The Inquisition and Burning of Heretics

[Rence]

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.

After all the denials by people that the Church didn’t burn people, that the Church didn’t condemn people do death for not being Catholic, yadda yadda, and after all the time I’ve spent defending the Church in these situations, I’m just shocked to learn that the joke was on me and that it was true

Thankfully, I don’t think we’ll ever go back to that business.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

The quotes I included in my posts were from the Syllabus of Modern errors. Albeit, those quotes were condemned notions. Therefore saying that “Every man is not free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true” I believe.

The other quotes that have to do with the Temporal power of the Pope, are likewise condemned notions. So please look at them again from the a condemned perspective, and then see if you actually agree with them.

I’m sorry I didn’t explain what the Syllabus was, before.

~Pius :knight1:

 

[yablabo]

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:

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:

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:

Hi, regarding your post, the quotations you listed should have been identified as errors. I fear from reading Rence’s response that he does not realize that those are condemned errors.

– Nicole

 

[Rence]

Hi, regarding your post, the quotations you listed should have been identified as errors. I fear from reading Rence’s response that he does not realize that those are condemned errors.

– Nicole

Nicole, thank you but fear not, I figured it out after a few minutes

But I will admit, at first, I wondered if it was the effects of my sinus headache or if it really was written in ‘reverse’.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

Hi, regarding your post, the quotations you listed should have been identified as errors. I fear from reading Rence’s response that he does not realize that those are condemned errors.

– Nicole

I did list them as errors in my citation I clearly noted (Sec. X Num. XX Syllabus of Errors). I’ve never had to clarify it before. Oh well- no problem and no harm done.

 

[JReducation]

The approach that many (not all) are taking to this subject is amateurish. By that, I mean amateur historians and theologians.

Yes, there was an Inquisition. Yes, Catholics did burn heretics. Very often the tribunals were headed by judges who were priests, friars and bishops. Yes, popes knew it. We cannot attempt to cover the sun with a thumbprint. That would be ridiculous. That’s part of the problem of Traddom. We tent to try to justify and explain away anything that points to the fact that Catholics committed crimes against Protestants, Muslims, Jews and other Catholics. We should take example from Bl. John Paul who admitted that our ancestors engaged in horrible behaviors and apologized for them, instead of explaining them away.

The keyword here is “ancestors”. The executioners not all Catholics, nor were their victims all Protestants. Just look at England. It was a time in history when men believed that the only way to cure error and protect society from error was execution. Christians and Muslims executed each other. Catholics and Protestants executed each other; but so did the French and the English, the Spanish and the Portuguese, the English and the Irish. Let’s not forget the witch hunts in New England. This mindset still exists in many Muslim nations. “Get rid of error by getting rid of the messenger of error.” It is a very limited human way of thinking. As a result, many people have suffered martyrdom for their conscience.

As to Rence’s point on the Constitution of the USA and the power of the Sacred Congregation for the Faith, there is dreaming here by many Americans today. The secularist agenda has pushed a great lie on today’s society and many people have bought into it. The secularist agenda is to create an indifferent society under the title of tolerance. Tolerance and indifference are not the same thing.

The Founding Fathers never advocated for separation of Church and State. In fact, they advocated for the presence of religion in the political affairs of the nation. They secured that the state would not adopt an official state religion as England, France and Holland had, which is where the bulk of the colonists came from. There were reasons for this. The greatest of all was to protect equality among the citizens. It was not an attempt to keep religion out of the market place. It was also an attempt to protect the rights of religion. Even after the adoption of the new constitution, many states had official state religions. Because the constitution did not then and does not now apply to what the states can and cannot do in this regard. The government to which it speaks is the federal government.

This neutrality was later extended to geography as well. Remember that the first capitol of the USA was New York City, then Philadelphia. Finally, it was decided to carve out a district from VA and MD to erect a federal city in order to protect the neutrality of the federal government. What we’re seeing here is the government’s attempt to remain neutral on many matters, including religion, not to separate itself. The federal government has no more separated itself from religion than it has from the states. Just look at Congress. We employ a Jesuit priest as the chaplain and every morning Congress opens with prayer. No prayer, no hearings that day. That’s a rule of both houses. It can only be broken when there is a national emergency. However, the members of the houses and their staff are free to attend or not attend. There is the protection of religion form the arm of the state.

The attempt to minimize the authority of the Congregation of the Faith is also part of modern man’s attempt to take God out of the picture; but God will not be taken out. If by authority one means that the Sacred Congregation cannot imprison people for dissent, no it cannot. Authority is not measured by its ability to enforce law by brute force. Authority is measured by divine attribute. The Sacred Congregation receives its authority from the Successor of Peter, acts, and speaks in his behalf. Therefore, it speaks with authority given to it by God.

One does not have to believe it to make it true. That which is true does not need man’s consent or assent. It matters very little whether people believe what the Sacred Congregation teaches and defends. It does not change that which is true.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[yablabo]

I did list them as errors in my citation I clearly noted (Sec. X Num. XX Syllabus of Errors). I’ve never had to clarify it before. Oh well- no problem and no harm done.

I mean it gets confusing when you list a positive statement which has been condemned without introducing each specific positive statement as “error” … That’s all I meant…

Best wishes.

– Nicole

 

[Te_Deum]

Nicole, are you married? Because you have no idea how rare it is to find a woman who agrees with me so much !

 

[TrueLight]

Br,. Jay,

Is it current teaching that it is right and just that “heretics” be burned? I’m not speaking of what happened in the past. I’m asking if the documents support that it is right to do this and if it were legally possible that it should be done?

 

[Rence]

The quotes I included in my posts were from the Syllabus of Modern errors. Albeit, those quotes were condemned notions. Therefore saying that “Every man is not free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true” I believe.

The other quotes that have to do with the Temporal power of the Pope, are likewise condemned notions. So please look at them again from the a condemned perspective, and then see if you actually agree with them.

Yeah, I got that. I’ve just never heard of them before. Ok…so…

Quote:
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 do believe every person is free to choose their religion, as guided by the light of their reason, as they consider true. I believe Jews are free to be Jews, and Lutherans are free to be Lutherans, and Baptists are free to be Baptists and Catholics are free to be Catholics.

Quote:
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)

Not sure exactly what that means, but I don’t believe they should have the power to punish people for not going along with every little thing they teach. Soooo, I guess, I do think they should be excluded from “every charge” and “dominion” over temporal affairs. Their inclusion should be catechizing Catholics and potential converts to Catholicism, but not imprisoning those who don’t swallow it hook, line and sinker.

quote:
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)

Not sure exactly what that means either because I don’t see that the Apostolic See has any temporal power to abolish. The power that contributes to it’s liberty and prosperity is the education it provides to the masses.

 

[JReducation]

Br,. Jay,

Is it current teaching that it is right and just that “heretics” be burned? I’m not speaking of what happened in the past. I’m asking if the documents support that it is right to do this and if it were legally possible that it should be done?

Good grief, NO!!!

This was just another form of capital punishment. The position of the Church on the use of captial punishment is very clear.

**2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”**

A heretic is not an aggressor who poses an immediate threat to human life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TrueLight]

Good grief, NO!!!

This was just another form of capital punishment. The position of the Church on the use of captial punishment is very clear.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

A heretic is not an aggressor who poses an immediate threat to human life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you for stating this. Because there are some of this thread saying otherwise.

 

[Te_Deum]

A heretic is not an aggressor who poses an immediate threat to human life.

Only if you consider the human soul of be of negligent consequence to temporal life… I would argue that a heretic does pose an immediate threat to human life, a threat to our life in the heavenly kingdom.

You Franciscans… go hug a tree !

 

[TrueLight]

Only if you consider the human soul of be of negligent consequence to temporal life… I would argue that a heretic does pose an immediate threat to human life, a threat to our life in the heavenly kingdom.

You Franciscans… go hug a tree !

Seriously, I can’t imagine which traditionalist group thinks this way. Who do you hang around with?

 

[Te_Deum]

Seriously, I can’t imagine which traditionalist group thinks this way. Who do you hang around with?

Diocesan .

 

[TrueLight]

Diocesan .

I’m pretty sure most traditionalists do not believe “heretics” should be burned. So it must be a super rad trad thing.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

I do believe every person is free to choose their religion, as guided by the light of their reason, as they consider true. I believe Jews are free to be Jews, and Lutherans are free to be Lutherans, and Baptists are free to be Baptists and Catholics are free to be Catholics.

I assumed you would. But why, after you have been shown the evidence that the Holy Father, the Blessed Pope Pius IX condemned such a notion, do you carry on believing it? Of course, I don’t think Pius IX was calling for their execution, but instead for their conversion. I don’t think that interpretation is wrong, however I have struggled with this particular condemnation for months.

Not sure exactly what that means, but I don’t believe they should have the power to punish people for not going along with every little thing they teach. Soooo, I guess, I do think they should be excluded from “every charge” and “dominion” over temporal affairs. Their inclusion should be catechizing Catholics and potential converts to Catholicism, but not imprisoning those who don’t swallow it hook, line and sinker.

Again, even after this notion has been condemned by His Holiness, you continue to believe it. Why is this? The Church and her morals should be intertiwned with government. The Pope does not answer to princes or kings, or presidents. It is the other way aroiund, completely. That notion is condemned a few times in the Syllabus of Errors, as well. The teaching of the Catholic Church is not hostile to the well- being and interests of society.

Not sure exactly what that means either because I don’t see that the Apostolic See has any temporal power to abolish. The power that contributes to it’s liberty and prosperity is the education it provides to the masses.

The Holy See has the Vatican City. The last remnant of the once much larger Papal State of the Patrimony of Saint Peter. The Syllabus of Errors was promulgated at a time called the “Risorgimento”. Albeit, a turbulant time on the Italian Peninsula. It was the Italian unification under the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia to become the Kingdom of Italy. The aformentioned kingdom waged war against the Holy Father, and the Holy Father lashed back. Sadly, in 1870, Rome fell to the Italians, and until 1929, the Pope had no Sovereign State. Upon that, he was a virtual prisoner of the Vatican. Never leaving. Never going abroad.

This changed, however, in 1929. Benito Mussolini and H.H. Pope Pius XI signed the ‘Lateran Treaty’. Which is still in place today and grants the Holy See jurisdiction over the Roman enclave known as ‘Vatican City’.

This is not to say these condemnations are outdated - they aren’t. Some people (Catholics alike) call for the Pope to give up the Vatican City and all temporal power.

I hope I have cleared some things for you. This discussion is, and continues to be, fruitful in many ways.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[Te_Deum]

I’m pretty sure most traditionalists do not believe “heretics” should be burned. So it must be a super rad trad thing.

I’m not saying every heretic should be. Simply that it’s perfectly within the state’s rights to do so. And please, I don’t even identify as a “traditionalist”. I’m a Catholic. Simple as that.

 

[JReducation]

The problem here is the Syllabus of Errors itself. Fr. Joseph Ratzinger was one of the theologians who suggested that he be laid aside and that the errors be addressed from the context of the Church today.

When he became the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Faith, he continued with the same idea and now as pope. Many people have misunderstood him and he has tweaked his positions too. Error remains error. There is not debate with that point.

What changes are the context and the players. At the time when the Syllabus was written, the Church was rooted in predominantly Catholic nations. Even though she had little temporal power, she had a great deal of political influence. Many political leaders were leaning toward Socialism and Capitalism, both them are very dangerous to the faith. Socialism tries to annul God by promoting atheism. Capitalism tries to annul God by replacing him with wealth and power.

The Church agrees that no one should be forced to embrace the faith or any faith. Therefore, she condemns any attempt to do so. People must freely embrace the faith. However, she does not say that people can embrace error. No, it’s not true that people are free to become Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindu or other. The Church has never said this.

Even Mother Teresa is often misquoted on the matter. She said, “A Muslim must be a good Muslim, a Hindu a good Hindu and a Christian a good Christian.” She did not say, “You can choose to be a Muslim, Hindu or Christian.” She was speaking about those who are born into these faith traditions. She was coming at this from the teachings of Bl. John Paul, which she knew very well. There are shadows of truth outside of the physical boundaries of the Church. If you follow those truths, whether you discover them in Islam, Hinduism, Judaism or Protestantism, they will lead you to Catholicism. The individual has a moral duty to get to know the meaning of these truths and to follow where they lead, because we’re bound to follow truth.

Today, the Church cannot use the same language as that of the Syllabus of Errors, because she’s not speaking to the same world. She has to address these errors in our context, using our language and the resources available to her today. Cardinal Ratzinger once told his students that the Syllabus of Errors was never intended to bind future popes. They were free to address error in whatever manner seemed prudent to them. The key is error. The Church continues to address error. That has not changed. She cannot cease to do that. What she says and how she says it is going to change over time. The moral truths that oppose error do not change, just the language.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Te_Deum]

But JR, today’s language is riddled with obscurity and ambiguity. The stern, no-nonsense-say-what-you-mean approach of the Syllabus is what today needs, not, quite frankly, the wishy-washy language of the Vatican.