S
severus68
Guest
Yes, but none of what you quoted refers to execution, let alone burning.
- Status
B
Bl_Pope_Pius_IX
Guest
See THIS (see Article 3) as Aquinas better elaborates on the verses than I can (and he has more credibility). For instsance, as to Galations 5:9, Aquinas looks to Jerome’s commentary on it to better understand it.
~ Pius :knight1:
S
severus68
Guest
You are correct to a certain extent. Yes, it would appear that Muslims believe the body should be whole. I would think that there may be practical problems like amputation when diseased or for theft. There are a few Muslim states who try to impose Sharia penalties for crime and those are basically what are in the OT. There is only one state where Jews are in power and the people have chosen not to make it an orthodox Jewish state. If Israel wanted to go back in time and impose strict Jewish laws, it would basically be what’s in the OT. My views.Something interesting about the sentence of burning of heretics. The Old Testament (Mosaic Law, that is also Arron’s Law) , as said above, allows for this type of killing. But, unless I missed it, in the New Testament there are no burnings among the books that the burning punishment was ever used. If I recall correctly, among the NT letter some reported that one person or another person would be killed by the laws of burning, but no burnings were ever carried out.
One other mention here, Islam doesn’t allow for removal of a person by burning( or, dismemberment)…it’s thought to be something evil as the body must be intact for the soul to find peace in a heavenly state. I, Kara, believe the OT laws are more Muslim then Jewish, but that’s my feelings.
Perhaps why so many subject fights evolve from nothing is the failure to apply outside, secular understandings to internal scriptural journeys our Holy Bible.
S
severus68
Guest
BTW, well done on your studies.
S
severus68
Guest
Thanks. So Aquinas was of the view that unrepentent heretics should be put to that. I still disagree and I would think the Church today is of the same view when the death penalty is discouraged.
B
Bl_Pope_Pius_IX
Guest
I really don’t think it was to be used as a punishment for the heretic but instead as a precaution so that heretic wouldn’t spread his heretical beliefs. It makes sense to be honest if one truly belies that the soul is more important than the body and that the life everlasting is more important than the life here on Earth.
As far as the death penalty being discouraged, I might have to disagree. In my own Archdiocese of Boston, though, our Cardinal Archbishop sent out a letter to The Pilot denouncing assisted suicide and to an extant, the death penalty. However, still, I seem to see a large change of teaching of the USCCB since 1980 when they said “We recognize that many citizens may believe that capital punishment should be maintained as an integral part of our society’s response to the evils of crime, nor is this position incompatible with Catholic tradition.”
In more recent years, they have flatly condemned and denounced Capital Punishment, but still.
~ Pius :knight1:
S
sw85
Guest
There is no “freedom” to believe error and falsehood.
Well, you’re misusing the word. And who here is talking about forbidding other faiths?! Religious establishment does not equate to mandatory religious practice, especially since the Church does not and has never recognized involuntary baptisms.
My ideal is something akin to our present religious arrangement, but with Catholicism the “unofficial” religion of the state and all others marginalized.
I gather you are easily moved to being embarrassed about Catholicism. That says more about you than it does about Catholicism.
You should hardly be surprised that men born in largely Catholic countries were raised Catholic. Perhaps it would alarm you to know that Stalin attended an Orthodox seminary?
With respect to what do you presume to accuse me of heresy? Roy5 himself marshalled evidence that nearly all modern lay Catholics are in thrall to Protestant dogmatism. Depending on the issue the proportion of Catholics in open rebellion against the Church’s teachings approaches 100%! The rebellion among the clergy is well known by this point, as well.
This is simply wrong. Our faith does not exclude recourse to the death penalty in cases in which lesser measures are unable to protect society against unjust aggressors. It’s right there, in the plain text of the Catechism, 2267.
I have said here earlier that burning alive should always be off the table. It’s simply grossly inhumane. Moreover, men have a duty to cultivate compassion even for those they condemn, and this necessarily entails a duty not to deaden their conscience by subjecting criminals to such horrible extremes of agony. Something quick and painless, such as firing squad or lethal injection, is able to achieve the end without inflicting needless pain on others.
And of course, as I have said, as a matter of practicality it should almost never be necessary for the state to ACTUALLY execute heretics. All I’m saying is that morality does not exclude recourse to it on principle if it’s absolutely necessary.
This is correct; but their argument is practical, not moral: it is simply rarely ever, perhaps never, necessary to execute criminals in the modern age, not because it is always in principle wrong.
There are bishops and priests who disagree with this teaching and regard it is ALWAYS evil. What they say when not exercising magisterial authority, however, is not really anyone’s concern, and we are certainly not required to give assent to it.
M
masuwerte
Guest
I asked, I did not presume to accuse. You posted that “The post-Vatican II Church is one pregnant with the spirit of Protestantism.” Do you know better than the magesterium, here and now?
S
sw85
Guest
I was not referring to the magisterium but to Catholics in general, who, as I said, are openly in rebellion.
M
masuwerte
Guest
Then you should go back and edit your post.
B
Bl_Pope_Pius_IX
Guest
I think his post is fine as he can not control how people take something, he can only control how he intends them. He explained his post - that should be enough.
A
april32010
Guest
wheres a Dominican with a torch when you need them!:knight2:
S
severus68
Guest
Yes, I know some posts I would like burned out of existence, lol.
S
sw85
Guest
Why? Perhaps sloppily worded but I think my meaning is clear.
Even if it weren’t, the meaning you are attributing to me is not controversial, either, much less heretical. I am required to assent in faith to the Church’s teaching authority, not their teaching ability.
At any rate, post editing is closed after like 10 minutes after a post is made, so I couldn’t even if I wanted to.
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
B
Bl_Pope_Pius_IX
Guest
Not quite. Read that carefully (and preferably not from wikipedia). The maid baptized the boy when he was a sick infant. He could not possibly protest and was under the age of reason I believe anyway. It was not an involuntary baptism by any means and the law of the Papal States said that no Catholic could be raised by a Jewish family. This wikipedia article seems particularly slanderous, as well. Edgardo Martara would go on to be a fine Catholic Priest and visited his family often. Plus during the Piedmontese seizure of Bologna, the Mortara’s were safely escorted to Rome.
You make it seem as if the Holy Father did something unlawful and obscenely unethical. It most certainly wasn’t unlawful, and in my opinion it wasn’t unethical. They could have also gotten their son back if they had converted, but that wasn’t forced as they didn’t convert anyway and received no penalty.
~ Pius :knight1:
T
Tsuwano
Guest
As a devout Roman Catholic I agree with you. I also believe it is disingenious to claim that the Church never executed anyone, but that the State did. Though this might be true in narrowest sense of the law, it is clear that the law, especially of the Papal States, could have been changed and that so called heretics could have been pardoned if the Church and her leaders had wanted to do it. When it was done, whether it was in the name of the law or in the name of God, it was morally unjustified and did not adhere to the law of love as taught by Jesus Christ.
T
Tsuwano
Guest
The Romans had the legal right to execute Jesus of Nazareth. They did not possess the moral right. It was wrong and sinful on the part of those people who conspired to execute Jesus.
F
Fragile
Guest
“Heretics” are burned at the stake today far more than ever, the fire the “faithful” now use are words, and the stakes are the internet forums!
B
Bl_Pope_Pius_IX
Guest
Again - no heretic was allowably executed immediately. After two times of being asked to recant they were put to death not as a punishment of their own heresy but instead as a way to stop the spread of that heresy. This was true even in the Papal States who actually had their own “Executioner” the last of which was retired in the 1860’s. Granted it was mostly as a “decorative” position and not a practical one by that time but regardless. I’m not sure that it doesn’t adhere to Christ’s law as it is indeed quite loving to protect the souls of those who may be scandalized and corrupted by the evils of the heretic and the heresy that he propagates and perpetuates.
~ Pius :knight1:
- Status