The Inquisition and Burning of Heretics

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

Just remember- Majority does NOT rule in Our Holy Mother the Church. The Minority was victorious on Calvary, after all.

As for the “burning of heretics”…I just think that the Church should do what is necessary to make sure that the Church REMAINS a dominant figure in the lives of all peoples, all nations, et cetera.

Granted this would be in a Catholic backlash. As a defence - never as an offence. Fight Hellfire with Hellfire.

Of course, all with tolerance and Christian charity!

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[yablabo]

So, could a heretic generally denounce his beliefs and not have to go through this?

What about St. Joan of Arc?

Also, let’s not forget, a lot of this ‘might’ have been royalty or other people with scores to settle. Not always the church, there are plenty of books on this subject.

Typically in the past it was relapsed heretics who were burned. That is, those who once had renounced their heresies only to take them back up again.

St. Joan of Arc was rehabilitated and her trial condemned. Her excommunication and condemnation were unjustly sentenced upon her as evidenced in the documents of her trial, the fact she was not allowed to appeal to the Pope, the fact she was not incarcerated in an ecclesiastical prison, etc. Even the bishop who declared her excommunicate and to die by the fires allowed her reception of Confession and Holy Communion (which shows that he was not playing square since those who are excommunicate are not allowed admission to the sacraments).

– Nicole

 

[yablabo]

Nevertheless, I know where you’re coming from now.

I really believe you are mistaken.

Ok, in a spirit of fraternal correction, please state my mistake.

– Nicole

 

[Rence]

If this is all true, then I have some serious thinking to do.

 

[TrueLight]

Ok, in a spirit of fraternal correction, please state my mistake.

– Nicole

You’re mistake is that no God-fearing, Catholic who practices love of their neighbor would choose to burn those who have fallen away. Instead he would get on his knees and pray for the person’s salvation.

I’ve even seen some evidence of glee at the prospect of burning folks on this thread.

 

[Rence]

You’re mistake is that no God-fearing, Catholic who practices love of their neighbor would choose to burn those who have fallen away. Instead he would get on his knees and pray for the person’s salvation.

I’ve even seen some evidence of glee at the prospect of burning folks on this thread.

I have too. It certainly sheds quite a different light on the Church.

 

[TrueLight]

I have too. It certainly sheds quite a different light on the Church.

I guess no one else is weighing in because they either avoid this forum completely (now I’m starting to see why), or they don’t know what is being said in this thread.

I cannot believe this is current Catholic teaching, but I will ask my FSSP instructor tomorrow.

 

[Rascalking]

You’re mistake is that no God-fearing, Catholic who practices love of their neighbor would choose to burn those who have fallen away. Instead he would get on his knees and pray for the person’s salvation.

I’ve even seen some evidence of glee at the prospect of burning folks on this thread.

Threads like this make me sick. Some people DO seem to almost enjoy the thought of burning “heretics”.

 

[yablabo]

You’re mistake is that no God-fearing, Catholic who practices love of their neighbor would choose to burn those who have fallen away. Instead he would get on his knees and pray for the person’s salvation.

I’ve even seen some evidence of glee at the prospect of burning folks on this thread.

Ok, I see. Well, I see no mistake here.

The question is not about people who have “fallen away,” but rather about those who choose to leave Jesus Christ in the Eucharist and/or His Church by obstinacy (i.e., heretics). I think that most fail to see the division here.

I do not experience glee, personally, at the thought of a fellow human getting burned alive. It’s a terrifying prospect. Scripture even tells us that we should not rejoice at the deaths of our fellow men, since we too have our own deaths to look forward to.

– Nicole

 

[TrueLight]

Threads like this make me sick. Some people DO seem to almost enjoy the thought of burning “heretics”.

Ah… a voice of reason.

Maybe some others will start weighing in as well.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

Ah… a voice of reason.

Maybe some others will start weighing in as well.

I don’t really see anyone who ISN’T a voice of reason. Yablabo brings fine points and fine claims with fine evidence. I’m not calling for the burning of heretics, I don’t see anyone who is calling for the burning of heretics. I am sure there is a more humane way to silence the heathens. I hope I don’t get in trouble for saying this… I don’t mean any harm.

~ Pius :knight1:

PS - please don’t flame me (Get it!?!?! )

 

[George_Stegmeir]

The one mistake all former respondants to this topic make is judging historical behavior by contemporary standards. The age of the Reformation and Counter-reformation was brutal. Punishment was done in public and most crimes that would be treated lightly today-a fine, or short period of incarceration-were hanging offenses. Beheading was considered to be a merciful form of execution and reserved for the nobility or the wealthy. The penalty of drawing and quartering was used throughout Europe for major offenses. To “draw” someone meant that ones internal organs wer cut out of the body while the prisoner was still alive. Than the body was cut in 4 pieces and each part exhibited at the 4 major gates of the city.
Burning at the stake was particularly grusome, because in the eyes of the people at that time a cremated body could not be resurected on Judgement Day.
Bear in mind that the although the excuse for the Inquisition was religious, it was largely a secular affair, used to control the mass of people in the countries where it was used.

 

[Rence]

Ok well, not sure if these documents are real or not, or if the quotes are taken out of context or not, but here’s my take:

I’m grateful beyond what words can describe that I live in a place that separates Church and State, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. These threads are always a real eye-opener for me, especially during election time. The Church obviously doesn’t condemn the separation of Church and State or they would have had more than a mouthful to say about our Constitution, which assures the separation of Church and State. If the Church really condemned the separation of Church and State, it would have a teaching impact on our US citizens who choose to be Catholic.

I’m also very grateful that the Church doesn’t have any power beyond Vatican City, and that countries don’t have to rely on an alliance with the Vatican in order to succeed among its equals in the world. That will prevent the misguided from taking advantage of those who trust the Church. The documents I have read all say that being Catholic must be consensual. I haven’t seen any proof of: “either your Catholic or you should be burned at the stake or otherwise imprisoned and/or executed.”

Frankly, no one can tell the difference between a “heretic” and an “unbeliever”. That is subjective. Not objective. We can’t see inside individuals and know their motives.

If the Church really did order the burning of “heretics” or those who didn’t want to be Catholic anymore in favor of another religion, then it’s obvious they were wrong, and that they erred. I don’t really care what the rationale would have been at that time, it would have been a mistake. Since the Church claims it is guided by the Holy Spirit and is not “able” to err, the standard held to the Church will be high. In other words, the world in which the Church operates should not impact the truth of what is right and what is wrong. It’s never okay to force one’s religion on an unwilling party. That makes me question what other errors they made along the way. But then again, I’m not entirely convinced the quotes are correct and quoted in their correct context.

For those posters who want another brutal inquisition from the first two pages of posts, If there ever was an Inquisition again, that would tip me over the edge, and I’d just leave the Church. My conscience would not allow me to remain a part of a culture that would kill others for their beliefs. The “either join us or die” mentality doesn’t work for me. Then again, I seriously doubt that’s what the True Church teaches.

But I just don’t see another bloody Inquisition happening. People won’t tolerate it. Those days are over. That’s among one of the reasons this country was made to begin with. It’s not going to change for a few (as was said in some post above: the minority) radicals. Whatever the modern day Inquisitors do, now called “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”, they obviously lack any real authority in the real world. They can’t control lay people, they can’t control our politicians…they really can only hope Catholics will submit to their authority because they can’t enforce a, “do it, or else”.

 

[TrueLight]

Ok well, not sure if these documents are real or not, or if the quotes are taken out of context or not, but here’s my take:

I’m grateful beyond what words can describe that I live in a place that separates Church and State, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. These threads are always a real eye-opener for me, especially during election time. The Church obviously doesn’t condemn the separation of Church and State or they would have had more than a mouthful to say about our Constitution, which assures the separation of Church and State. If the Church really condemned the separation of Church and State, it would have a teaching impact on our US citizens who choose to be Catholic.

I’m also very grateful that the Church doesn’t have any power beyond Vatican City, and that countries don’t have to rely on an alliance with the Vatican in order to succeed among its equals in the world. That will prevent the misguided from taking advantage of those who trust the Church. The documents I have read all say that being Catholic must be consensual. I haven’t seen any proof of: “either your Catholic or you should be burned at the stake or otherwise imprisoned and/or executed.”

Frankly, no one can tell the difference between a “heretic” and an “unbeliever”. That is subjective. Not objective. We can’t see inside individuals and know their motives.

If the Church really did order the burning of “heretics” or those who didn’t want to be Catholic anymore in favor of another religion, then it’s obvious they were wrong, and that they erred. I don’t really care what the rationale would have been at that time, it would have been a mistake. Since the Church claims it is guided by the Holy Spirit and is not “able” to err, the standard held to the Church will be high. In other words, the world in which the Church operates should not impact the truth of what is right and what is wrong. It’s never okay to force one’s religion on an unwilling party. That makes me question what other errors they made along the way. But then again, I’m not entirely convinced the quotes are correct and quoted in their correct context.

For those posters who want another brutal inquisition from the first two pages of posts, If there ever was an Inquisition again, that would tip me over the edge, and I’d just leave the Church. My conscience would not allow me to remain a part of a culture that would kill others for their beliefs. The “either join us or die” mentality doesn’t work for me. Then again, I seriously doubt that’s what the True Church teaches.

But I just don’t see another bloody Inquisition happening. People won’t tolerate it. Those days are over. That’s among one of the reasons this country was made to begin with. It’s not going to change for a few (as was said in some post above: the minority) radicals. Whatever the modern day Inquisitors do, now called “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”, they obviously lack any real authority in the real world. They can’t control lay people, they can’t control our politicians…they really can only hope Catholics will submit to their authority because they can’t enforce a, “do it, or else”.

I think only small minority would want to see another inquisition and I really believe some opinions expressed here are not current Catholic teaching.

I believe even as traditionalists, we have to be cautious. It’s one thing to say that we want COTT and the three hour fast, and traditional devotions; it’s another to find old documents that say heretics should be burned and try to apply it to today.

 

[Road2Damascus]

No, I’m not mixing any eras up. It points that every era has it’s excesses. The 20th century, etc. etc.

The Church should not be villified too much. Too, I like Martin Luther myself, but you will find no shortage of people who say his work foreshadowed what was to come in Germany.

 

[yablabo]

I think only small minority would want to see another inquisition and I really believe some opinions expressed here are not current Catholic teaching.

I believe even as traditionalists, we have to be cautious. It’s one thing to say that we want COTT and the three hour fast, and traditional devotions; it’s another to find old documents that say heretics should be burned and try to apply it to today.

You mean…it’s wrong for a Pope to bind us to condemn errors as he condemns them as if these condemnations are catholic, i.e., universal?

– Nicole

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

Ok well, not sure if these documents are real or not, or if the quotes are taken out of context or not, but here’s my take:

I’m grateful beyond what words can describe that I live in a place that separates Church and State, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. These threads are always a real eye-opener for me, especially during election time. The Church obviously doesn’t condemn the separation of Church and State or they would have had more than a mouthful to say about our Constitution, which assures the separation of Church and State. If the Church really condemned the separation of Church and State, it would have a teaching impact on our US citizens who choose to be Catholic.

I’m also very grateful that the Church doesn’t have any power beyond Vatican City, and that countries don’t have to rely on an alliance with the Vatican in order to succeed among its equals in the world. That will prevent the misguided from taking advantage of those who trust the Church. The documents I have read all say that being Catholic must be consensual. I haven’t seen any proof of: “either your Catholic or you should be burned at the stake or otherwise imprisoned and/or executed.”

Frankly, no one can tell the difference between a “heretic” and an “unbeliever”. That is subjective. Not objective. We can’t see inside individuals and know their motives.

If the Church really did order the burning of “heretics” or those who didn’t want to be Catholic anymore in favor of another religion, then it’s obvious they were wrong, and that they erred. I don’t really care what the rationale would have been at that time, it would have been a mistake. Since the Church claims it is guided by the Holy Spirit and is not “able” to err, the standard held to the Church will be high. In other words, the world in which the Church operates should not impact the truth of what is right and what is wrong. It’s never okay to force one’s religion on an unwilling party. That makes me question what other errors they made along the way. But then again, I’m not entirely convinced the quotes are correct and quoted in their correct context.

For those posters who want another brutal inquisition from the first two pages of posts, If there ever was an Inquisition again, that would tip me over the edge, and I’d just leave the Church. My conscience would not allow me to remain a part of a culture that would kill others for their beliefs. The “either join us or die” mentality doesn’t work for me. Then again, I seriously doubt that’s what the True Church teaches.

But I just don’t see another bloody Inquisition happening. People won’t tolerate it. Those days are over. That’s among one of the reasons this country was made to begin with. It’s not going to change for a few (as was said in some post above: the minority) radicals. Whatever the modern day Inquisitors do, now called “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”, they obviously lack any real authority in the real world. They can’t control lay people, they can’t control our politicians…they really can only hope Catholics will submit to their authority because they can’t enforce a, “do it, or else”.

The documents are not fake, and I strongly disagree that they were taken out of context.

However, another document you should comment on is this:

Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae

It discusses (and in some regards, condemns) ‘Americanism’.

What you said that “being Catholic must be consensual.” Is quite true. However, if this holds any sway in this discussion:

Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. (Sec. III Num. 15 Syllabus of Errors)

I await your comments and interpretations of that. I had a discussion some time ago regarding a similar topic and these quotes were used. It was quite informative!

Also, on tour comment that you are “the Church doesn’t have any power beyond Vatican City, and that countries don’t have to rely on an alliance with the Vatican in order to succeed among its equals in the world.”

Though I disagree with this, I would like to see, rather, your rebuttal to the following:

The sacred ministers of the Church and the Roman pontiff are to be absolutely excluded from every charge and dominion over temporal affairs. (Sec. V Num. 27 Syllabus of Errors)

The abolition of the temporal power of which the Apostolic See is possessed would contribute in the greatest degree to the liberty and prosperity of the Church. (Sec. IX Num. 76 Syllabus of Errors)

I understand that you do not mean for the total abolition of the Papal State and to return to the time before the Lateran Treaty and after the Fall of Rome (1870), correct? These are all directly from the Syllabus of Modern Errors. Please feel free to search them on your own, there is about 80 condemnations in the Syllabus and some are quite prevalent today - even in our Holy Catholic Church!

I also ask for evidence as to your claim that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith lacks real authority, because I am not sure if this is simply an opinion or if you have evidence behind it.

Also, the only Inquisition that was under the total jurisdiction of the Holy Father, was the ‘Roman Inquisition’. And (although I haven’t seen the statistics) I do not believe they dispatched many lives. For instance, the much controversial trial of Galileo Galilei. The Church did not kill Galileo, but the Inquisition put him under house arrest. I don’t see anything wrong with that. Please, help me understand as you do, where the PAPACY erred, as I am quite eager to know what you mean.

I await your response!

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[Road2Damascus]

Right, the Roman or Papal Inquisitions were mild.

The Spanish inquisition was worse and you’d have to read if it were per the Church, the Vatican told them to be more lenient. Again, don’t forget, the Moors were in power for hundreds of years in parts of Spain and Portugal and the Spanish were making Spain a Christian nation again. There is a lot to this.

 

[TrueLight]

Right, the Roman or Papal Inquisitions were mild.

The Spanish inquisition was worse and you’d have to read if it were per the Church, the Vatican told them to be more lenient. Again, don’t forget, the Moors were in power for hundreds of years in parts of Spain and Portugal and the Spanish were making Spain a Christian nation again. There is a lot to this.

The discussion has moved far from how much was the Church involved in the burning of heretics to was it right to burn heretics and if it were legally possible, should they be burned today.

 

[Rence]

The documents are not fake, and I strongly disagree that they were taken out of context.

Then the documents are disturbing to me…the document is a contradiction to all I was raised to believe the Catholic Church to be, as well as stuff of “bad movies” full of “inaccuracies” about the Church. But then again, life is full of surprises.

What you said that “being Catholic must be consensual.” Is quite true. However, if this holds any sway in this discussion:

Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. (Sec. III Num. 15 Syllabus of Errors)

I interpret that to mean exactly what it says: everyone is free to choose their religion. What more is there to say? We certainly don’t see people embracing religions they don’t believe in or religions they believe to be false, unless they are forced to do so by an outside party.

Also, on tour comment that you are “the Church doesn’t have any power beyond Vatican City, and that countries don’t have to rely on an alliance with the Vatican in order to succeed among its equals in the world.”

Though I disagree with this, I would like to see, rather, your rebuttal to the following:

The sacred ministers of the Church and the Roman pontiff are to be absolutely excluded from every charge and dominion over temporal affairs. (Sec. V Num. 27 Syllabus of Errors)

Well…I don’t have a rebuttal to the above. Let me think about them a bit and get back to you Why do you disagree with the above? So that we are on the same page.

I understand that you do not mean for the total abolition of the Papal State and to return to the time before the Lateran Treaty and after the Fall of Rome (1870), correct? These are all directly from the Syllabus of Modern Errors. Please feel free to search them on your own, there is about 80 condemnations in the Syllabus and some are quite prevalent today - even in our Holy Catholic Church!

I’ve never even heard of “Syllabus of Modern Errors”.

I also ask for evidence as to your claim that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith lacks real authority, because I am not sure if this is simply an opinion or if you have evidence behind it.

Just so we’re on the same page…what kind of authority does the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith have exactly? It can’t enforce any “laws” and there are no consequences for breaking Church “laws”. In the past, the Church was able to enforce Catholic laws because the secular government incorporated Church law into secular law. So, breaking Church law, was also breaking secular law, and was punishable by the secular authorities. Today, there are no countries that make it a civil crime by breaking Church laws, and certainly the US doesn’t. So, I’m kind of confused. And the reason why I am confused is that I don’t see the Church as having any more authority than people give it. When the Church lays down rules and laws, people in choosing to be Catholic and in Communion with the Church, obey the rules. If they don’t obey the rules, there are no ramifications.