Violent/Dastardly Protestants

[Fr_Ambrose]

Fidelis:

With all due respect, this is totally inaccurate. An Imprimatur and a Nihil Obstat, usually given by the writer’s local bishop (NOT the Magisterium) only state that there is nothing in the content of a particular book that is harmful to faith or morals, not that the book is official Church teaching.

But it is not inaccurate. This is precisely what I am saying.

The Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat has been issued by literally hundreds of bishops in all countries for every edition of the Summa Theologica. It must run into the thousands. No book, apart from the Bible itself, has been so fully and universally guaranteed by the Magisterirum as an authentic expression of the Catholic faith.

In it there is nothing harmful to faith and morals, including the teaching that the Church may bring heretics to trial and have them killed.

 

[Juxtaposer]

maendem:

(I can offer the direct passage for those interested) However, I don’t believe he’s speaking for the Catholic Church, and Catholics should be able to acknowledge that he advocates the killing of heretics while distinguishing his articles from Catholic teaching as a whole…

I’d like to see that.
Fr Ambrose:

But it is not inaccurate. This is precisely what I am saying.

The Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat has been issued by literally hundreds of bishops in all countries for every edition of the Summa Theologica. It must run into the thousands. No book, apart from the Bible itself, has been so fully and universally guaranteed by the Magisterirum as an authentic expression of the Catholic faith.

In it there is nothing harmful to faith and morals, including the teaching that the Church may bring heretics to trial and have them killed.

Am I crazy, or did you just say that the Bible teaches that killing heretics is ok?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Juxtaposer:

Am I crazy, or did you just say that the Bible teaches that killing heretics is ok?

No! The “it” refers back to the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas.

 

[Fidelis]

Fr Ambrose:

But it is not inaccurate. This is precisely what I am saying.

The Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat has been issued by literally hundreds of bishops in all countries for every edition of the Summa Theologica. It must run into the thousands. No book, apart from the Bible itself, has been so fully and universally guaranteed by the Magisterirum as an authentic expression of the Catholic faith.

Again, this is inaccurate. The Magisterium refers to the teaching authority of the Church as a whole. The granting of an imprimatur of a certain book by a certain bishop does not imply approval by the Church as a whole, and it definitely does not imply that the work reflects official Catholic teaching. Individual bishops do not have the charism of infallibility–the Magisterium as a whole does.

 

[maendem]

Juxtaposer: looks like the quote from Aquinas got posted already:
(see bold text)

"With regard to heretics there are two points to be observed, one on their side, the other on the side of the Church. As for heretics their sin deserves banishment, not only from the Church by excommunication, but also from this world by death. To corrupt the faith, whereby the soul lives, is much graver than to counterfeit money, which supports temporal life. Since forgers and other malefactors are summarily condemned to death by the civil authorities, with much more reason may heretics as soon as they are convicted of heresy be not only excommunicated, but also justly be put to death.

"But on the side of the Church is mercy which seeks the conversion of the wanderer, and She condemns him not at once, but after the first and second admonition, as the Apostle directs. Afterwards, however, if he is still stubborn, the Church takes care of the salvation of others by separating him from the Church through excommunication, ***and delivers him to the secular court to be removed from this world by death. ***

Aquinas.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 1/2 and 2/2

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Fidelis:

Again, this is inaccurate. The Magisterium refers to the teaching authority of the Church as a whole. The granting of an imprimatur of a certain book by a certain bishop does not imply approval by the Church as a whole, and it definitely does not imply that the work reflects official Catholic teaching. Individual bishops do not have the charism of infallibility–the Magisterium as a whole does.

The Magisterium approves of the Summa Theologica.

Countless bishops have give their formal approval that it contains nothing contrary to Catholic teaching.

Is there any other work which may be said to have received such universal magisteral approval?

 

[maendem]

Juxtaposer: looks like the quote from Aquinas got posted already:
(see bold text)

"With regard to heretics there are two points to be observed, one on their side, the other on the side of the Church. As for heretics their sin deserves banishment, not only from the Church by excommunication, but also from this world by death. To corrupt the faith, whereby the soul lives, is much graver than to counterfeit money, which supports temporal life. Since forgers and other malefactors are summarily condemned to death by the civil authorities, with much more reason may heretics as soon as they are convicted of heresy be not only excommunicated, but also justly be put to death.

"But on the side of the Church is mercy which seeks the conversion of the wanderer, and She condemns him not at once, but after the first and second admonition, as the Apostle directs. Afterwards, however, if he is still stubborn, the Church takes care of the salvation of others by separating him from the Church through excommunication, ***and delivers him to the secular court to be removed from this world by death. ***

Aquinas.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 1/2 and 2/2

 

[Fidelis]

Fr Ambrose:

The Magisterium approves of the Summa Theologica.

Countless bishops have give their formal approval that it contains nothing contrary to Catholic teaching.

Is there any other work which may be said to have received such universal magisteral approval?

There has been no “Magisterial” pronouncement on the Summa. There has never been a pronouncement, “Magisterial” or otherwise, that affirms the Summa, including the section in question, is official Church teaching. Alhough the Summa holds an honored place in Church teaching and thought, it is not the official teaching of the Church. An imprimatur does **not ** equate to official teaching. For example, the deeply flawed book “Christ Among Us” that was popular among RCIA groups in the 80’s had an Imprimatur. It was finally abandoned as laced with heterodox errors.The only place you’ll see it now is in used bookstores. Imprimaturs may be helpful indicators of usefulness, and in most cases it is better to have one than not to have one, but they are only as good as the bishop (or his designee) that grants them.

As pertains to this thread, St. Thomas’ comments regarding the killing of heretics is not official Church teaching and instead must be taken in the context of the time and circumstances in which he lived. To make more of them than that is to be ahistorical and/or to engaging in proof texting.

(Since this side discussion on what an Imprimatur is or is not is in danger of highjacking this thread, perhaps another should be sarted.)

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Fidelis:

There has been no “Magisterial” pronouncement on the Summa.

I freely admit that some of the more esoteric points of this are unknown to me. But I would have thought that the Summa enjoys the approval of the ordinary and universal Magisterium even though it has not received, as far as I know, the approval of the extraordinary Magisterium. But since the Summa has not been challenged one would assume that there is no need to seek the approval of the extraordinary Magisterium?

 

[Imprimartin]

Fr Ambrose:

I freely admit that some of the more esoteric points of this are unknown to me. But I would have thought that the Summa enjoys the approval of the ordinary and universal Magisterium even though it has not received, as far as I know, the approval of the extraordinary Magisterium. But since the Summa has not been challenged one would assume that there is no need to seek the approval of the extraordinary Magisterium?

Fr Ambrose,

1. Simply because the Summa has not been challenged does not mean that it has been approved by the magisterium by default. Using this logic, every obscure unchallenged book/document would be considered approved simply because the magisterium refused/were too lazy/never got around to etc to approving it.
2. The Summa may “enjoy” all kinds of perks from bishops and theologians alike (myself included) but I don’t (and neither should you) make the assumption that it is official teaching.
3. Bishops and theologians are not popes. I would never quote some orthodox theologian and claim that it was orthodox teaching. You would be offended by that and it would be a straw man fallacy to boot. In the RCC world, even if a thousand bishops were to approve it, and people in their jurisdiction were to use it, and it ranked #1 on the best-seller list, and it was used at all the RCIA and CCD classes at those parishes, and other authors would write other books about it saying that it is TRUE catholic teaching, and Oprah endorsed it too, it would mean nothing until the Pope ratifies it. He could deny it and the whole house of cards would crash down.

Martin

 

[Fidelis]

Fr Ambrose:

I freely admit that some of the more esoteric points of this are unknown to me. But I would have thought that the Summa enjoys the approval of the ordinary and universal Magisterium even though it has not received, as far as I know, the approval of the extraordinary Magisterium. But since the Summa has not been challenged one would assume that there is no need to seek the approval of the extraordinary Magisterium?

I have started a new thread on this topic here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=15501

Juxtaposer, you can have your thread back. Sorry for the rabbit trail.

 

[Myhrr]

Are the canons of the Lateran council still infallible teaching to be given religious submission of intellect and will?

There’s a summary on this page:

aloha.net/~mikesch/

Catholic Canon Law on Dealing with Heretics.​

Twelfth Ecumenical Council: Lateran IV - 1215 A.D

CANON 3:
ON CHURCH USE OF SECULAR AUTHORITIES TO DEAL WITH HERETICS
We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that raises against the holy, orthodox and Catholic faith which we have above explained; condemning all heretics under whatever names they may be known, for while they have different faces they are nevertheless bound to each other by their tails, since in all of them vanity is a common element. Those condemned, being handed over to the secular rulers of their bailiffs, let them be abandoned, to be punished with due justice, clerics being first degraded from their orders. As to the property of the condemned, if they are laymen, let it be confiscated; if clerics, let it be applied to the churches from which they received revenues. But those who are only suspected, due consideration being given to the nature of the suspicion and the character of the person, unless they prove their innocence by a proper defense, let them be anathematized and avoided by all until they have made suitable satisfaction; but if they have been under excommunication for one year, then let them be condemned as heretics.

ON INSURING SECULAR AUTHORITIES EXTERMINATE HERETICS
Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath.

ON SEIZING THE TERRITORY OF UNRESPONSIVE SECULAR RULERS
But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled by Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action. The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land.

The full canons here:

www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~amtower/lateran4.html

There’s a note on this summary of the councils which refers to the ex-cathedra statement on salvation by Innocent III

Twelfth Ecumenical Council – Lateran IV

**ACTION: **Called and ratified by Pope Innocent III [which pope defined *ex cathedra (Denz. 430): “There is but one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved.”],

geocities.com/xman1892/CGSecumenic.htm

 

[Fidelis]

Myhrr:

Are the canons of the Lateran council still infallible teaching to be given religious submission of intellect and will?

As to the Lateran Council pronouncement on the “extermination” of heretics, extermination does not necessarily equate to execution. We must not try to impose a modern understanding of this word, which we would associate with what the Orkin man does to termites. According to Websters New College dictionary, in fact, the word exterminate comes from the Latin exterminare, which means to “drive out” (ex- out of + terminous- boundary). So, arguably, the meaning of extermination in this case is, not to destroy or kill, but to drive out of the territory. Big difference.

 

[Myhrr]

Fidelis:

As to the Lateran Council pronouncement on the “extermination” of heretics, extermination does not necessarily equate to execution. We must not try to impose a modern understanding of this word, which we would associate with what the Orkin man does to termites. According to Websters New College dictionary, in fact, the word exterminate comes from the Latin exterminare, which means to “drive out” (ex- out of + terminous- boundary). So, arguably, the meaning of extermination in this case is, not to destroy or kill, but to drive out of the territory. Big difference.

Oh right, I can see how that was applied to the Croatian Serbs, one third driven out, one third forcibly converted and one third tortured and exterminated. Hmm, you do have the language worked out, don’t you?

philologos.org/bpr/files/Vatican/vs001b.htm

 

[Myhrr]

p.s. let’s not forget what exterminate actually means:

vt. to kill or destroy sb or sth completely. That’s the only meaning given in Encarta.

 

[Fidelis]

Myhrr:

p.s. let’s not forget what exterminate actually means:

vt. to kill or destroy sb or sth completely. That’s the only meaning given in Encarta.

I suggest you invest in a decent dictionary.

Myhrr:

Oh right, I can see how that was applied to the Croatian Serbs, one third driven out, one third forcibly converted and one third tortured and exterminated. Hmm, you do have the language worked out, don’t you?

A course in manners and some anger control classes might do you some good as well.

 

[Myhrr]

Fidelis:

I suggest you invest in a decent dictionary.

It gave the same etymology as you. The single use.

A course in manners and some anger control classes might do you some good as well.

So where are yours? Exterminate does mean to “kill or destroy completely” - Croatia is a recent example of this in action, both with its primary meaning, to kill and utterly destroy, as well as the variations on the word, to drive out, a third of the Serbs were driven out, and a third converted, although many of those who were forced to convert were killed anyway.

It was decided as official policy before the campaign against the Serbs.

Obviously, they’d read the same canons we’re reading.

Jews and Gypsies were also included in the massacres, 90% of the Jews were killed, ‘driven out beyond the borders’ doesn’t seem to have been considered here.

 

[Shibboleth]

The Latin use of the word means to drive out.

Latin extermin re, extermin t-, to drive out : ex-, ex- + termin re, to mark boundaries (from terminus, boundary marker).

The question is drive out of where and to what level.

 

[Fidelis]

Shibboleth:

The Latin use of the word means to drive out.

Latin extermin re, extermin t-, to drive out : ex-, ex- + termin re, to mark boundaries (from terminus, boundary marker).

The question is drive out of where and to what level.

Exactly. How certain individuals or groups choose to misinterpret, read into, abuse or go beyond the plain meaning of the words of the document for their own nefarious agenda is another story altogether. Even the Bible itself has been abused in this way.

 

[Myhrr]

Shibboleth:

The Latin use of the word means to drive out.

Latin extermin re, extermin t-, to drive out : ex-, ex- + termin re, to mark boundaries (from terminus, boundary marker).

The question is drive out of where and to what level.

And the boundaries are that your Church claims divine right to wield the sword against heretics. You’ll have to excuse my sarcasm here, but it’s late, do you think anyone interpreted that as tickling them until they crossed the border?