The Protestant invisible church

[dronald]

It is clear that, for the [purposes of punishment] to be achieved,the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and [the state] ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent. —Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 56, emphasis in the original.

How do we reconcile these ?

Why does the Catholic Church not burn heretics today?

When did it stop?

Why?

Could it have perhaps ended when the CIVIL society changed?

Well by understanding that the church has never said the death penalty MUST be carried out, but instead that it is an option for just cause.

Even today treason is punished by death. Even more so heresy (treason) in mid evil Europe was punished by death.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-the-church-change-its-teaching-on-the-death-penalty

You can’t Jon because even though the Catholic Church is conservative it also has gone more liberal to appeal. Some contradictions can’t be reconciled, look:

For if no one can enter into the kingdom of Heaven except he be regenerate through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink His blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious?
St. John Chrysostom (A.D. 347-407) Treatise on the Priesthood

Catechism
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

Let us not forget Pope Francis’s most recent words on a clear conscience and Salvation.

It has to be seen in the context of different time and era in the development of human society. The Church allows capital punishment “ … if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”

CCC 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."

Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

See here Pope John Paul II’s statement on capital punishment.

Capital punishment was nothing new. It was imposed in Acts 5 on Ananias just for the crime of lying to Peter (and to God), “ … how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? … You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

Yes, I agree that burning heretics was an outdated belief which has since been reformed. I would say the same thing about Jesus though, He was way ahead of His time. When an adulterer came and the obvious punishment by any culture was to kill her, He would stand up and say no. When the disciples wanted to rain fire on a city, He would rebuke them. Jesus wasn’t a man of the dark ages even though He came way before then.

There is no, “A time when burning men alive for heresy” was okay. It never existed, it has always been an awful thing to do and according to the document I posted a Pope was claiming it’s not against the will of the Spirit.

 

[peace2u2]

Ok, so, just so we’re absolutely clear. You’re saying that burning another human being - alive - is a proportionate and reasonable punishment for heresy?

We are so eager to forget there is another side to this story.

I often wonder what my Protestant brethren think when they sing The 12 Days of Christmas. St. Thomas More is just one of many Catholics who were brutally murdered for openly professing their faith.

Perhaps that is the reason as cradle Catholics we tend to be so meek and mild. Some wounds we inherit on our souls take longer to heal - Lord we pray for generational healing of the wounds on our souls - May we never forget who we are and may we always have Your Courage Lord to profess that - We are the people of the Eucharist!

From the article titled "The Real Meaning of “The Twelve Days of Christmas”
by Father Edward T. Dowling, S. J | Source: Catholic.net

When Henry VIII was rebuffed by Rome in his bid to divorce Catherine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn, he declared himself head of the Church in England replacing the Pope and demanded that all swear an oath of allegiance to him as such. St. Thomas More, the Chancellor of the Realm, the equivalent of the Prime Minister today, refused the oath supporting the elimination of the Pope’s authority and Henry had him publicly beheaded. Catholic convents and monasteries were closed and looted. The situation was worse under his son, Edward VI, and better during the short reign of Catherine’s daughter, Mary Tudor. She was succeeded by her half-sister Elizabeth I, an ardent Protestant, the daughter of Anne Boleyn.** The practice of the Catholic faith was banned. Priests were exiled and forbidden under pain of death from returning or performing the sacraments**. It was a desperate, dreadful time.

“The Twelve Days of Christmas” was written to educate the faithful in the doctrines of the faith and yet not be obvious to the persecutors.

To read more:

catholic.net/index.php?id=3465&option=dedestaca

PRAY FOR UNITY!

 

[dronald]

We are so eager to forget there is another side to this story.

I often wonder what my Protestant brethren think when they sing The 12 Days of Christmas. St. Thomas More is just one of many Catholics who were brutally murdered for openly professing their faith.

Perhaps that is the reason as cradle Catholics we tend to be so meek and mild. Some wounds we inherit on our souls take longer to heal - Lord we pray for generational healing of the wounds on our souls - May we never forget who we are and may we always have Your Courage Lord to profess that - We are the people of the Eucharist!

From the article titled "The Real Meaning of “The Twelve Days of Christmas”
by Father Edward T. Dowling, S. J | Source: Catholic.net

When Henry VIII was rebuffed by Rome in his bid to divorce Catherine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn, he declared himself head of the Church in England replacing the Pope and demanded that all swear an oath of allegiance to him as such. St. Thomas More, the Chancellor of the Realm, the equivalent of the Prime Minister today, refused the oath supporting the elimination of the Pope’s authority and Henry had him publicly beheaded. Catholic convents and monasteries were closed and looted. The situation was worse under his son, Edward VI, and better during the short reign of Catherine’s daughter, Mary Tudor. She was succeeded by her half-sister Elizabeth I, an ardent Protestant, the daughter of Anne Boleyn.** The practice of the Catholic faith was banned. Priests were exiled and forbidden under pain of death from returning or performing the sacraments**. It was a desperate, dreadful time.

“The Twelve Days of Christmas” was written to educate the faithful in the doctrines of the faith and yet not be obvious to the persecutors.

To read more:

catholic.net/index.php?id=3465&option=dedestaca

PRAY FOR UNITY!

Yes, we also disagree with King Henry’s actions.

 

[Porknpie]

Ok, so, just so we’re absolutely clear. You’re saying that burning another human being - alive - is a proportionate and reasonable punishment for heresy?

I understand the article saying in the context of the day and age, when heresey was “more malignant than treason” it was proportinate. Today, certainly not. In the day and age, if one could be beheaded for treason, burning at the stake for heresey which was more malignant than treason, was accepted.

Could be a basis of a new thread…what is proportionate given the time and culture? Touching the Ark resulted in death, withholding money from the Church resulted in death and disobeying God even turned someone into a pillar of salt. Are those punishments proportionate and reasonable? How would one distinguish between thoses punishments and burning at the stake for heresy?

I’m not sure that I know.

PnP

 

[Penguin8]

I was a “Prayer Buddy” with a woman who is a Southern Baptist for a couple of years. Through this I learned that they indeed believe in The “Invisible (Baptist) Church”, which they say has existed from the time of Christ. They hold that since the Catholic Church had such power and was a mixture of sinful and brutal, their "true (Christian Church) had to go underground; a.k.a., be invisible. This thread of unbroken belief is called “The Trail of Blood”, a little booklet by J.M. Carroll.

I found the quote below from this website which is called, "A Primer on Baptist History - The True Baptist Trail, by Chris Traffanstedt.

Hope it helps. It reflects the things that my Baptist friend reported to me. I do not know how widespread or “acknowledged” among ALL Protestants or their churches this may be.

This booklet tries to show that “according to History…Baptists have an unbroken line of churches since Christ.” This book and others like it have stressed that John the Baptist represents the denominational start and that Jesus formed it and promised that it would never fail. They have made arrogant statements like “the real church is Baptist” and “all Christian communities during the first three centuries were of the Baptist denomination.” These types of views are based upon inadequate sources and upon more of a polemical mindset than a historical one. They make large assumptions where evidence is lacking. This hard-core position arose in a time (1800’s) of intense denominational competition, when people believed faith was something that came from within themselves and not a wonderful gift of God’s grace. Many thought that this type of view would bring back a security that had been lost with the emergence of modern-day society.[14]

Blessings, In Christ,

Catherine

 

[concretecamper]

95% of Protestants, when tracing their lineage, cannot get beyond 1850. There is a nice summary of this on John Salza’s website. It is very informative.

 

[Reuben_J]

Yes, I agree that burning heretics was an outdated belief which has since been reformed. I would say the same thing about Jesus though, He was way ahead of His time. When an adulterer came and the obvious punishment by any culture was to kill her, He would stand up and say no. When the disciples wanted to rain fire on a city, He would rebuke them. Jesus wasn’t a man of the dark ages even though He came way before then.

There is no, “A time when burning men alive for heresy” was okay. It never existed, it has always been an awful thing to do and according to the document I posted a Pope was claiming it’s not against the will of the Spirit.

It seems there are two things here: capital punishment and burning of heresy.

As mentioned and explained earlier, the Church allows for capital punishment but the justification for it is nearly non-existence today since the alternative bloodless punishment and rehabilitation can be meted out in a much more advance penal system. Recent Popes have called for this aspect to be considered seriously so that capital punishment can be avoided. All the paraphrases mine.

I brought up Acts 5 merely to show that, yes, capital punishment was approved by God, no doubt since God did it, as it was pre-Jesus time. The crime is immaterial; in the case of Ananias it was lying. As much as we don’t like it, we cannot deny the fact that it was done in the Bible. Would lying be punishable by death toady? Certainly not but it was in Acts 5.

Burning of heresy in and itself is still controversial and perhaps not right. It is a fact that this was abused those days. And when clergies were involved in such abuses, they were not right. In any case most of the punishment was meted by the authority, not the Church.

We have to look at the Church’s stand on capital punishment in order to understand the punishment of heresy. Did a heretic in a genuine case, perhaps where it involved treason, (not all but depended on the circumstances) deserved capital punishment? And if so, what form that would be? As much as it was repugnant, burning men alive was the method those days for capital punishment and so too along history there were crucifixion, beheading, hanging and today we have lethal injection.

And we must remember that burning of heresy was not exclusively Catholics; Protestants were equally very much into this in their time.

 

[Reuben_J]

There is no, “A time when burning men alive for heresy” was okay.

With due respect, you are looking at this with a twentyfirst centruy eyes. We were not there when it happened and thus not privy to the reality of the harhness of their society then. It is easy to comment retrospectively and say it could have been done another way.

It never existed, it has always been an awful thing to do and according to the document I posted a Pope was claiming it’s not against the will of the Spirit.

You are quoting a papal bull which was not necessary be infallible. It is easy to pick out those sentences that we don’t like without understanding the context. All of us do sometimes. A twentyfirst century argument can be very different compared to people who lived in the sixteenth century and I have given you Pope John Paul II thought which perhaps most of us agree today. Not all though. There are Protestants who are not with Evangelium Vitae (the Gospel of Life).

Would the punishment of Ananias not against the will tof the Holy Spirit? Would fighting against the Turks in defending Christendom not against the Holy Spirit? Would today as the Vatican calling for peace in Syria not against the will of the Holy Spirit? You see, these are different times.

 

[Cathoholic]

Jeanne1184.

Scott Hahn does a good job discussing St. Peter within this talk.

You asked:

how is it that Peter ‘overwrites’ the 3,000 who died in Exodus?

In a sense St. Peter doesn’t. It is the Holy Spirit working through St. Peter (and the rest of the Apostles through authoritative preaching and Baptism).

• Insubordination at Pentecost (In Exodus) adds to destruction of relationship with God–3000 die.
• Repentance at Pentecost (In Acts) adds to the building up of our relationship with God–3000 live.

Regarding the Holy Spirit working through St. Peter, the same motif with Ananias and Sapphira is seen. St. Peter tells them they are lying to the Holy Spirit. And as Hahn points out, before they are smitten they do not say, “NO Peter. I am only lying to you!”.

Why did the Holy Spirit DO this through St. Peter? I don’t know. Perhaps to show not only the authority of the Church, but the visible physical nature of the Church in addition to the invisible aspect.

And look at the result of the Ananias and Sapphira incident and how this Church authority concept accelerates throughout society.

ACTS 5:11 11 And great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all who heard of these things.

PROVERBS 1:7 7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.

(See also Proverbs 9:10. All Bold and underline of Scripture mine)

Jeanne1184, you affirm Sacred Scripture so you already have this issue mastered conceptually. For example, you already affirm how the Holy Spirit can work through Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (etc.) albeit in a different way.

Also you said:

I’m hoping to look into the instances of ‘shadow’ in the Bible in greater detail soon, as it appears significant. In the preliminary, the shadow usually refers to ‘death’ but maybe there are other angles.

Cool. Let me know what you find when you are done, especially if there is any physical/visible Church correlations.

The Holy Spirit overshadowing the Ark of the Covenant, and seeing how the same language is used for the Holy Spirit overshadowing the Blessed Virgin Mary was fascinating to me.

Steve Ray has a good article on this topic here.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by dronald
If I’m being forced to believe in burning heretics which goes against Christ’s teachings then I have every right to leave and follow a Church that does no such thing. Wouldn’t you?

Definitely.

 

[Peter_J]

Find me a Church without sinners and I will join today.

Sounds good to me.

That reminds me of the comic where one guy is saying to another “I think I’ve finally found the perfect church. Now if I can just keep it a secret.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

I was a “Prayer Buddy” with a woman who is a Southern Baptist for a couple of years. Through this I learned that they indeed believe in The “Invisible (Baptist) Church”, which they say has existed from the time of Christ. They hold that since the Catholic Church had such power and was a mixture of sinful and brutal, their "true (Christian Church) had to go underground; a.k.a., be invisible. This thread of unbroken belief is called “The Trail of Blood”, a little booklet by J.M. Carroll.

I found the quote below from this website which is called, "A Primer on Baptist History - The True Baptist Trail, by Chris Traffanstedt.

Hope it helps. It reflects the things that my Baptist friend reported to me. I do not know how widespread or “acknowledged” among ALL Protestants or their churches this may be.

This booklet tries to show that “according to History…Baptists have an unbroken line of churches since Christ.” This book and others like it have stressed that John the Baptist represents the denominational start and that Jesus formed it and promised that it would never fail. They have made arrogant statements like “the real church is Baptist” and “all Christian communities during the first three centuries were of the Baptist denomination.” These types of views are based upon inadequate sources and upon more of a polemical mindset than a historical one. They make large assumptions where evidence is lacking. This hard-core position arose in a time (1800’s) of intense denominational competition, when people believed faith was something that came from within themselves and not a wonderful gift of God’s grace. Many thought that this type of view would bring back a security that had been lost with the emergence of modern-day society.[14]

Blessings, In Christ,

Catherine

If the theory is to be believed, the Baptists are disqualified as candidates for the “true Church” because they were NOT “a city built on a hill” and NOT a light for all nations. The did NOT fulfill the Great Commission because they have NOT made disciples of all Nations. The Catholic Church did.

The author of “The Trail of Blood” later rejected his own ideas.

Author of The Trail of Blood Recants

The Anabaptists baptized babies, and so can in no way be considered the spiritual ancestors to the present-day Baptists. Novations taught that those who had fallen from the faith should never be allowed to repent and return to the fold, since God cannot forgive their sin. The same council that defined the divinity of Christ (Nicea in A.D. 325) condemned the Novations. Montanists were a movement centering around the false prophet Montanus, who taught that the heavenly Jerusalem would soon descend upon his home town, the Phrygian village of Pepuza, and that, to prepare for the imminent coming of Christ, one must practice severe asceticism.

For a person to reject the Baptist successionist view is actually a compliment to the Baptists. In fact, years after having written Trail of Blood, Carroll wrote of himself,

Extensive graduate study and independent investigation of church history has, however, convinced [the author] that the view he once held so dear has not been, and cannot be, verified. On the contrary, surviving primary documents render the successionist view untenable. . . . Although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the 17th century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the reformers. (Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History [1994], 1–2)

Baptist professor and historian James Edward McGoldrick adds, “Perhaps no other body of professing Christians has had as much difficulty in discerning its historical roots as have the Baptists. A survey of conflicting opinions might lead a perceptive observer to conclude that Baptists suffer from an identity crisis” (Baptist Successionism, 1).

And here is a Catholic response:

Losing the Trail or The Trail of Lies
A Catholic Response to the “Trail of Blood”
By Matthew A. C. Newsome
turrisfortis.com/trail.html

 

[colliric]

Several protestant groups believe in a “hidden” church, one that went “underground”(including the Mormons as well, they teach this rabidly). These are more radical protestants.

Other, less radical protestant groups, believe in the “hidden” church simply being a wider church encompassing all of Christianity, that actually includes the Catholic Church as one of the “sub-churches”(even though this goes against Catholic doctrine). Thus they believe the Catholic Church is part of a wider church that includes their group also. They believe that Catholics are part of the wider “invisible Church”, but that our doctrines are somehow flawed(too much emphasis on the Blessed Virgin, no belief in the protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, the need for Confession, etc etc).

Most Pentecostal groups actually fall into the second category, recognizing Catholics as part of this Church, but that we are following a visible Church with “some flaws”.

 

[Steveabrous]

Several protestant groups believe in a “hidden” church, one that went “underground”(including the Mormons as well, they teach this rabidly). These are more radical protestants.

Other, less radical protestant groups, believe in the “hidden” church simply being a wider church encompassing all of Christianity, that actually includes the Catholic Church as one of the “sub-churches”(even though this goes against Catholic doctrine). Thus they believe the Catholic Church is part of a wider church that includes their group also. They believe that Catholics are part of the wider “invisible Church”, but that our doctrines are somehow flawed(too much emphasis on the Blessed Virgin, no belief in the protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, the need for Confession, etc etc).

Most Pentecostal groups actually fall into the second category, recognizing Catholics as part of this Church, but that we are following a visible Church with “some flaws”.

To be fair the “invisible church” scenario is true to a certain degree. I’ll explain… When I converted to Catholicism the preist at my RCIA class explained it like this. The Catholic church is the visible church Christ established, and the Pope and the bishops are the authority of the church. However, other christians, and even people of other faiths, who through no fault of their own are not members of the visible church Can (not are) be members of the church in the eyes of God and therefore receive salvation as “honorary” members of the Catholic church.

 

[Jon_S_1]

To be fair the “invisible church” scenario is true to a certain degree. I’ll explain… When I converted to Catholicism the preist at my RCIA class explained it like this. The Catholic church is the visible church Christ established, and the Pope and the bishops are the authority of the church. However, other christians, and even people of other faiths, who through no fault of their own are not members of the visible church Can (not are) be members of the church in the eyes of God and therefore receive salvation as “honorary” members of the Catholic church.

Once again the Catholic “both and” premise works well. It is both visible and invisible. The problem that arises is the protestant groups that deny there is a visible church and hold to a purely invisible church methodology.