The Inquisition and Burning of Heretics

[JReducation]

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

That would constitute an abuse of capital punishment. That’s just murder.

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 !

The only time that you can use the death penalty is when you cannot protect life. By this the Church means that people are going to be physically killed.

We can’t condemn the Muslim countries for executing people who have committed heresy and apostasy and defend our right to do the same. It does not work that way. Murder is murder.

No, I don’t think I’ll go hug a tree since Franciscans have nothing to do with trees. That’s the biggest myth that has been perpetrated about St. Francis. Go over to the thread on The Pefect Joy of St. Francis. You’ll be suprised how much of Catholic Tradition this man upheld and taught and how much he contributed to it. Tree hugging was not part of it. He didn’t even like cats. They scared him.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Te_Deum]

No, I don’t think I’ll go hug a tree since Franciscans have nothing to do with trees. That’s the biggest myth that has been perpetrated about St. Francis. Go over to the thread on The Pefect Joy of St. Francis. You’ll be suprised how much of Catholic Tradition this man upheld and taught and how much he contributed to it. Tree hugging was not part of it. He didn’t even like cats. They scared him.

Relax! It was a joke .

 

[At_Trent]

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

Guess I’m modernist. I prefer water boarding them.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

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

Thank you, Brother, for clarifying the subject of the Syllabus in todays world. I understand what I think you are saying, though I may need some clarifying on one point you made regarding that peoplecan CONTINUE to be hindu, muslim, protestant, et cetera. I am quite familiar with this “teaching” but I’ve never seen it as an encyclical or a speech, or whatever. I remember something close to it in Dignitatis Humanae. However, I didn’t even interpret that as endorsing that teaching.

This brought to mind something an altar boy friend had to say, I am reciting from memory, so do forgive me if it is worded improperly “All religions are like roads - They all lead to Rome.” I remember he extrapolated further, though.

So I suppose, for that point, if I may ask, can you supply myself with an encyclical, or allocution, what have you regarding that teaching? I would really like to read it!

One other point regarding the Syllabus, as well. The Syllabus of Errors does confront many contemporary issues. I’d say the newer ‘Lamentabili Sane’ deals with older issues that have been a scandal to Catholics for centuries. But the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX is still very useful in combatting contemporary heresies. And I’ll go so far as to say the mindset of the heretic of 1870 seems similar to that of today’s heretic. Since there is a current rage of wanna-be-philosophers that continually quote Nietzche (“God is dead!”) and other atheistic and irreligious “philosophers” from around the time of the release of the Syllabus of Errors.

Stay well!

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[JReducation]

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.

That is an opinion that you’re entitiled to hold as long as you don’t pit it against the opinion of the popes. In other words, you can’t say, “I’m right and the pope is wrong.” That’s a “no no”.

If you listen to what Pope Benedict said about the Syllabus, he says that the language is ambiguous to modern man and says something to modern man that the Church did not mean to say. He makes some references to this problem in Light of the World.

I think it’s good to be familiar with the Syllabus, but we also have to become familiar with what the current popes are saying about it and the problems that they find in it. It’s not doctrinal. They agree with the doctrinal points. The problem is time. Times have changed, language has changed and the Church is not poised as it was at that time. They can’t use it as it was written. On the other hand, no one ever intended it to be used the same way by every successive pope.

Popes do imagine that their successors are just as inteligent as they are and will handle things well for their time and they trust the Holy Spirit. The rest of us are the Doubting Thomases.

“Thomases?” Is that even a word?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TradionalWay]

I hope this is not a serious statement.

Its not

I wouldn’t want to see a heretic burn but maybe some stocks in the town square where we could all throw some rotten fruits and vegetables.

http://ventnorblog.com/copy_images/stocks.jpg

Better solution

Are you saying you’re a priest?

No yet

 

[JReducation]

Thank you, Brother, for clarifying the subject of the Syllabus in todays world. I understand what I think you are saying, though I may need some clarifying on one point you made regarding that peoplecan CONTINUE to be hindu, muslim, protestant, et cetera. I am quite familiar with this “teaching” but I’ve never seen it as an encyclical or a speech, or whatever. I remember something close to it in Dignitatis Humanae. However, I didn’t even interpret that as endorsing that teaching.

This brought to mind something an altar boy friend had to say, I am reciting from memory, so do forgive me if it is worded improperly “All religions are like roads - They all lead to Rome.” I remember he extrapolated further, though.

So I suppose, for that point, if I may ask, can you supply myself with an encyclical, or allocution, what have you regarding that teaching? I would really like to read it!

One other point regarding the Syllabus, as well. The Syllabus of Errors does confront many contemporary issues. I’d say the newer ‘Lamentabili Sane’ deals with older issues that have been a scandal to Catholics for centuries. But the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX is still very useful in combatting contemporary heresies. And I’ll go so far as to say the mindset of the heretic of 1870 seems similar to that of today’s heretic. Since there is a current rage of wanna-be-philosophers that continually quote Nietzche (“God is dead!”) and other atheistic and irreligious “philosophers” from around the time of the release of the Syllabus of Errors.

Stay well!

~ Pius :knight1:

There are several pieces of writing by Bl. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI that speak to your question about different faithf.

One is Ut Unum Sint, which is about Christian unity. However, Bl. John Paul states that Jesus uses Protestant communities to save. He’s not saying that a Protestant must remain a Protestant or that a Catholic should become a Protestant. He saying that there is truth there. We cannot deny the power of truth and what Christ can do if a man follows it.

The other writing would be the CCC. I would suggest reading what the Church says about Islam and Judaism.

Also read here Principles and Norms for Ecumenism

Bl. John Paul’s Ecumenical Passion

Ut Unum Sint

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

There are several pieces of writing by Bl. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI that speak to your question about different faithf.

One is Ut Unum Sint, which is about Christian unity. However, Bl. John Paul states that Jesus uses Protestant communities to save. He’s not saying that a Protestant must remain a Protestant or that a Catholic should become a Protestant. He saying that there is truth there. We cannot deny the power of truth and what Christ can do if a man follows it.

The other writing would be the CCC. I would suggest reading what the Church says about Islam and Judaism.

Also read here Principles and Norms for Ecumenism

Bl. John Paul’s Ecumenical Passion

Ut Unum Sint

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I will make sure to do all that Brother! Thank you, very much! I have always believed (mostly because of my Theology teacher) that Christ works through Protestants. But I always thought that becaus eI figured it was easier to convert a Protestant to Catholicism since they’ve already been introduced to Christ.

Again, thank you. I’ll make sure to read the sources, especially Ut Unam Sint and from the Catechism.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR WARNING

Infractions and bans have been given. Accounts have been placed under review. We at Catholic Answers find no humor in cartoons and comments that suggest doing violence to any human being.

If it continues, those who make such inappropriate comments will be permanently banned, no questions asked and no warnings.

Am I clear?

 

[christosdavid]

Thank God we dont burn heretics anymore. All life of course, belongs to God already and if it is due to him then we naturally oblige.

Im also glad there arent ecclesiastical courts the way there have been. The Church is the sacrament of God’s grace. It becomes a much clearer picture of this when the responsibility of crime and punishment is done by the State, we after all, all look to the church with hope as our Mother and the Spouse of Christ.

Heretics, however, are different to unbelievers. In my pov they choose to be "mis"believers, and try to argue against the doctrines of Christ but claim them as his arguments.

They argue against Christ’s divine mission, his ministry, his passion, even whether he died or not (as if this were not the most established fact in world history) and of course confuse the resurrection as a mere “spiritual” event.

Heretics deny the Trinity, the mission of the Holy Spirit and its abiding with us, our seal and annointing. Heretics deny the grace of God and have made the picture of an angry “Old Testament” God instead of the one who said, “I desire mercy not sacrafice” and has no pleasure in the death of sinners.

Our greatest weapon against heresy was demonstrated by the early Christians who wrote against their teachings, contra Marcion, contra heresies, contra Pelagianism, contra Manicheeism, contra Donatism, etc

Truth. Let us be so deep into it that heresy is absurd as it is.

 

[JReducation]

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.

Wait, I’m confused. Are you saying that it’s within the right of the state to execute people for heresy?

I hope not, because the Church would not support such a position. That could get a few political leaders excommunicated, if they’re Catholic.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

Wait, I’m confused. Are you saying that it’s within the right of the state to execute people for heresy?

I hope not, because the Church would not support such a position. That could get a few political leaders excommunicated, if they’re Catholic.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

If they won’t get excommunicated for allowing abortion to be legalized, etc. and allowing defenseless babies to be slaughtered, why would they get excommunicated for burning a heretic? I am not endorsing burning heretics, by any means. But even if they didn’t get excommunicated, they wouldn’t win any election afterwards.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[JReducation]

If they won’t get excommunicated for allowing abortion to be legalized, etc. and allowing defenseless babies to be slaughtered, why would they get excommunicated for burning a heretic? I am not endorsing burning heretics, by any means. But even if they didn’t get excommunicated, they wouldn’t win any election afterwards.

~ Pius :knight1:

Actually, they can incur an automatic excommunication for endorsing abortion, under the right conditions. You have to meet certain criteria to incur excommunication.

On the other question, the Church has the right to excommunicate for any violation of Church law. It has been done for less serious reasons. In our Franciscan history, if you disagree with Francis of Assisi, the Major Superior has the duty to request that you be excommunicated until you recant. It has been done many times. It all depends on what pope is in at the time.

We must always be very careful how much authority we assign to the state. The state has been known to abuse its authority and overstep its bounds. Execution is probably the one area that the state has abused the most.

While the Church does not deny the right of the state to execute, she does hold the state to moral standards of justice and humanity. These have been violated by the state too often. If we are to say that the state can execute people for heresy, why not execute people for adultery, same sex intercourse, abortion, or other serious sins?

I believe that we are too eager to assign power to the state, forgetting how often the state has abused it, even in our own country. We must not forget that the state has never been the friend of faith or justice. The state is a friend to particular interests.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[PiousTemplar]

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

No one said that heretics should be burned. You are attacking a straw man. They were attempting to justify why they were burned in the past, because it was a state crime and led others away from the Body of Christ. It is different today.

I think Catholics need to study the Inquisition more. The stereotypes of a blood-thirsty Church always seem to prevail, and when one attempts to justify and explain the past, they are ridiculed.

 

[TrueLight]

Thank you, Brother, for clarifying the subject of the Syllabus in todays world. I understand what I think you are saying, though I may need some clarifying on one point you made regarding that peoplecan CONTINUE to be hindu, muslim, protestant, et cetera. I am quite familiar with this “teaching” but I’ve never seen it as an encyclical or a speech, or whatever. I remember something close to it in Dignitatis Humanae. However, I didn’t even interpret that as endorsing that teaching.

This brought to mind something an altar boy friend had to say, I am reciting from memory, so do forgive me if it is worded improperly “All religions are like roads - They all lead to Rome.” I remember he extrapolated further, though.

So I suppose, for that point, if I may ask, can you supply myself with an encyclical, or allocution, what have you regarding that teaching? I would really like to read it!

One other point regarding the Syllabus, as well. The Syllabus of Errors does confront many contemporary issues. I’d say the newer ‘Lamentabili Sane’ deals with older issues that have been a scandal to Catholics for centuries. But the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX is still very useful in combatting contemporary heresies. And I’ll go so far as to say the mindset of the heretic of 1870 seems similar to that of today’s heretic. Since there is a current rage of wanna-be-philosophers that continually quote Nietzche (“God is dead!”) and other atheistic and irreligious “philosophers” from around the time of the release of the Syllabus of Errors.

Stay well!

~ Pius :knight1:

I mean this as a compliment. You are one well-read 16 year old, in a world where a lot of teens write essays in text speak.

 

[Like]

I mean this as a compliment. You are one well-read 16 year old, in a world where a lot of teens write essays in text speak.

I feel the same way! Yes, Bl Pope Pius IX You are well educated in the faith.

God bless you!

 

[PiousTemplar]

I mean this as a compliment. You are one well-read 16 year old, in a world where a lot of teens write essays in text speak.

I completely agree. You should see some of the essays submitted in my classes.

 

[JReducation]

No one said that heretics should be burned. You are attacking a straw man. They were attempting to justify why they were burned in the past, because it was a state crime and led others away from the Body of Christ. It is different today.

I think Catholics need to study the Inquisition more. The stereotypes of a blood-thirsty Church always seem to prevail, and when one attempts to justify and explain the past, they are ridiculed.

I think the reason that we get a knee-jerk reaction is because both sides have a tendency to tell the story in such a way that it gives the impression that we approve of their actions. The best way to address this is the way that Bl. John Paul addressed it. He simply admitted that both sides were guilty and apologized for the Catholic side without trying to explain this or that.

Sometimes, explanations of historical context and so forth do not help when people are resentful and have passed it on from generation to generation. Look at the Black community. It makes no difference how we explain slavery. The fact is that it happened and the people who were hurt by it transmitted their hurt to the next generation and so forth down the line.

The chain of resentment can only be broken by a sincere admission of our ancestor’s culpability in the matter and a sincere apology on their behalf. The key is not to personalize it. The fact that our Catholic ancestors were often inhumane, along with everyone else at their time, is not my fault or yours. We don’t have to own it. That, we can object to. No one should make anyone feel guilty for what their ancestors did wrong…

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ciero]

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

SSPX just ask Msgr Felley!

 

[Rence]

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.

Because the words of Jesus directing the evangalism of His Church mean more to me:

Matthew 10:14 found 3
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet.

It goes against my conscience to force PersonA to accept PersonB’s religion by coersion because it’s in direct conflict with what Jesus commanded.

It’s a command that the very first disciples and Apostles obeyed:

[46] Then Paul and Barnabas said boldly: To you it behoved us first to speak the word of God: but because you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold we turn to the Gentiles. [47] For so the Lord hath commanded us: I have set thee to be the light of the Gentiles; that thou mayest be for salvation unto the utmost part of the earth. [48] And the Gentiles hearing it, were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to life everlasting, believed. [49] And the word of the Lord was published throughout the whole country. [50] But the Jews stirred up religious and honourable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas: and cast them out of their coasts.

[51] But they, shaking off the dust of their feet against them, came to Iconium. [52] And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Ghost.

You can’t make people believe. That’s not a conversion, that’s coersion. There is no merit, or honor, in forcing people to lie in order to ‘profess’ a faith upon pain of death or torture. That’s not coversion. It’s evil. And it doesn’t do good for the persons being forced, and frankly, it doesn’t do any good for the onlookers observing this coersion. That, in fact, makes people bitter towards the Church. No one in their right mind enjoys seeing coersion. There is something terribly wrong with people who enjoy seeing the forced conversion of people. That just forces people who want to be another reigion underground where their numbers will grow until such a time that they can come out of hiding. Look at the Protestants: imprisoning, torturing and killing them led to only one thing: more Protestants.

The CCC says this about faith:

The freedom of faith
160 To be human, "man’s response to God by faith must be free, and. . . therefore nobody is to be forced to embrace the faith against his will. The act of faith is of its very nature a free act."39 "God calls men to serve him in spirit and in truth. Consequently they are bound to him in conscience, but not coerced. . . This fact received its fullest manifestation in Christ Jesus."40 Indeed, Christ invited people to faith and conversion, but never coerced them. "For he bore witness to the truth but refused to use force to impose it on those who spoke against it. His kingdom. . . grows by the love with which Christ, lifted up on the cross, draws men to himself."41

It’s ludicrous notion to me to say that if someone makes the “wrong” choice in their choice of religion, that they have abdicated their right to choice. It is, in fact, every person’s right to choose their religion. Jesus didn’t say that we had to force the conversion of others. He didn’t say that their “poor” choice in religion rendered them incapable of making any choices.

I can continue believing that freedom to choose one’s religion is a God-given right by looking no further than Jesus’ own words, and of course the Catechism:

1906 By common good is to be understood "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily."26 The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and even more from those who exercise the office of authority. It consists of three essential elements:

1907 First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion."27