The reformation was based on PRIDE

[erikd]

No; because Lutheran congregations in the US usually use English translations. None of which contain the deuterocanonicals, except for Catholic Bibles. Congregations which still use Luther’s German translation have the deuterocanonicals. It does not matter, however. You accused Luther of removing books from the Bible. It’s a false accusation. So you changed the subject to “what Lutherans believe” in order to dodge being called on a false statement.

I’m sorry this thread caused so much apparent animosity between the posters. I quoted from a Catholic Encyclopedia and from a doctrinal Catechism, both of which have imprimaturs from Bishops. I put much credence into the research of the Catholic Church and have therefore asked that if the research is incorrect, that it be proven as such. As the post I am replying to indicates, facts I quoted are being challenged by assumptions from those who do not agree. If one wants to challenge facts, please use facts. The fact remains that Martin Luther did not view the deuterocanonical Books as canonical and made that clear to his followers. His followers would eventually remove those Books, due to Martin Luther’s statements regarding them. I’m not sure how much clearer I can be on this issue. As a matter of fact, if you wanted to go through the history of the Lutheran Bible, you also have to look at Luther’s antilegomena. Martin Luther put no credence into seven New Testament Books either which caused some early German Luther Bibles to not include those either. That means that some of the German Luther Bibles had as little as 59 Books. And yes, I know the next argument will be that some of the Church Fathers had the same views, but there’s one big difference. Those Church Fathers (especially Eusebius) remained Catholic and loyal to the teachings of the Church. Those Church Fathers accepted the antilegomena as canonical because the Catholic Church always taught that they were canonical. Those Church Fathers did not leave their vows and marry nuns (like Martin Luther did) and they did not start up their own brand of religion (like Martin Luther did) making the comparisons feeble at best.

You stated that Luther added the word alone to Romans 3:28. I am not sure if you’re aware, but any translation of the Greek manuscripts is not a word-word didaction. It is a translation. That means that Greek words are translated into the local language according to how that language best expresses the concept of the Greek original. That Luther used allein in his German translation is not an “addition” because the Greek NT wasn’t written in German! How can you add something to that which doesn’t exist? It’s ludicrous. And the citations only show that other translators and commentators used alone in whatever language they wrote in, in order to convey the sense of “faith apart from works” is equal to “faith apart from anything else” which is equal to “faith alone.”

What Luther taught about sola fide is irrelevent to whether he “added” words to the book of Romans. Again, you’re changing the subject to avoid a false accusation.

Again, you have to remember that you’re not challenging me, you’re challenging an established encyclopedia, from which I was quoting. If you believe the encyclopedia is incorrect, provide your own evidence from a source which should be on par with a respected encyclopedia, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia. I look forward to seeing your evidence.

 

[erikd]

And the Pope is well liked in confessional Lutheran circles, as well. Not only because, unlike pop Catholic apologists, he actually knows what the heck he’s talking about when he talks about Luther, lol, but because of his fierce resistance to unorthodoxy and liberalism. If only men of his mettle existed at the time of the Reformation.

In this instance, TriuneUnity, I would have to concur. If men of Pope Benedict’s mindset and scholarship were more prevalent some 500 years ago, the Church could have been still One Body of Christ, not divided as that Body is today. Good point.

 

[erikd]

Can you find any of Luther’s introductions to the deuterocanonicals in his German translation which suggests that they not be read? How’s about reading Luther, instead of centuries old, dead, anti-Protestant Catholic bishops? The Lutherans never removed the deuterocanonicals up until the 20th century because they used Luther’s German translation until then (which included them). They began using English translations of the Bible, none of which contained them, due to assimilation into American culture.

Actually the Douay-Rheims had been around since 1610 and included the deuterocanonical Books. As far as reading Luther, I did. Martin Luther classified the seven Old Testament Books as apocrypha, meaning that which is hidden or “Books that are not to be considered as equal to Holy Scripture and yet are useful and good to read” (The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia and Scriptural Dictionary by Herbert Lockwood Willett). Available on Google books at:

books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC05742122&id=rl3lcbLkHV0C&pg=PA521&lpg=PA521&dq=luther+%22are+useful+and+good+to+read%22#v=onepage&q=luther%20%22are%20useful%20and%20good%20to%20read%22&f=false

Would you dispute that Martin Luther gave those Books the apocrypha status?

The same authority that Jerome, Gregory the Great, and Cajetan had to claim their non-canonicity… i.e., Christian scholars.

Do you think if you say it enough, it will eventually become true?

Again, I’m sorry this has caused so much animosity, that was never my intent. To answer your question, no I don’t think things come true just because you say them enough, I think things are true if history proves them to be true. And again, you have to remember that comparing Martin Luther to the people you mentioned above is like comparing apples to oranges. The people you mentioned are Catholics who accepted the teachings of the Church. They did not leave the Church, they did not refuse to listen to the Church, they did not marry Catholic nuns, and they did not start their own brand of religion. Marin Luther did. Apples to oranges. And please, let’s keep this civil.

 

[erikd]

Erik,

Lutherans use a variety of Bible translations. In the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), to which I belong, the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible is commonly used. A couple of study editions of the NRSV that I use have the Deuterocanonicals in them although in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments.

There is nothing that prohibits us from using the Deuterocanonicals, although we normally follow the Revised Common Lectionary which does not include readings from them except as alternative texts in a few cases. I must confess that I haven’t spent a great deal of time reading from them, a lack that I hope to remedy as time permits.

Going back to your original post, I would venture to say that Keenan’s writings about Luther and Lutheranism hardly give a true picture of Luther or the Lutheran expression of the Christian faith. It is as if I were to quote a virulently anti-Catholic Lutheran (and they do exist) as an authority on Catholicism. I prefer to get my information about Catholicism here on CAF or from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I have a copy which I use at times when I have a question about Catholic teachings. I would hope that ad hominem attacks on Luther would be given as little credibility in assessing Lutheran theology and ecclesiology as would similar attacks against the character of some Popes (e.g., the Medicis and the Borgias) in discussions of Catholic theology and ecclesiology.

I think your desire to defend the Catholic faith is wonderful. I’m just not sure that passing on things like Keenan’s writings is the most effective way to do that.

Pastor Gary,

Thank you for answering this thread. While nothing strictly prohibits the use of the deuterocanonicals, would today’s Lutheran consider them equal to Scripture? Martin Luther did not, so I want to know if that’s changed. Also, I do not want to slander anyone I only try to report the facts as I see them. If you feel that Fr. Keenan’s doctrinal Catechism is factually incorrect, please let me know why. Make no mistake about the fact that I understand that a Catholic Bishop’s imprimatur does not necessarily mean the writing is free of all errors. In this case, I am willing to accept if an error is found as the writing is not “ex-cathedra.” Please let me know which parts are inaccurate and why, and if the facts don’t support Fr. Keenan’s doctrinal Catechism, I will be the first to say so.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Jan Hus was executed by the CIVIL authorities for being a heretic. At that time, civil governments worked in conjunction with Church authorities. In this case, because Jan Hus would not recant his beliefs of the Eucharist (which were contrary to Church teachings which he swore to uphold as a Catholic Priest) the Church found him to be guilty of heresy. The corresponding punishment, as upheld by the government of Germany, was death. This was not the punishment of the Church but of the government. The Church did not put him to death, the civil authorities did. Martin Luther had a similar price on his head, but was able to avoid the German authorities as he went into hiding for the rest of his life. Again, the Church had nothing to do with the death sentence, the civil authorities did. Hope that clarifies things.

Your a breath of fresh air, when one views history from “Truth”.

Question? When was this “Catechism” published that addressed heretics? Do you have a date and place when it was written? Thanks;

I see the “Imprimatur” from the Bishop from 1876, am I to assume the Rev. Stephen Keenan lived in this time period, being this was the third revised american edition?

 

[Xavierlives]

Jan Hus was executed by the CIVIL authorities for being a heretic. At that time, civil governments worked in conjunction with Church authorities. In this case, because Jan Hus would not recant his beliefs of the Eucharist (which were contrary to Church teachings which he swore to uphold as a Catholic Priest) the Church found him to be guilty of heresy. The corresponding punishment, as upheld by the government of Germany, was death. This was not the punishment of the Church but of the government. The Church did not put him to death, the civil authorities did. Martin Luther had a similar price on his head, but was able to avoid the German authorities as he went into hiding for the rest of his life. Again, the Church had nothing to do with the death sentence, the civil authorities did. Hope that clarifies things.

And the Jews say the same thing about Christ… huh.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

And the Jews say the same thing about Christ… huh.

You don’t actually believe that the Jews excuted Jesus do you? The apostles were Jews. Why do you think the Jews crucified Jesus?

 

[erikd]

Your a breath of fresh air, when one views history from “Truth”.

Question? When was this “Catechism” published that addressed heretics? Do you have a date and place when it was written? Thanks;

I see the “Imprimatur” from the Bishop from 1876, am I to assume the Rev. Stephen Keenan lived in this time period, being this was the third revised american edition?

Hi Gabriel, I don’t have all the answers but I’ll tell you what I know.

It was written before 1846 and published in New York. I don’t know when the first edition was published, this as you mentioned was the third published in 1876. I know that Fr. Keenan was in the diocese of New York, most likely in Baltimore (based on info I’ve collected from the Catholic Encyclopedia). Thank you for the nice comments.

 

[erikd]

And the Jews say the same thing about Christ… huh.

Are you comparing a man (Jan Hus) who broke his vows and thought nothing of leading people away from Christ to Christ Himself?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi Gabriel, I don’t have all the answers but I’ll tell you what I know.

It was written before 1846 and published in New York. I don’t know when the first edition was published, this as you mentioned was the third published in 1876. I know that Fr. Keenan was in the diocese of New York, most likely in Baltimore (based on info I’ve collected from the Catholic Encyclopedia). Thank you for the nice comments.

Oh, so Father Keenan was a “yankee” then. Just wanted to get a feel for the time period and place when this first CCC first appeared on the scene, thank you.

 

[Janet1983]

Jan Hus was executed by the CIVIL authorities for being a heretic. At that time, civil governments worked in conjunction with Church authorities. In this case, because Jan Hus would not recant his beliefs of the Eucharist (which were contrary to Church teachings which he swore to uphold as a Catholic Priest) the Church found him to be guilty of heresy. The corresponding punishment, as upheld by the government of Germany, was death. This was not the punishment of the Church but of the government. The Church did not put him to death, the civil authorities did. Martin Luther had a similar price on his head, but was able to avoid the German authorities as he went into hiding for the rest of his life. Again, the Church had nothing to do with the death sentence, the civil authorities did. Hope that clarifies things.

No, the church did not put him to death. Of course not.
But the church was in a position to put significant pressure on the governing authorities to do exactly that. They basically used the secular authorities to do the job.

Notable are these mentionings in the Summa Theologica:

(Article 3. Whether heretics ought to be tolerated?)

"With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby** they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death**. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but “after the first and second admonition,” as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, “A little leaven,” says: “Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame.”

…]

(Article 4. Whether the Church should receive those who return from heresy?)

In obedience to Our Lord’s institution, the Church extends her charity to all, not only to friends, but also to foes who persecute her, according to Matthew 5:44: “Love your enemies; do good to them that hate you.” Now it is part of charity that we should both wish and work our neighbor’s good. Again, good is twofold: one is spiritual, namely the health of the soul, which good is chiefly the object of charity, since it is this chiefly that we should wish for one another. Consequently, from this point of view, heretics who return after falling no matter how often, are admitted by the Church to Penance whereby the way of salvation is opened to them.

The other good is that which charity considers secondarily, viz. temporal good, such as life of the body, worldly possessions, good repute, ecclesiastical or secular dignity, for we are not bound by charity to wish others this good, except in relation to the eternal salvation of them and of others. Hence if the presence of one of these goods in one individual might be an obstacle to eternal salvation in many, we are not bound out of charity to wish such a good to that person, rather should we desire him to be without it, both because eternal salvation takes precedence of temporal good, and because the good of the many is to be preferred to the good of one. Now if heretics were always received on their return, in order to save their lives and other temporal goods, this might be prejudicial to the salvation of others, both because they would infect others if they relapsed again, and because, if they escaped without punishment, others would feel more assured in lapsing into heresy. For it is written (Ecclesiastes 8:11): “For because sentence is not speedily pronounced against the evil, the children of men commit evils without any fear.”

For this reason the Church not only admits to Penance those who return from heresy for the first time, but also safeguards their lives, and sometimes by dispensation, restores them to the ecclesiastical dignities which they may have had before, should their conversion appear to be sincere: we read of this as having frequently been done for the good of peace. But when they fall again, after having been received, this seems to prove them to be inconstant in faith, wherefore when they return again, they are admitted to Penance, but are not delivered from the pain of death."

 

[erikd]

Hi Janet, nice to hear from you again.

I believe you quoted something that might further explain the belief of the Church:

In obedience to Our Lord’s institution, the Church extends her charity to all, not only to friends, but also to foes who persecute her, according to Matthew 5:44: “Love your enemies; do good to them that hate you.” Now it is part of charity that we should both wish and work our neighbor’s good. Again, good is twofold: one is spiritual, namely the health of the soul, which good is chiefly the object of charity, since it is this chiefly that we should wish for one another. Consequently, from this point of view, heretics who return after falling no matter how often, are admitted by the Church to Penance whereby the way of salvation is opened to them.

So perhaps St. Thomas Aquinas was not speaking of killing all heretics. Why then would St. Thomas Aquinas mention in article 3 of putting heretics to death? Let’s see from your own quote.

Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

It seems that here St. Thomas is making a direct comparison and asking a question: If you put a forger to death, what would you do to one who goes directly against his own Maker? It seems to be a fair question, though it does not seem as though St. Thomas is suggesting that this should be the price. On the contrary, this entire article seems to be a comparison to make the point that faith is the most important part of one’s life and should not be treated carelessly. If these other offenses constitute such a high price, then what price should a crime against God constitute? I would think that you would agree with this comparison, Janet, since your “religion” claims that you are a “slave of Jesus Christ” just as St. Thomas Aquinas was, just as I am.

Article 4, which you also quoted, seems to be a continuation of this exact comparison. Your quote mentioned:

if they escaped without punishment, others would feel more assured in lapsing into heresy

This of course being backed up Ecclesiastes 8:11, though later in your quote, as you so eloquently bolded for us to see, St. Thomas says this:

For this reason the Church not only admits to Penance those who return from heresy for the first time, but also safeguards their lives

It seems that the Church is not interested in putting anyone to death, but She is interested in safeguarding the faith and the lives of those who devote themselves to their faith.

In an interesting side note on this issue, it is amazing to me how many people forget the history of the Church. The Crusades were battles fought by soldiers who fought for the Catholic Church in order to stop the slaughter of innocent Christians around the world by the growing Muslim movements. Many innocent Christians (and back then all Christians were Catholic as the protestant religions had not been invented yet) lost their lives at the hands of Muslim extremists, and the Church defended with Christian lives the faith which so many Catholic and non-Catholic Christians hold so dear to their heart today. This, of course was very much happening during the times of St. Thomas Aquinas as the 13th century saw much of this fighting. This, of course, has to be considered when considering the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas. As with any writings of modern times, world conditions and political climates are considered when incorporating the teachings of the Church with the actions of governments. To ignore this would be to not read the writings in context.

 

[Libertarian_FL]

No, the church did not put him to death. Of course not.
But the church was in a position to put significant pressure on the governing authorities to do exactly that. They basically used the secular authorities to do the job.

Notable are these mentionings in the Summa Theologica:

(Article 3. Whether heretics ought to be tolerated?)

"With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby** they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death**. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but “after the first and second admonition,” as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, “A little leaven,” says: “Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame.”

…]

(Article 4. Whether the Church should receive those who return from heresy?)

In obedience to Our Lord’s institution, the Church extends her charity to all, not only to friends, but also to foes who persecute her, according to Matthew 5:44: “Love your enemies; do good to them that hate you.” Now it is part of charity that we should both wish and work our neighbor’s good. Again, good is twofold: one is spiritual, namely the health of the soul, which good is chiefly the object of charity, since it is this chiefly that we should wish for one another. Consequently, from this point of view, heretics who return after falling no matter how often, are admitted by the Church to Penance whereby the way of salvation is opened to them.

The other good is that which charity considers secondarily, viz. temporal good, such as life of the body, worldly possessions, good repute, ecclesiastical or secular dignity, for we are not bound by charity to wish others this good, except in relation to the eternal salvation of them and of others. Hence if the presence of one of these goods in one individual might be an obstacle to eternal salvation in many, we are not bound out of charity to wish such a good to that person, rather should we desire him to be without it, both because eternal salvation takes precedence of temporal good, and because the good of the many is to be preferred to the good of one. Now if heretics were always received on their return, in order to save their lives and other temporal goods, this might be prejudicial to the salvation of others, both because they would infect others if they relapsed again, and because, if they escaped without punishment, others would feel more assured in lapsing into heresy. For it is written (Ecclesiastes 8:11): “For because sentence is not speedily pronounced against the evil, the children of men commit evils without any fear.”

For this reason the Church not only admits to Penance those who return from heresy for the first time, but also safeguards their lives, and sometimes by dispensation, restores them to the ecclesiastical dignities which they may have had before, should their conversion appear to be sincere: we read of this as having frequently been done for the good of peace. But when they fall again, after having been received, this seems to prove them to be inconstant in faith, wherefore when they return again, they are admitted to Penance, but are not delivered from the pain of death."

Where exactly did Jesus, you know the one that is our Lord and the leader of the faith say in any gospel that its ok to KILL heretics? Add to that torturing them first before KILLING them.

 

[Janet1983]

Where exactly did Jesus, you know the one that is our Lord and the leader of the faith say in any gospel that its ok to KILL heretics? Add to that torturing them first before KILLING them.

Where exactly did I agree with the position of the Church? I just portrayed it.
It wouldn’t be all too healthy for me if they re-implemented the death penalty for Catholic heretics, schismatics or apostates.
I’d really prefer a different way of getting to meet my Lord face to face.

 

[erikd]

Where exactly did I agree with the position of the Church? I just portrayed it.
It wouldn’t be all too healthy for me if they re-implemented the death penalty for Catholic heretics, schismatics or apostates.
I’d really prefer a different way of getting to meet my Lord face to face.

Janet, and Liberterian, if you read my response above in post 72 you might see that the Church is not interested in putting anyone to death. Please consider the entire context of the article you yourself quoted in order to obtain the proper understanding.

 

[Janet1983]

Janet, and Liberterian, if you read my response above you might see that the Church is not interested in putting anyone to death. Please consider the entire context of the article you yourself quoted in order to obtain the proper understanding.

That last answer of mine did not specify on who would do it in the end…
I’d be part of the category that does not come back in the first place… so that excludes mercy on the side of the church and if the secular laws were to be re-activated into the status they were back then this would end up in a BBQ for me.
“This very modesty demands that the heretic should be admonished a first and second time: and if he be unwilling to retract, he must be reckoned as already “subverted,” as we may gather from the words of the Apostle quoted above.” (SUMMA)

 

[erikd]

That last answer of mine did not specify on who would do it in the end…
I’d be part of the category that does not come back in the first place… so that excludes mercy on the side of the church and if the secular laws were to be re-activated into the status they were back then this would end up in a BBQ for me.
“This very modesty demands that the heretic should be admonished a first and second time: and if he be unwilling to retract, he must be reckoned as already “subverted,” as we may gather from the words of the Apostle quoted above.” (SUMMA)

Janet,

I again ask you to read post 72 in which I address this concern. I believe that this quote is being taken out of context, and post 72 explains in detail why I say that. Can you tell me which part of my explanation in post 72 does not make sense?

 

[Janet1983]

Janet,

I again ask you to read post 72 in which I address this concern. I believe that this quote is being taken out of context, and post 72 explains in detail why I say that. Can you tell me which part of my explanation in post 72 does not make sense?

How can you assume that the CC did not advocate the death penalty for heretics (those who were not first-time offenders repenting from it) when it says so explicitly?
The attitude might be doubtful (whether or not they liked the fact that they “had” to punish a heretic is a totally different subject) but the fact that they advocated it and handed the unrepentant heretic or the repentant repeat offender over to the civil authorities for the purpose of administering capital punishment leads me to the assumption that they did indeed advocate the death penalty for heretics. Seen in the context of the time (as you pointed out and I did not think I needed to comment on that) it was a rather normal procedure as the death penalty was also administered for forging and other offenses that we would not think about being capital offenses today.
Given the general historic circumstances this did take place in a time when the death penalty was not quite as shocking for these deeds as it might be today.
In a society where the church is very powerful and the people rely on her for their salvation, it would be very unwise to claim that especially that authority is not telling the truth. That has not changed and is just a matter of logic. So in comparison to other civil penalties (which were partly very horrible) and given the attitude that the general populace had, this is not as bad looking for the church who purposely delivered the convict over to the civil authorities as it might seem without a closer look at the context.
No, the church did not administer the death penalty, but they surrendered the convict claiming that they cannot do anything further clearly assuming (and maybe even demanding) the punishment that the law of the land prescribed.

 

[erikd]

How can you assume that the CC did not advocate the death penalty for heretics (those who were not first-time offenders repenting from it) when it says so explicitly?
The attitude might be doubtful (whether or not they liked the fact that they “had” to punish a heretic is a totally different subject) but the fact that they advocated it and handed the unrepentant heretic or the repentant repeat offender over to the civil authorities for the purpose of administering capital punishment leads me to the assumption that they did indeed advocate the death penalty for heretics. Seen in the context of the time (as you pointed out and I did not think I needed to comment on that) it was a rather normal procedure as the death penalty was also administered for forging and other offenses that we would not think about being capital offenses today.
Given the general historic circumstances this did take place in a time when the death penalty was not quite as shocking for these deeds as it might be today.
In a society where the church is very powerful and the people rely on her for their salvation, it would be very unwise to claim that especially that authority is not telling the truth. That has not changed and is just a matter of logic. So in comparison to other civil penalties (which were partly very horrible) and given the attitude that the general populace had, this is not as bad looking for the church who purposely delivered the convict over to the civil authorities as it might seem without a closer look at the context.
No, the church did not administer the death penalty, but they surrendered the convict claiming that they cannot do anything further clearly assuming (and maybe even demanding) the punishment that the law of the land prescribed.

Are you suggesting that the Church had power over the government to stop these penalties? If so, can you cite examples from history that prove this point.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

No, the church did not put him to death. Of course not.

But the church was in a position to put significant pressure on the governing authorities to do exactly that. They basically used the secular authorities to do the job.