunicated only for denying that heretics should be burned. Erasmus criticized the practice for years, but had to back away from his criticisms after the Reformation, something for which he (rightly, in my opinion) blamed the Protestants.
Well, you know that I don’t believe that Scripture is self-interpreting, but that doesn’t mean that Scripture is silent or ambiguous regarding certain moral issues, thus, my question, i.e., why is it that certain Lutheran synods are not following Scripture when in theory (all Lutherans) view Scripture in the highest authority?You are assuming that they think these things are contrary to the Bible. Why do you assume this?
As a Catholic, you know that Scripture isn’t self-interpreting, right?
More liberal Lutherans certainly do have a somewhat “looser” view of Scriptural inspiration and authority than conservative Lutherans. But there is even more difference in their view of the Confessions. In that sense, the liberals arguably have a stricter view of sola scriptura than the conservatives!
Edwin
Perhaps I can contribute an opinion. As a Lutheran, the Confessions are an interpretation of Scripture; ‘sola scripture’ means that a Lutheran can form an understanding of the Word of God within the context of the Confessions.
That was against his own people who were Judaizers.
I don’t think Scripture is clear on the question of whether monogamous same-sex unions that show the same moral qualities as a good marriage should be regarded as sinful. And even if I did think it was clear apart from Tradition and the authority of the Church, I would respect the fact that other people don’t find it clear.
That is certainly an argument that could be made. But since they clearly distinguish between the Confessions and Scripture, I’m going to respect that, just as I respect the insistence of liberals that they do respect the authority of Scripture even as they challenge traditional interpretations and emphasize Scripture’s human, contextual elements.