Question for all protestants

[dronald]

Oh my…

Burning heretics alive is never okay nor has it ever been. This is my stance, end of story; no Church can tell me that stance is incorrect.

 

[Jon_S_1]

As soon as the Holy Spirit is brought in it ceases to be a, “secular issue” and thus becomes a Religious one.

When the Head of the biggest Church in existence makes the same claim you’re making right now and states that, “burning heretics is the will of the Spirit” in opposition of one who disagrees we then have a problem.

So what are my options when your official “head of the visible Church” makes that statement and I could suffer being burned after being deemed a heretic for my disagreement?

I think you must ask yourself,

How would anyone know you held this opinion?

Are you just holding this opinion casually or are you acting treasonous against the state by dividing communities, speaking against the church, and causing uprisings?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Oh my…

Burning heretics alive is never okay nor has it ever been. This is my stance, end of story; no Church can tell me that stance is incorrect.

Are you 100% against the death penalty.

I mean God commanded people be stoned for lesser crimes which is far more brutal.

Don’t you think time and place and abilities has something to do with it.

 

[dronald]

Are you 100% against the death penalty.

I mean God commanded people be stoned for lesser crimes which is far more brutal.

Don’t you think time and place and abilities has something to do with it.

As the will of the Spirit for those who reject Christianity? Yes, absolutely. There are some islamic countries that would agree with you on killing for speaking out against Islam.

Was it okay for the Apostles to burn those who rejected them? What about the authorities between 90-300? Should they have burned alive those who did not accept them while being persecuted?

Yet it’s suddenly okay in 1530… why?

 

[rinnie]

Oh my…

Burning heretics alive is never okay nor has it ever been. This is my stance, end of story; no Church can tell me that stance is incorrect.

Okay I am not going to argue with you but now you have the moral obligation to myself and others to prove what you have said.

Show me the Infallible Doctrine or Dogma declaring that it is morrally correct to burn heretic’s to death.

I cannot continue to argue or admit a wrong you accuse the RCC of if you have no proof.

If its a dogma or church doctrine show me.

 

[dronald]

Okay I am not going to argue with you but now you have the moral obligation to myself and others to prove what you have said.

Show me the Infallible Doctrine or Dogma declaring that it is morrally correct to burn heretic’s to death.

I cannot continue to argue or admit a wrong you accuse the RCC of if you have no proof.

If its a dogma or church doctrine show me.

Papal bull against Luther number 33.

 

[adf417]

Papal bull against Luther number 33.

If you are not going to read this in context then why not just quote #25 and this thread would have been finished long ago?

Peace!!!

 

[Jon_S_1]

As the will of the Spirit for those who reject Christianity? Yes, absolutely. There are some islamic countries that would agree with you on killing for speaking out against Islam.

Was it okay for the Apostles to burn those who rejected them? What about the authorities between 90-300? Should they have burned alive those who did not accept them while being persecuted?

Yet it’s suddenly okay in 1530… why?

This is a fantasy you have created though.

It is not remotely close to reality.

Please answer with yes or no the following questions so I can understand you.

Do you believe there should be a death penalty at any point in history?

Do you believe God erred in giving a law to the Israelites that had in place the death penalty?

Do you believe that women found to be virgins should be stoned alive?

Your bible says they should by the Word of God, do you place papal bulls above God’s Word?

 

[rinnie]

Papal bull against Luther number 33.

Are you KIDDING ME! You are trying to say that when the Papal bull condemned Luther for a false teaching.

The Papal bull defends the word of God and the unchanging truth of the RCC that the Unquenchable fire of eternal hell is not against the will of the Holy Spirit.

Luther says that the unquenchable fire of hell goes against the teaching of the H.S…

I told you that.

Now please show me where the Papal bull or any Infallilble word of the Pope claims that burning a heretic ALIVE is a infallible teaching of the RCC.

You continue to accuse my Church of this and now the Pope of being a heretic. Prove it!!

 

[Jon_S_1]

Dronald

I think you should read the whole bull, there is so much compassion for Luther and his followers there, to twist it as you have done truly saddens me. You continue to look at this issue through today’s lens, imagine a time with one church. One united church, and then a large group actively tries to divide and destroy it. Please remember this was written to a Roman Catholic Priest by his boss.

Imagine the Israelites. Imagine one tribe if Judah decided to join the philistines and teach against God and God’s law as delivered to Moses. Would it be hard for you to imagine God commanding a great battle against the heretics? Or worse, a miraculous obliteration?

As far as Martin himself is concerned, O good God, what have we overlooked or not done? What fatherly charity have we omitted that we might call him back from such errors? For after we had cited him, wishing to deal more kindly with him, we urged him through various conferences with our legate and through our personal letters to abandon these errors. We have even offered him safe conduct and the money necessary for the journey urging him to come without fear or any misgivings, which perfect charity should cast out, and to talk not secretly but openly and face to face after the example of our Savior and the Apostle Paul. If he had done this, we are certain he would have changed in heart, and he would have recognized his errors. He would not have found all these errors in the Roman Curia which he attacks so viciously, ascribing to it more than he should because of the empty rumors of wicked men. We would have shown him clearer than the light of day that the Roman pontiffs, our predecessors, whom he injuriously attacks beyond all decency, never erred in their canons or constitutions which he tries to assail. For, according to the prophet, neither is healing oil nor the doctor lacking in Galaad.

But he always refused to listen and, despising the previous citation and each and every one of the above overtures, disdained to come. To the present day he has been contumacious. With a hardened spirit he has continued under censure over a year. What is worse, adding evil to evil, and on learning of the citation, he broke forth in a rash appeal to a future council. This to be sure was contrary to the constitution of Pius II and Julius II our predecessors that all appealing in this way are to be punished with the penalties of heretics. In vain does he implore the help of a council, since he openly admits that he does not believe in a council.

Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures. **Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church.

Therefore let Martin himself and all those adhering to him, and those who shelter and support him, through the merciful heart of our God and the sprinkling of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ by which and through whom the redemption of the human race and the upbuilding of holy mother Church was accomplished, know that from our heart we exhort and beseech that he cease to disturb the peace, unity, and truth of the Church for which the Savior prayed so earnestly to the Father. Let him abstain from his pernicious errors that he may come back to us. If they really will obey, and certify to us by legal documents that they have obeyed, they will find in us the affection of a father’s love, the opening of the font of the effects of paternal charity, and opening of the font of mercy and clemency. **

We enjoin, however, on Martin that in the meantime he cease from all preaching or the office of preacher.

 

[dronald]

If you are not going to read this in context then why not just quote #25 and this thread would have been finished long ago?

Peace!!!

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand.

This is a fantasy you have created though.

It is not remotely close to reality.

Please answer with yes or no the following questions so I can understand you.

Do you believe there should be a death penalty at any point in history?

Do you believe God erred in giving a law to the Israelites that had in place the death penalty?

Do you believe that women found to be virgins should be stoned alive?

Your bible says they should by the Word of God, do you place papal bulls above God’s Word?

For Christian heresy, burning humans alive was never a just punishment. What the OT says and what the rule is for a Christian heresy do not work hand in hand.

Are you KIDDING ME! You are trying to say that when the Papal bull condemned Luther for a false teaching.

The Papal bull defends the word of God and the unchanging truth of the RCC that the Unquenchable fire of eternal hell is not against the will of the Holy Spirit.

Luther says that the unquenchable fire of hell goes against the teaching of the H.S…

I told you that.

Now please show me where the Papal bull or any Infallilble word of the Pope claims that burning a heretic ALIVE is a infallible teaching of the RCC.

You continue to accuse my Church of this and now the Pope of being a heretic. Prove it!!

So what you’re saying is number 33 is not meant for heretics who are living, but rather Leo X was only referring to Hell after death?

Dronald

I think you should read the whole bull, there is so much compassion for Luther and his followers there, to twist it as you have done truly saddens me. You continue to look at this issue through today’s lens, imagine a time with one church. One united church, and then a large group actively tries to divide and destroy it. Please remember this was written to a Roman Catholic Priest by his boss.

Imagine the Israelites. Imagine one tribe if Judah decided to join the philistines and teach against God and God’s law as delivered to Moses. Would it be hard for you to imagine God commanding a great battle against the heretics? Or worse, a miraculous obliteration?

He may have opened nicely and finished nicely, but I still disagree with 33 regardless.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand.

For Christian heresy, burning humans alive was never a just punishment. What the OT says and what the rule is for a Christian heresy do not work hand in hand.

So what you’re saying is number 33 is not meant for heretics who are living, but rather Leo X was only referring to Hell after death?

He may have opened nicely and finished nicely, but I still disagree with 33 regardless.

What you don’t get (AND WONT LET ME HELP YOU) is in defining what a heretic is. Further, it does not say that all heretics are to be burned. I mean for goodness sake they didn’t burn the greatest heretic of all Martin Luther, nor his followers.

That’s saying something.

All he says in 33 is, “Teaching that the death penalty is against the teaching of God is not tolerated”

I can fully support such a statement.

 

[rinnie]

May I add Roman Law allowed judical torture, it went all the way to the top as Pope Inocents bull attests. But it WAS NOT the invention of the Church as you continue to accuse it.

The goal of the Church was to soften the harshness of the secular power and correct what was cruel.

But to say that the RCC was the Roman law that allowed this torture is not true and to say the Pope is saying a infallible teaching is untrue is also a cruel and unfair.

We stand but our infallible truth promised to us by God and must defend it. No matter who tries to corrupt the truth, twist it or interpret it to their own gain.

Do we feel remorse and terrible for what was done. Of course we do. But because we feel bad and hate what was done does not change the true voice of Christ through our Pope.

Just as we feel horrible for the Crucification of the Inocent, beginning with our own Lord and King down to our first Vicar of Christ St Peter.

But as cruel as the world is today, we have become more merciful in our laws when pertaining to sin. Just as the Church can condemn the death penalty, abortion, etc all sin it does not have any more power then in the day of the Roman Law to override it.

Christ said this is not his kingdom. If it was his kingdom everyone who obey him and his laws.

 

[steido01]

What you don’t get (AND WONT LET ME HELP YOU) is in defining what a heretic is. Further, it does not say that all heretics are to be burned.** I mean for goodness sake they didn’t burn the greatest heretic of all Martin Luther, nor his followers.**

That’s saying something.

The “greatest heretic of all?”

The Roman Church certainly tried to “make him an offer he couldn’t refuse,” if you get my drift. There’s a reason Luther spent two years in hiding at Wartburg under the alias ‘Junker George,’ and it’s the same reason Luther was kidnapped from the Diet of Worms: Pope Leo would’ve liked nothing better than to have seen Luther burned.

 

[steido01]

The goal of the Church was to soften the harshness of the secular power and correct what was cruel.

False. There was no separation between the secular and religious in Europe at the time. After all, the Pope was kingmaker.

The concept of Two Kingdoms (secular and religious) is an entirely Lutheran idea: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_kingdoms_doctrine You’re welcome.

For the Roman Catholic understanding of the secular and ecclesiastical swords at the time of the Reformation, I recommend Unam sanctam. Take careful note of the political reasons for the bull.

 

[rinnie]

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand.

For Christian heresy, burning humans alive was never a just punishment. What the OT says and what the rule is for a Christian heresy do not work hand in hand.

So what you’re saying is number 33 is not meant for heretics who are living, but rather Leo X was only referring to Hell after death?

He may have opened nicely and finished nicely, but I still disagree with 33 regardless.

Read what it says. What did Luther state, what does the bull state. Luther states that heretics to be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

If you want to disagree with the word of God that is your choice and you are free to agree with Luther, I stand by the RCC.

But regardless was it permitted to put heretics to death in that time? Was it the Law? Unfortunately it was. Did God say it was better for someone to have a milestone around their neck then cause these little ones to fall.

There are ways of death in all cultures. Was the Church guilty of telling the truth when asked if someone is a heretic or not? Yes they were. That is all they were guilty of. The Truth.

Do you feel they should have lied? And what if they did, then whom would they be working for God? or the devil?

I don’t always claim to understand everything, or agree with everything, I don’t have to. If it were up to me and I had power in the day would I change it. God only knows what I would have done. I would hope so.

You have to pray alot and trust in the HS guiding the RCC. Without that I have nothing.

 

[rinnie]

Oh my…

Burning heretics alive is never okay nor has it ever been. This is my stance, end of story; no Church can tell me that stance is incorrect.

And as far as I can see no Church ever has. It was Roman Law that allowed Judical torture. But yet you continue to blame the RCC.

 

[steido01]

And as far as I can see no Church ever has. It was Roman Law that allowed Judical torture. But yet you continue to blame the RCC.

Rinnie, have you ever read Unam sanctam? Do you understand the relationship between the Pope and the rulers of Europe in the 1500’s, or are you viewing it through the lens of a modern-day, secularized Westerner?

 

[rinnie]

Okay I am not going to argue with you but now you have the moral obligation to myself and others to prove what you have said.

Show me the Infallible Doctrine or Dogma declaring that it is morrally correct to burn heretic’s to death.

I cannot continue to argue or admit a wrong you accuse the RCC of if you have no proof.

If its a dogma or church doctrine show me.

So is the matter closed, or you should provide proof the Church is at fault. The Papal Bull condemning Luther does not cut it.

You say the unquenchable fire that is eternal told to us by Christ goes against the will of the H.S. SO anotherwards if God deems someone to hell he is going against his own spirit. Thats the only way I can see it. I STRONGLY disagree.

 

[Jon_S_1]

The “greatest heretic of all?”

.

As far as Exsurge Domini** is concerned yes! And that is the document dronald keeps saying commands the burning of all heretics.