The Inquisition and Burning of Heretics

[followingtheway]

Yes as did the Anglican Church, the Calvinist Church and in Eastern Orthodox countries. The Roman Catholic Church wasn’t the only church to burn people as “heretics”

 

[yablabo]

Wow. I don’t even know what to say. I really hope this was a discipline - a misguided one and not infallible teaching.

Of course if you’re burning, you’ll throw yourself on the mercy of Christ. No free will there.

What is misguided about destroying the body in order to save the soul? St. Paul turned a man over to the demons for that very purpose. I don’t see anything misguided in that at all, but rather the greatest charity.

– Nicole

 

[TrueLight]

What is misguided about destroying the body in order to save the soul? St. Paul turned a man over to the demons for that very purpose. I don’t see anything misguided in that at all, but rather the greatest charity.

– Nicole

How does burning someone save their soul when they are not choosing God out of free will, but out of fear of death and pain?

 

[Rence]

It’s referring to the careful collection and destruction of the documents, not the people.

Whether the Bull Exsurge Domine contains solemn judgments or not will have to be discerned by whether the Pope exercised his infallible magisterium using the criteria laid out in the First Vatican Council.

The part you quoted looks like it is binding upon religious assent, which is by the Pope’s ordinary magisterium, not his infallible magisterium. That doesn’t mean that one can dissent if one likes, that means if one dissents without good reason (i.e., the article contradicts a solemn judgment) one is committing mortal sin…and that if one dies in that state, after one’s particular judgment, one goes to hell.

– Nicole

Actually, I’ll have to ask a priest or apologist because it does appear that the person was to be burned. Here it is again:

We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them. They will incur these penalties if they presume to uphold them in any way, personally or through another or others, directly or indirectly, tacitly or explicitly, publicly or occultly, either in their own homes or in other public or private places. Indeed immediately after the publication of this letter these works, wherever they may be, shall be sought out carefully by the ordinaries and others [ecclesiastics and regulars], and under each and every one of the above penalties shall be burned publicly and solemnly in the presence of the clerics and people.

“under each and every one of the above penalties” doesn’t apply to things, but to people. Penalties are enforced on people, not objects.

 

[yablabo]

Yeah but there is no merit in agreeing to be Catholic, and renouncing Lutheranism (or any other religion), while being burned at the stake…how can one’s soul be saved in that way? It’s not a free choice in that way.

If a person becomes a heretic, he has blinded himself to reason by his obstinacy. He has, in effect, destroyed his own ability to make free choices. The flames of the fire show one that temporal benefit gained by becoming a heretic (mostly the erroneous justification of sins) is a false benefit. It gives one a chance to contemplate the everlasting nature of the fires of hell, by tasting earthly fires. In that case, the heretic, can choose to renounce his obstinacy in the good hope for the salvific graces of Christ through perfect contrition and the resolve to seek Confession were it available to him. While the act of choice to renounce the heresy may not be as meritorious as an act done outside coersion, it can yet be meritorious, simply in a smaller degree.

– Nicole

 

[TrueLight]

If a person becomes a heretic, he has blinded himself to reason by his obstinacy. He has, in effect, destroyed his own ability to make free choices. The flames of the fire show one that temporal benefit gained by becoming a heretic (mostly the erroneous justification of sins) is a false benefit. It gives one a chance to contemplate the everlasting nature of the fires of hell, by tasting earthly fires. In that case, the heretic, can choose to renounce his obstinacy in the good hope for the salvific graces of Christ through perfect contrition and the resolve to seek Confession were it available to him. While the act of choice to renounce the heresy may not be as meritorious as an act done outside coersion, it can yet be meritorious, simply in a smaller degree.

– Nicole

This is embarrassing.

So if the law allowed, we’d be in the business of murdering people for their unbelief?

I refuse to believe that. I think the Church has grown in understanding as it regards burning heretics.

 

[yablabo]

Actually, I’ll have to ask a priest or apologist because it does appear that the person was to be burned. Here it is again:

“under each and every one of the above penalties” doesn’t apply to things, but to people. Penalties are enforced on people, not objects.

Actually, penalties ARE invoked upon writings. Check out the condemnation of The Three Chapters in the Second Council of Constantinople. The Fathers of the Council clearly anathematized the authors named AND their writings. Also, the writings of the “Friar Augustine” were condemned and censured (meaning penalties added) by the Council of Florence.

– Nicole

 

[yablabo]

This is embarrassing.

So if the law allowed, we’d be in the business of murdering people for their non-belief?

I refuse to believe that. I think the Church has grown in understanding as it regards burning heretics.

TrueLight -

Bless your heart. Step back a minute and examine your words. It is NOT in the least “murder” for an authority to carry out the just sentence of execution. Even Bl. Pope John Paul II does not suggest that the death penalty is murder when he states that he sees no reason it should be continued to be used in first world countries.

Murder is an act of usurpation, of stealing an office which is not yours, by which the life of an innocent man is taken by direct or deliberate action.

God does grant the authority to the state to kill or execute capital criminals; this is not murder. Heretics are a type of capital criminal…and therefore can be subjected to death under the law. That does not mean that they must be, however, merely that they can be.

– Nicole

 

[AntiqueCatholic]

I don’t know if anyone’s said this yet but punishments in the past were very harsh. Hangings used to be a form of public entertainment. European societies were often ravaged by civil and international wars, plague, famines and brigandry.

So a public, extravagant death was suitable for notorious sinners who just might destabilise the country if they were let continue on their way.

 

[TrueLight]

TrueLight -

Bless your heart. Step back a minute and examine your words. It is NOT in the least “murder” for an authority to carry out the just sentence of execution. Even Bl. Pope John Paul II does not suggest that the death penalty is murder when he states that he sees no reason it should be continued to be used in first world countries.

Murder is an act of usurpation, of stealing an office which is not yours, by which the life of an innocent man is taken by direct or deliberate action.

God does grant the authority to the state to kill or execute capital criminals; this is not murder. Heretics are a type of capital criminal…and therefore can be subjected to death under the law. That does not mean that they must be, however, merely that they can be.

– Nicole

Heretics may have been a type of capital criminal then since there was no separation between church and state, but do you honestly believe unbelievers are a type of capital criminal nowadays?

 

[yablabo]

Heretics may have been a type of capital criminal then since there was no separation between church and state, but do you honestly believe unbelievers are a type of capital criminal nowadays?

Heretics and unbelievers are not in the least the same.

Unbelievers are not capital criminals, heretics are. A heretic is one who has embraced heresy, that is (can. 751, Code of Canon Law), the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after baptism of an article which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith.

Also, separation of Church and state is a condemned notion:

Syllabus of Errors of Ven. Pope Pius IX
Error #55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

– Nicole

 

[Rence]

This is embarrassing.

Unfortunately, it’s more than just embarrassing. It’s actually quite disturbing.

So if the law allowed, we’d be in the business of murdering people for their unbelief?

All the while saying that freedom of religion is one of the rights of people too.

I refuse to believe that. I think the Church has grown in understanding as it regards burning heretics.

I think that if this is true, that the Church has made a very big mistake. To kill people because they don’t believe what the Church teachings, and instead, favors another religion is horrifying, and disgusting. I’m shocked.

 

[TrueLight]

Heretics and unbelievers are not in the least the same.

Unbelievers are not capital criminals, heretics are. A heretic is one who has embraced heresy, that is (can. 751, Code of Canon Law), the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after baptism of an article which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith.

Also, separation of Church and state is a condemned notion:

Is it now?

In any case, so you truly believe in 2011, that if a Catholic brother or sister disagrees with Church teaching, like the countless Catholics who use birth control…instead of people praying for them, they should be burned?

 

[Rence]

Heretics and unbelievers are not in the least the same.

Unbelievers are not capital criminals, heretics are. A heretic is one who has embraced heresy, that is (can. 751, Code of Canon Law), the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after baptism of an article which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith.

It’s beyond me to think that people expect others to be bound to Canon Law when they have been Baptized against their will, and without their consent, when they were infants. How can one impose baptism and therefore, adherance to canon law, when they never agreed to follow them in the first place?

Also, separation of Church and state is a condemned notion:
– Nicole

But fortunately, this is what we have here though. So that people can choose their religion and not be burned at the stake for doing so…

There has to be some mistake. The Church can’t state that every human has the right to freedom of religion, and then burn people at the stake for choosing their religion. It doesn’t make sense.

 

[yablabo]

It’s beyond me to think that people expect others to be bound to Canon Law when they have been Baptized against their will, and without their consent, when they were infants. How can one impose baptism and therefore, adherance to canon law, when they never agreed to follow them in the first place?

It’s false to presume that a person who was baptized in infancy was baptized against his will. By the profession of the baptismal sponsors, the one baptized has contracted a relationship with God, by the waters of baptism (validly applied) a person begins to receive the benefits of the relationship with God (i.e., remission of sin, an indelible character on the soul, etc.). As the person matures, his will is in line with the will of God and the promises made at his baptism. It is only when he chooses to commit mortal sin that he breaks his side of the contract and begins to divide his will from or turn it against his baptism. No matter, God is forgiving and provides us a way to resume the contract through the keys given to his Church.

The Council of Trent, Session VII, Canons on Baptism:
Canon XIV. If any one saith, that those who have been thus baptized when children, are, when they have grown up, to be asked whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their names when they were baptized; and that, in case they answer that they will not, they are to be left to their own will; and are not to be compelled meanwhile to
a Christian life by any other penalty, save that they be excluded from the participation of the Eucharist, and of the other sacraments, until they repent; let him be anathema.

But fortunately, this is what we have here though. So that people can choose their religion and not be burned at the stake for doing so…

There has to be some mistake. The Church can’t state that every human has the right to freedom of religion, and then burn people at the stake for choosing their religion. It doesn’t make sense.

The Church has not stated that every human has the right to freedom of religion. It has stated QUITE the contrary:

Syllabus of Errors of Ven. Pope Pius IX
Error #15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

Error #77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. – Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.

Error #78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

Error #79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. – Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.

– Nicole

 

[TrueLight]

It’s false to presume that a person who was baptized in infancy was baptized against his will. By the profession of the baptismal sponsors, the one baptized has contracted a relationship with God, by the waters of baptism (validly applied) a person begins to receive the benefits of the relationship with God (i.e., remission of sin, an indelible character on the soul, etc.). As the person matures, his will is in line with the will of God and the promises made at his baptism. It is only when he chooses to commit mortal sin that he breaks his side of the contract and begins to divide his will from or turn it against his baptism. No matter, God is forgiving and provides us a way to resume the contract through the keys given to his Church.

The Church has not stated that every human has the right to freedom of religion. It has stated QUITE the contrary:

– Nicole

Okay I get it. You’re only quoting from Pre-Vatican II sources. I won’t even ask what you think of a certain ecumenical Pope.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

Separation of Church and State is VERY much condemned. Again, to cite the Syllabus of Modern Errors of 1864 - Section VI number 55 states

The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.

I know this was already said, but I felt the need to tell you where its from and where it is in the Syllabus. This condemnation of the notion is backed up by the 1852 Allocution ‘Acerbissimum’. The union of Church AND State is also backed up, I believe, in the Encyclical ‘Quanta Cura’ of 1864, as well.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[TrueLight]

I wish this post had a poll. I’d love to see what people think about burning heretics. Maybe I’ll start one.

 

[yablabo]

Okay I get it. You’re only quoting from Pre-Vatican II sources. I won’t even ask what you think of a certain ecumenical Pope.

The Second Vatican Council didn’t change anything. As Pope Paul VI suggests in his encyclical Ecclesiam Suam, the Second Vatican Council is merely a pastoral continuation of the First Vatican Council. What should it matter if I provide true sources the the Church herself uses to interpret the documents of the Second Vatican Council?

– Nicole

 

[TrueLight]

The Second Vatican Council didn’t change anything. As Pope Paul VI suggests in his encyclical Ecclesiam Suam, the Second Vatican Council is merely a pastoral continuation of the First Vatican Council. What should it matter if I provide true sources the the Church herself uses to interpret the documents of the Second Vatican Council?

– Nicole

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

I really believe you are mistaken.