Violent/Dastardly Protestants

[mercygate]

gsaccone:

My memory on this may be wrong, but somewhere my brain is telling me that at one time there WAS a law preventing Catholics from holding some political offices. I’m more confident that for a very long time in England there were laws forbidding Catholics from holding parlimentary seats and of course the Prime Minister or other posts.

This isn’t torture, but in England, a Catholic could not receive a degree from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge until the 19th Century.

 

[mercygate]

Yo, Jux. You’ve been placed in a truly nasty position. Of course, you can understand where your mom is coming from.

You say she has you talking to a “theologian?” What is that? Her pastor? What kind of credentials does he have?

One thing you can say (as I learned in my own experience) is that very often people seriously misrepresent the Catholic Church, either through ignorance or malice, and that whenever I looked up what the Church actually teaches, I found that the case made by the Church was far better than the case made against her.

When it comes to Jan Hus, or anything else in her history that is ugly, you can say flat out that the Church does not deny her sins, she repents of them.

 

[maendem]

St. Thomas Aquinas advocates the killing of heretics under the same rationale and section whereby he allows for capital punishment. The logic: society (in his case, Christian society) must be protected; the whole is more important than the part, and must be protected from a threat that would come from a part. No greater threat exists than loss of faith and consequential damnation. Therefore, heretics may be killed (although they should be offered a chance to recant first, and recieve absolution beforehand) so that both their soul and the souls of the faithful --the whole–are protected.

(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…

 

[Sherlock]

Gsaccone,

You wrote: “At least 5000 “witches” were burned at the stake per YEAR during the witch hunts in New England.”

Sorry, but this is false. Even the notorious Salem witch hunts culminated in just 20-some deaths, and by hanging, not by burning at the stake. “Thousands” is out of line, at least in New England.

 

[hlgomez]

TO ALL:

Enough is enough of this bashing, attacking, accusing, etc. We will become less and less Christians if we continue with this! It will not help us in pursuing unity if we don’t acknowledge, forgive, and forget.

Christ gives us a law of love–and this is what we truly need to focus more and do. Can’t we discern that the Enemy is laughing at us Christians? We need to act and time is now for us to unite the Body of Christ. Let’s follow the Pope to help him gather the sheep that has been scattered!

“Get up, let’s go!”

Pio

 

[Malachi4U]

All churches, being composed of humans are subject to sin through the ‘human’ members. Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone. Remember that saying? So whoever is badmouthing Christ’s body, His Catholic Church may have a point about certain members of the Church but not the Church itself and they also need to look in the mirror.

To see protestant atrocities rent the movie “A Man For All Seasons”. Everyone on this world sins including me. As men we have sin but His Church is free from sin. The man sins not the Church.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Fidelis:

Here’s a couple more for you:
The Catholic Martyrs of Wales
yassoo.vispa.com/welshmartyrs/index.html

The Martyrs of Gorkum
newadvent.org/cathen/06651c.htm

Unfortunately, there is no Catholic equivalent of the infamous *Foxe’s Book of Martyrs *where most Protestants find fuel for their charges of Catholic persecution against Protestants.

FWIW, Bishop Challoner’s “Memoirs of Missionary Priests and other Catholics that suffered death in England (1577-1684)” is a close approximation.​

Most of the misinformation about the Inquisition as well is part of the same “Black Legend” which (especially English) Protestantism created as part of the wider post-Reformation polemics.Since our culture is mostly English speaking, the anti-Catholic version is the side we have mostly heard. Catholics don’t seem to have been overly zealous to tell the other side of the story until lately. There are some excellent new books on the Inquisition, for example, that using the actual records and contemporary accounts (rather than legend) that show that period, while still guilty of excesses, was not the bloodthirsty, maniacal period we have been led to believe.

While you are getting up to speed on gaining a more balanced view of history, perhaps you can press your theologian friends on the above point: Where does Catholic theology teach this? Ask them for references and specifics. If they can’t produce any, advise them you are unconvinced. If they come up with something that looks damning, be sure to read it in it’s original context to make sure it says what they think it does, or they are not quoting some saint or theologian who does not speak for the Church. If it were me, I would save them the trouble and tell them not to bother, because such official Church teaching does not exist. But that’s just me.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

mercygate:

This isn’t torture, but in England, a Catholic could not receive a degree from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge until the 19th Century.

Until 1895, Catholics were forbidden to send their sons to either University - by a decision of the Congregation De Propaganda Fide, I think.​

(Not purely by the Universities in question - I forget when they were prepared on their side to admit RCs. )

Some parents did so anyway. ##

 

[GKC]

## Until 1895, Catholics were forbidden to send their sons to either University - by a decision of the Congregation De Propaganda Fide, I think.

(Not purely by the Universities in question - I forget when they were prepared on their side to admit RCs. )

Some parents did so anyway. ##

1854 (Oxford) and 1856 (Cambridge). The culmination of a lengthy process, including the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, in 1828, and the passing of the Catholic Emancipation Act in 1829.

Good job clearing up a few inaccuracies, BTW.

GKC

 

[Maccabees]

maendem:

St. Thomas Aquinas advocates the killing of heretics under the same rationale and section whereby he allows for capital punishment. …

Well I hate to break this to you but the Reformers okayed the killing of heretics themselves of Course the English Reformers killed Catholics. Luther gave the ok to German princes to kill the anabaptist and Calvin persoanlly lit the match that burned Unitarians.
And unlike the Inquisition which was rather nunaced with lawyers for the defense and a sophisticated legal structure the reformation Inquisition left little room for a defense.
The Salem witch trials are a good example of a lack of recourse these girls had in presenting their side of the story they had no laywer and were not able to call their own witnesses nor could they testify on their own behalf all things the Inquisition provided. and of course the Inquisistion gave the accused the chance to recant and walk free. The Salme Witch Trilals assumed guilt and no recantation was allowed. I think the number is slightly below 20 as thankfully the nutiness of the thing became expossed fairly early. But in Europe things like these were not caught until many thousands died.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Fidelis:

Where does Catholic theology teach this? Ask them for references and specifics… or they are not quoting some saint or theologian who does not speak for the Church. If it were me, I would save them the trouble and tell them not to bother, because such official Church teaching does not exist. But that’s just me.

Unfortunately it does exist, in what is the foremost compendium of theology of the Catholic Church, the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas…

The principles on which the Inquistion operated are enunciated by Thomas Aquinas in the Summa. Aquinas advocated death for heretics.

For example he writes: "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
The text for the above is in the Catholic Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/summa/301100.htm

 

[mercygate]

We must remember that this was a time when people actually believed in truth and that it really matter that one believe and teach the truth. These were life-and-death issues to both Catholics and Protestants and thus were remanded to life-and-death solutions.

Can we agree that we have made enough of a case that we don’t need to continue on this road any longer?

 

[Imprimartin]

Fr Ambrose:

Unfortunately it does exist, in what is the foremost compendium of theology of the Catholic Church, the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas…

The principles on which the Inquistion operated are enunciated by Thomas Aquinas in the Summa. Aquinas advocated death for heretics.

-snip-

Fr Ambrose,
You are incorrect. You should re-read Post #18 again. The procedures not the priniciples (official teachings) were implemented. The quote is (in context) [Emphasis mine]:

"…If it were me, I would save them the trouble and tell them not to bother, because such official Church teaching does not exist. But that’s just me…"

This phrase comes after the phrase:

“Where does Catholic theology teach this? …”

When you put them both together, you understand that Fidelis is talking about official catholic teachings and not the commentary of catholic theologians (saint or not) (Doctor of the church or not).

The writings of St Thomas Aquinas is not official church teaching. Although you don’t agree with the concept of a pope (as an orthodox person), we do. Things that are verified by the pope are considered “official”. Everything else is considered “(name removed by moderator)ut” (for lack of a better word) to be verified or not.

Now, granted the RCC quotes the Summa quite a bit to show how christians throughout time have believed certain beliefs or to show God’s logic (where possible). But The Church doesn’t quote 100% of it for official teaching. Some catholic priests or bishops may have even implemented the “wrong” parts of the Summa, but that’s not official teaching.

St Thomas got a few things wrong. And the church did not choose to verify those parts as truth. But what they do verify, you will find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC).

I suggest that if you want to know which teachings are official, then you start there. If you want to know what was official in times before the CCC was around, then you reference the councils which the pope has ratified (and only those).

Admittedly there wasn’t always a handy CCC around, but that was because the printing press wasn’t invented yet.

Martin

 

[Imprimartin]

I have an additional question that a protestant christian (at work) directed to me. He said that the “catholic church” killed a group of protestants called “the mountain men”. I have search up and down and I have yet to find this group in history.

He said that he heard this from another guy. Both are SOLO-scripturists. We even did an internet search together and we found nothing. I said "how about the Montanists? They have something to do with mountains. " He said no. Then I told him that his accusation is baseless until he can get the name of this group right. Later he came up the name “the Welsians or Welshans”. We looked that up but no joy.

I said maybe he was talking about the “Waldensians” and he said no. So I told him to go get the correct name. He has yet to come up with it although I know he still secretly holds this accusation to be true. :nope:

Anybody hear of these guys?

Martin

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Imprimartin:

When you put them both together, you understand that Fidelis is talking about official catholic teachings and not the commentary of catholic theologians (saint or not) (Doctor of the church or not).

The writings of St Thomas Aquinas is not official church teaching.

Dear Imprimartin,

Every edition of Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica comes with an Imprimatur and a Nihil Obstat. If you have a copy at home, please look inside the cover.

This means that the contents have been examined by the Church’s Magisterium. The Magisterium guarantees that there is nothing in the book contrary to Catholic doctrine. It guarantees that Catholics may read it and have full confidence that everything which they read is in accord with Catholic doctrine.

 

[dfb1105]

Imprimartin:

I Then I told him that his accusation is baseless until he can get the name of this group right. Later he came up the name “the Welsians or Welshans”. We looked that up but no joy.

I was wonder if he is refering to Methodists. There were groups in Ireland. I wouldn’t spend too much time on unsubstantiated allegations.

 

[Shibboleth]

I would just like to add some of the etymology of the word ‘heretic’ because I have seen many people get confused at its usage over the centuries when quoting old documents. The word’s meaning has changed much over the years.

Heresy,
The oldest use known is Greek ‘hairetikos’ and it simply means ‘able to choose’

When it comes to the New Testament a heretic is quite different than its modern use; many bibles translate the word as ‘sect.’ The N.T. uses the word in reference to Sadducees, Pharisees, and even the Christians, as sects of Judaism.

The meaning ‘religious belief opposed to the orthodox doctrines of the Church’ really did not come about until the Dark Ages.

So be careful when reading old material and seeing the word ‘Heretic.’

 

[Shibboleth]

Imprimartin:

I have an additional question that a protestant christian (at work) directed to me. He said that the “catholic church” killed a group of protestants called “the mountain men”. I have search up and down and I have yet to find this group in history.

He said that he heard this from another guy. Both are SOLO-scripturists. We even did an internet search together and we found nothing. I said "how about the Montanists? They have something to do with mountains. " He said no. Then I told him that his accusation is baseless until he can get the name of this group right. Later he came up the name “the Welsians or Welshans”. We looked that up but no joy.

I said maybe he was talking about the “Waldensians” and he said no. So I told him to go get the correct name. He has yet to come up with it although I know he still secretly holds this accusation to be true. :nope:

Anybody hear of these guys?

Martin

I think that you are right if he is referring to anyone he is referring to the Waldensians. Since the Waldensians were very much nomadic I could see how someone might call them mountain ‘whatever.’

Yes the Catholic Church did pretty much do away with them, I believe in the 1200’s under one of the Pope Gregory-s but I could be wrong. The battle was primarily against the Cathars but the Waldensians or Valdezians were definitely a target.

 

[Contarini]

:At least 5000 “witches” were burned at the stake per YEAR during the witch hunts in New England.:

That’s impossible. There was only one witch hunt that I know of in New England and it didn’t last very long. I don’t know how many were killed but it certainly wasn’t in the thousands–probably not even in the hundreds.

Thousands of people were killed as witches throughout Europe, by both Catholic and Protestant governments (the attempt of some Catholics to link the killings solely to Protestants is sheer spin). Historians have found that most of the executions took place in border areas where Catholicism and Protestantism were in conflict. Areas where the Inquisition was in place were less likely to have witch-hunts, because the Inquisition had more careful procedures. In fact, the Inquisition in general, though frequently brutal, was relatively less so than the civil governments which were responsible for most of the religious violence (that doesn’t let the Church off the hook, because the Church encouraged this–but when the Church itself ran the courts they were generally more lenient).

However, when it comes to burning people as heretics, Catholic governments are responsible for far more such executions than Protestants. In fact, the only burnings I know of were the burning of Servetus in Geneva and a few burnings of Baptists, anti-Trinitarians, and other radicals (Gottle of Geer mentioned that one Catholic was burned as well) in England. However, that’s misleading, because of course there were several hundred Catholics executed as traitors in England, most of whom were really being killed for their religion. There were some such executions elsewhere in Europe, but not too many. Most of the killing of Catholics by Protestants was either in war or in mob violence (which on the Protestant side was usually directed either against clergy/religious or religious symbols and artificats). So I’d have to say that on the whole Protestants were relatively far less violent to Catholics than Catholics were to Protestants. I know this will get me in trouble here, but I’ve come to these conclusions slowly and carefully and I’m pretty sure of my ground.

Protestants did execute quite a few Anabaptists, but on the whole were more likely to imprison or banish them. Lutherans, for all their bloody rhetoric at times, have a pretty good record in terms of actual executions. I don’t know of any Anabaptists or Catholics who were executed by Lutherans for clearly religious reasons (in other words, obviously the Lutherans participated in things like the brutal killing of the Anabaptists in Munster–but those guys had engaged in a political revolution and had been beheading non-Anabaptists). I’m not saying it didn’t happen–I’m just saying show me specific evidence for statements like this:

:The horriffic devices you may have seen (such as the iron maiden) were not used by Inquisitorial tribunals but rather they were used in Germany often against Catholics.:

Maybe. But I want evidence.

One final thing should be said–persecution was very much a function of the individual government. The Hapsburgs were particularly ruthless and cruel in their forms of punishment, and of course they ruled much of Catholic Europe. The French (Catholics) and English (both Catholic and Protestant, at different times) were not far behind. But smaller German territories, both Catholic and Protestant, were more likely to imprison or banish. And Catholic Poland was quite remarkably tolerant. So we should be careful drawing generalizations about the various confessional traditions from the actual facts of who killed whom. Everyone except a few radicals agreed that the government had the right and duty to support true religion by force. But how this worked out in practice depended very much on the particular political circumstances.

Edwin

 

[Fidelis]

Fr Ambrose:

Every edition of Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica comes with an Imprimatur and a Nihil Obstat. If you have a copy at home, please look inside the cover.

This means that the contents have been examined by the Church’s Magisterium. The Magisterium guarantees that there is nothing in the book contrary to Catholic doctrine. It guarantees that Catholics may read it and have full confidence that everything which they read is in accord with Catholic doctrine.

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. Here is what EWTN expert, Dr. Richard Geraghty says:

Nihil Obstat is Latin and means “Nothing is wrong here”. Imprimature is Latin and means that the book may be printed. These two terms are printed in books which the Diocesan authorities have approved. It means that there is nothing contray to the faith in these books. It does not mean that the Church approves of absolutely everything that the book says.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=314345&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=3000&Author=&Keyword=imprimatur&pgnu=2&groupnum=0