Was the burning of heretics justified?

[Keikiolu]

I understand the principle just fine. I don’t find it persuasive at all, especially in this context. I see that the Church is a definitional box to you…since the Church cannot err any error must not be of the Church…or it must not be error. It’s like the Church is a theoretical construct existing high above reality and unaffected by it.

If you DON’T believe that the Church is “above it all”, then you’re not a Catholic.

For you to be “unconvinced” of this reality of the Church speaks only to what you believe, and nothing whatsoever to the validity of the statement.

You’re not obliged to accept the fact that the Church is the way that it is, unless you’re a Catholic.

So,… what’s your conclusion, based on your disbelief in this aspect of the Church?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[rr1213]

If you DON’T believe that the Church is “above it all”, then you’re not a Catholic.

For you to be “unconvinced” of this reality of the Church speaks only to what you believe, and nothing whatsoever to the validity of the statement.

You’re not obliged to accept the fact that the Church is the way that it is, unless you’re a Catholic.

So,… what’s your conclusion, based on your disbelief in this aspect of the Church?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

I do believe that the Church can err which is one reason why I have not yet converted. I also don’t think that it is proper, whenever problems arise, to simply shrug them off by saying that “it’s the people who make up the Church” and “not the Church itself”. I find this to be disingenuous and merely definitional. If the Church condones burning of heretics, then the responsibility of that decision lies with the Church. Likewise, if the Church hides pedophile priests, then the fault of that decision lies with the Church.

 

[Mirdath]

The Church is more than an “organization of humans”. It is firstly Christ, who needs no “members”. The fact that there are people who are considered “members” of the body of Christ is entirely unnecessary and entirely gratuitously ALLOWED by God.

The Church is simply incapable of sinning. Period, because the Church can not err from the will of God, which can not sin.

Until you admit that you don’t understand the nature of the Church, the nature of God, and the nature of man, and then seek to understand them, you can’t possibly see ANY sense in what I just said…!

Ya’ interested in finding out, or you just want to be noisily pissy with your perception of “the Church as bad guy”…?

Ahem.

115. Q. What is the Church?

A. The Church is the congregation of all those who profess the faith of Christ, partake of the same Sacraments, and are governed by their lawful pastors under one visible head.

In other words, the Church is people!

 

[Contarini]

Tossing ANYONE on a bonfire is a morally evil behavior. Period.
That behavior was the behavior of INDIVIDUALS, and not of the Church, even if every single individual member of the Church at the time agreed to do that behavior.

If you can’t draw the distinction between The Church and it’s members (even if it’s ALL it’s members), then you rightly can’t understand what I’m saying.

That tells me only that you need to be educated in the distinction between the Church and it’s members.

.

On my part, it’s not that I need to be educated, but that I don’t buy the distinction. I think it’s a cop-out.

Of course if some members do something unofficially and the leaders of the Church condemn it, or even just ignore it, then that’s one thing. But if every member of the Church can do something without “the Church” doing it, then what you have, my friend, is a good old-fashioned invisible Church. I’ve been there and done that in Protestantism. It’s visible Church for me all the way down. That’s one of the main reasons why I am not Catholic. I didn’t reject one form of invisible-church ideology just to embrace another one.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make on rr’s thread which is now closed.

Edwin

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*If you DON’T believe that the Church is “above it all”, then you’re not a Catholic.

For you to be “unconvinced” of this reality of the Church speaks only to what you believe, and nothing whatsoever to the validity of the statement.

You’re not obliged to accept the fact that the Church is the way that it is, unless you’re a Catholic.

So,… what’s your conclusion, based on your disbelief in this aspect of the Church?*

I do believe that the Church can err which is one reason why I have not yet converted.

Until you CAN come to believe that, you can’t convert to the Church, therefore you’re probably never going to really convert, because you can’t convert to something you don’t understand.

I also don’t think that it is proper, whenever problems arise, to simply shrug them off by saying that “it’s the people who make up the Church” and “not the Church itself”. I find this to be disingenuous and merely definitional.

Sins commited by people within the Church are dealt with as any sin would be dealt with,… quite often not NEARLY fast enough for most people within the Church.

If the Church condones burning of heretics, then the responsibility of that decision lies with the Church. Likewise, if the Church hides pedophile priests, then the fault of that decision lies with the Church.

Who gave the orders to burn people?

Who did the burning?

Who commited pedophilia?

Who hid the pedophiles?

Were any of them “The Church”?

A protestant can’t possibly understand the difference between The Church and Her members because each member of a protestant denomination makes themself a “church”, and all “churches”, thus defined, are synonymous with their “members” (being THE single person that makes up that “church”).

Simply being a protestant precludes one from accepting the proposition that the (Catholic) Church is not synonymous with it’s members, because to accept the “Catholic definition” of “The Church” invalidates their calling themselves “churches”.

Nobody LIKES to commit “organizational suicide”…!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
The Church is more than an “organization of humans”. It is firstly Christ, who needs no “members”. The fact that there are people who are considered “members” of the body of Christ is entirely unnecessary and entirely gratuitously ALLOWED by God.

Quote:
The Church is simply incapable of sinning. Period, because the Church can not err from the will of God, which can not sin.

Until you admit that you don’t understand the nature of the Church, the nature of God, and the nature of man, and then seek to understand them, you can’t possibly see ANY sense in what I just said…!

Ya’ interested in finding out, or you just want to be noisily pissy with your perception of “the Church as bad guy”…?

Ahem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baltimore Catechism, Part 2, Lesson Eleven
*115. Q. What is the Church?

A. The Church is the congregation of all those who profess the faith of Christ, partake of the same Sacraments, and are governed by their lawful pastors under one visible head.*

In other words, the Church is people!

No. Soilent GREEN is PEOPLE…!!

The Church is composed of the Church Militant, the Church Triumphant, and the Church Expectant (aka Suffering).

That is, respectively, living members, members in heaven, and members in purgatory.

The Church could lose ALL of the Church Militant (the living, which would include all the “rulers” of the Church on Earth), and still be the Church.

Next question?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Tossing ANYONE on a bonfire is a morally evil behavior. Period.
That behavior was the behavior of INDIVIDUALS, and not of the Church, even if every single individual member of the Church at the time agreed to do that behavior.

If you can’t draw the distinction between The Church and it’s members (even if it’s ALL it’s members), then you rightly can’t understand what I’m saying.

That tells me only that you need to be educated in the distinction between the Church and it’s members.

.

On my part, it’s not that I need to be educated, but that I don’t buy the distinction. I think it’s a cop-out.

You’re not obliged to accept the distinction. Because you’re a die-hard protestant, you can’t afford to, as it invalidates many of your beliefs.

That’s cool.

Of course if some members do something unofficially and the leaders of the Church condemn it, or even just ignore it, then that’s one thing. But if every member of the Church can do something without “the Church” doing it, then what you have, my friend, is a good old-fashioned invisible Church.

The Church has never done that. You fear an impossibility.

I’ve been there and done that in Protestantism. It’s visible Church for me all the way down. That’s one of the main reasons why I am not Catholic. I didn’t reject one form of invisible-church ideology just to embrace another one.

If you don’t believe that there is a “body above reproach” that is NEVER fully reached on earth, due to it’s members being HUMAN, then your “church” is a free floating politico-social organization with a (hopefully) good mission. Which of course is precisely what it is.

That’s fine, but that’s NOT the Church of Christ. Period.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make on rr’s thread which is now closed.

People, as individuals, are responsible for their acts of free will.

The Church, as an “appendage” of Christ Himself, is composed, by “grafting”, of the three “bodies” (militant[sinners], triumphant[not-sinners] and expectant[sinners-being-purified]) of people, but only the “living sinners” body [militant] can “err”, and when they do so they distance themselves from the Church, leaving the unerring Church.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Mirdath]

The Church, as an “appendage” of Christ Himself, is composed, by “grafting”, of the three “bodies” (militant[sinners], triumphant[not-sinners] and expectant[sinners-being-purified]) of people, but only the “living sinners” body [militant] can “err”, and when they do so they distance themselves from the Church, leaving the unerring Church.

The definition of the Church I posted does not say anything about making mistakes or even sinning. It is concerned with faith, sacraments, and submission to the pope. Sinners are still members of the Church – a good thing for it too, else all the cathedrals would stand empty!

If you can’t bring yourself to agree with your religion’s own beliefs as expressed in its own Baltimore Catechism, I simply don’t know what to say.

 

[Kevan]

The Church has never done that.

Maybe it would clear things up if you could give some examples of things the Church HAS done, and then we could see the difference between the things it did and the things its members did.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif *The Church, as an “appendage” of Christ Himself, is composed, by “grafting”, of the three “bodies” (militant[sinners], triumphant[not-sinners] and expectant[sinners-being-purified]) of people, but only the “living sinners” body [militant] can “err”, and when they do so they distance themselves from the Church, leaving the unerring Church.*The definition of the Church I posted does not say anything about making mistakes or even sinning. It is concerned with faith, sacraments, and submission to the pope. Sinners are still members of the Church – a good thing for it too, else all the cathedrals would stand empty!

If you can’t bring yourself to agree with your religion’s own beliefs as expressed in its own Baltimore Catechism, I simply don’t know what to say.

Baltimore Catechism, Part 2, Lesson Eleven 115. Q. What is the Church?

*A. The Church is the congregation of all those who profess the faith of Christ, partake of the same Sacraments, and are governed by their lawful pastors under one visible head.*That definition of the Church is fine, as far as it goes.

This is a fuller version: CCC: 811 The Church Is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic

When individual people sin, they sin, but the Church does not sin when they sin.

Can we agree on that?

When people who should correct the errors of people in the Church don’t, then they’ve sinned as well, and should be corrected. When no one in the Church corrects those who sin, then the Church is made to look “bad”, which is a huge sin itself, but the Church, as it has no power to abrogate the free will of those of whom it is composed, can’t be blamed for the freely chosen actions of it’s sinning members, but WILL be “persecuted” by those who don’t understand the distinction between the Church and it’s members.

One of God’s “corrective actions” is to use people “outside the Church who delight in persecuting people at the least provocation” to inspire some “soul searching”, shall we say, in people within the Church who are best placed to correct people who err within the Church.

That’s what Egypt was all about.
That’s what the various exiles were all about.
That’s what the smack down of the Temple was about.
That’s what the moslems were all about.
That’s what the protestant revolt was about.
Etc…

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
The Church has never done that.

Maybe it would clear things up if you could give some examples of things the Church HAS done, and then we could see the difference between the things it did and the things its members did.

For bad stuff it’s members did, read the history of the church. I’m sure there’s no shortage of examples of “sinning” that you could ellicit from folks here.

What has the Church done?

Read the catechism, and find those parts you disagree with. Then read a bit further, so as to clarify why those “disagreeable” parts are believed by the Church.

In other words, the Church does only good things, while if any evil is done it is, of necessity, done only by people, as only PEOPLE CAN SIN.

The Church is simply defined as “unerrant” (incapable of sin) as an axiom.

If you don’t believe that, then you’re not a Catholic.

And if you’re not a Catholic, you’re on your own, chief.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[rr1213]

The Church is simply defined as “unerrant” (incapable of sin) as an axiom.

More like an indefensible truism.

 

[Mirdath]

That definition of the Church is fine, as far as it goes.

This is a fuller version: CCC: 811 The Church Is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic

All well and good, but entirely irrelevant. CCC 811 merely describes attributes of the Church, not its composition. A similar line exists in the Baltimore Catechism as well, and I did not quote it for a reason: it has nothing to do with what we’re talking about.

When individual people sin, they sin, but the Church does not sin when they sin.

Can we agree on that?

No. If the Church as an institution comprised of people promulgates error or wrong, it – and by its nature, those in the Church who abet such error or wrongdoing, from the pope on down – is guilty.

 

[LJN21]

Okay after 7 pages of thread I’m kinda surprised no one has point out that the death penalty is in fact Moral.

CCC 2266 Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding , in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. For analogous reason those holding authority have the right to repel by armed forces aggressors against the community in there charge.

Remember the public authority at the time was a Catholic government. Also understand that these were not people that weren’t Catholic. They people that acted like practicing Catholics to subvert the faith. They were Heretics. In this society heresy was as bad as if not worse that Treason. Treason is still in today’s society punishable by death.

 

[rr1213]

Treason is still in today’s society punishable by death.

Not by burning alive at the stake it isn’t.

 

[LJN21]

Not by burning alive at the stake it isn’t.

So which form of death that they used would be Justified?

 

[Sixtus]

Greg 27 said:

Pope Benedict said the Catholic faith is one of reason, and the rich tradition in Law shows anyone accused of wrongdoing should get a fair trial. I doubt many victims of the witchunts in the medival period ever got one, and torture can in my view never be justified in a trial for any matter.

His Holiness Pope Benedict is of course correct.

Things done in the past belong to the era and culture in which they took place. It is doubtful accused witches got a fair hearing. But that is not the fault of the Church. It was the fault of the legal Judicial System.

In Norwich Norfolk for example, whenever a visiting Dignitary came from London, accused witches were dunked for the shortest period possible to ensure they came up alive in order to justify an excuse to burn them for the entertainment of the Civic Dignitary.

A tragic case of a very holy woman who used to carry her bible with her everywhere and kept hold of it all through Mass.

She used to read it as she walked around the town. She was seen to ‘mouth the words of the psalms and her prayers!’ That was taken as proof of her evil. The Priest refused to give evidence against her. It was referred to the Bishop who also refused. But she was still condemned as a witch.

She was placed in a barrel coated inside and out with tar, the lid was secured, it was taken to the top of a high hill, set alite and pushed, to roll down the hill. The terror she must have experienced rolling down a hill in a flaming barrel is unimaginable.

That was the barbarity of the times. We thank God we do not live in those times now.

Torture likewise is a weapon of war. I do not agree with it’s use. I would gladly see a worldwide ban on its use. But its supporters argue it can and does save lives.

People who engage in terror know the risks if they get caught. I think its use by some nebulous regimes as a way of terrorising, subduing and beating a population into apathetic submission is evil and sanctions should be taken against any regime which conduct itself in this heiniously evil practice.

 

[rr1213]

So which form of death that they used would be Justified?

For heresy no punishment on earth is justified. God will judge whether someone is a heretic and, if so, will decide on the appropriate punishment if any.

For*** real ***crimes punishable by death, which in the US is pretty much limited to murder with aggravating circumstances (when was the last time anyone was executed for treason?), any means of execution which does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” is acceptable. Generally, today, this is done through injection, the electric chair or, rarely, by hanging. Each of these methods have been challenged as being “cruel and unusual” with varying degrees of success.

 

[rr1213]

For heresy no punishment on earth is justified. God will judge whether someone is a heretic and, if so, will decide on the appropriate punishment if any.

For*** real ***crimes punishable by death, which in the US is pretty much limited to murder with aggravating circumstances (when was the last time anyone was executed for treason?), any means of execution which does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” is acceptable. Generally, today, this is done through injection, the electric chair or, rarely, by hanging. Each of these methods have been challenged as being “cruel and unusual” with varying degrees of success.

 

[LJN21]

For heresy no punishment on earth is justified. God will judge whether someone is a heretic and, if so, will decide on the appropriate punishment if any.

Aquinas seems have have a different opinion.

newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm#3
Summa Theologica:

I answer that, 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.

For*** real ***crimes punishable by death, which in the US is pretty much limited to murder with aggravating circumstances (when was the last time anyone was executed for treason?), any means of execution which does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” is acceptable. Generally, today, this is done through injection, the electric chair or, rarely, by hanging. Each of these methods have been challenged as being “cruel and unusual” with varying degrees of success.

We aren’t talking about the US. We are talking about Medieval Europe. The good of society is quite different then than now. Just their prisons would be seen as cruel and unusual punishment today. It is not possible to view this in light of today’s prison and execution systems.