When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[Contarini]

This is not the case. The majority of the Catholic Church was not even aware of these events,

If you are defining “the Catholic Church” as the Roman Communion, then they were.

and never were such actions part of the teaching of the Magesterium

I have provided evidence that they were part of the ordinary Magisterium.

None of the Eastern Rites practiced such activities, because there was not a conflation of temporal with religious authority.

That’s not exactly true, but certainly the relationship is different. The Byzantine Empire did persecute heretics, but the Church was not as directly involved.

This is peculiar to the Latin Rite, and specifically in small areas of Europe.

Let’s do a thought experiment. Suppose that the same three authorities I’ve cited–IV Lateran, Thomas Aquinas, and Pope Leo in a Bull–had said the opposite of what they said. Suppose that IV Lateran had urged the Catholic faithful to show Christ’s love to heretics and win them back to the faith by strictly nonviolent means. Suppose St. Thomas Aquinas had begun Article 3 of Question 11 of the Second Part of the Second Part of the Summa Theologiae with the words, “It seems that heretics ought not to be tolerated.” (As I’m sure you know, he generally starts out by saying “it seems that” whatever it is he’s going to refute.) Suppose that Pope Leo had condemned as heretical or scandalous or whatever term he chose to use the proposition: “To burn heretics *is *the will of the Spirit.”

Can you deny that in that case you and other Catholics would be quite happy to say that “the Church taught” that heretics shouldn’t be executed?

Josie invoked Sixtus IV’s bull establishing the Spanish Inquisition as if it were a contradiction of my claim that the Church taught that heretics should be executed (simply because Sixtus was concerned to maintain justice in the way heretics were treated). Imagine what she would have done if she had the kind of evidence on her side that I have on mine!

Well, for the record, I think it was horrendous to put heretics to death, and to classify them as traitors

I am unaware of any evidence showing that heretics were generally classified as traitors. I have encountered this claim before on this forum, but have never seen any evidence to support it. The two crimes were quite distinct.

However, these activities are not part of the doctrine of the faith, and objecting to the Catholic faith because people implemented the tenents of the faith in a manner we find abhorrent does not seem to make sense to me.

And as I have said over and over, that is not what I’m doing. That’s why I have pointed to a conciliar decree, a papal encyclical, and the theological work of a great Doctor of the Church. I have not based my position on the abundant evidence of Church courts handing people over for execution, and devout Catholic laypersons carrying out such executions in the full belief that they were doing God’s work. That certainly provides the historical context for the three texts I’ve cited, and provides a strong presumption against the ingenious explanations some folks have come up with to avoid the conclusion that the Church was teaching that heretics should be executed (the suggestion that “extermino” in IV Lateran doesn’t refer to the death penalty, for instance, or that Pope Leo’s condemnation of the claim that the Holy Spirit didn’t want heretics executed does not constitute a teaching that heretics should be executed). But I am not basing my claim merely on this overwhelming evidence of practice. I’m basing it on prescriptive documents. And I have made that point clearly over and over again, only to be met over and over with the stubborn insistence, “No, this is just stuff people did, not stuff the Church said they should do.”

I understand why you and others are defending this point so desperately. But your arguments aren’t making sense, and I don’t think they are necessary–just as I don’t think it’s necessary to defend genocide in order to defend the inspiration of Scripture. But in both cases, granting the point involves adopting a somewhat more modest doctrine of authority, and that would cripple some of the more extravagant claims made by apologists. In particular, it would make it harder for you to point fingers at other churches and ask, “How can you belong to a church that teaches/does X, Y, or Z?”

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

T

And do you seriously believe that most people would assume this on so little basis,

They didn’t need to. Leo was defending standard practice. Everyone knew what he was talking about. This is the aspect of your argument that I find so objectionable from the standpoint of common honesty. You play “divide and conquer”–each piece of evidence I cite is allegedly insufficient because it can be explained in some other way. But the three pieces of evidence I’ve sited reinforce each other and stand against the background of several centuries in which Church courts *were *handing impenitent/relapsed heretics over for execution and Catholic civil rulers *were *executing them.

Actually I find the statement extremely clear and think that it provides a pretty strong basis, short as it is, for concluding that the Church taught that heretics should be executed. But of course such a statement never would stand on its own–there is always a context. And we know that the context was several centuries during which the Church had handed heretics over for execution (whether through the “Inquisition” or through local episcopal courts) and Catholic civil authorities had executed them; during which Church Councils had urged civil rulers to eliminate heresy from their dominions; and during which major theologians had defended the view that heretics should be executed.

i.e., if Leo X had explained in what capacity #33 was being regarded (heretical or false or scandalous . . .) then I can understand but not having defined anything I find it hard to accept.

Why do you find the distinction among these categories so significant? Whichever category applied, you still have a condemnation and thus a teaching. The question is only about the level of the teaching, isn’t it? (Again, I thought that was an extremely telling point when Eck made it against Luther.)

i.e., they would have known of any prior (official) teachings of the Church of which there are none claiming that " burning heretics is the will of the Spirit."

You keep insisting that only official teaching matters. Then when I provide official teaching, you demand more official teaching to interpret the official teaching. You can keep doing this till the cows come home. But it just demonstrates how far away you are from what we’d normally consider a fair historical analysis of the question.

Yes, a teaching which does not define in what capacity proposition # 33 is being condemned, AND it does matter what category of error it falls under as that would tell us what Leo X meant by error (but we don’t have that information). Using the words that Leo X did: “scandalous”, “impious”, “offensive” would not imply a view contrary to the proposition made just keep that in mind.

I can’t “keep it in mind,” because my mind doesn’t accept it in the first place. I accept that the category matters with regard to whether a dogma of the faith is being defended or something on a lower level. But it still implies a teaching. These levels matter to you as a Catholic, and that’s fine. *They don’t matter to me. *If Pope Leo thought that it was “scandalous” or “impious” or “offensive” to say that the Holy Spirit didn’t want heretics burned, then he was still teaching something. Maybe you can explain to me how one can say that something is scandalous or impious or offensive without offering a teaching.

I admit that I haven’t dealt adequately with Akin’s point about the difference between teaching that heretics should be burned and condemning the teaching that they shouldn’t. I originally assumed that we all agreed that burning heretics is wrong, period. When Akin’s argument first appeared in this discussion (I forget if it was you or PRMerger or someone else who raised it), I should have stopped and clarified the point. If you are willing to commit yourself to the position that burning heretics is sometimes justified but not always mandatory, then I will grant that you at least hold a position consistent with the historic teaching of your Church. I have been treating this argument as a subterfuge because I’ve been assuming that no one I’m arguing with seriously thinks this. If you do think this, then the debate shifts to whether your Church as a whole currently agrees with you. If that’s so, then I’m afraid that the fundamentalist propagandists I have mocked are right: Rome never changes and thus we can’t trust Rome–given the right circumstances, we all might find ourselves handed over to the civil authorities for execution once again!

I don’t think that’s true, and I have been carrying on the debate on the assumption that it’s not true. But I should have dealt with the question before now.

To return to the main argument: Leo was certainly teaching that burning heretics was legitimate and appropriate. I am not claiming and never intended to claim that he thought it was mandatory. Mercy was always an option, and in fact part of the context needed to interpret Exsurge is the policy of only executing impenitent or relapsed heretics.

Edwin

 

[josie_L]

I know–that’s why I cited Exsurge Domine and IV Lateran, which are. However, Aquinas fleshes out the reasoning behind the official Church statements. He is, after all, a Doctor of the Church, and his arguments explain why you would find a Council urging the “extermination” of heretics (and why the civil governments would uniformly interpret that word to mean actually killing heretics, and not just exiling or imprisoning them), and why Leo would condemn Luther for condemning the burning of heretics.

It has not been determined that Exsurge Domine taught that “burning heretics is the will of the Spirit” that’s the problem. Moreover, the third section of IV Lateran is not an infallible statement (which means it is not an official teaching of the church), i.e., only statements solemnly defined which are part of the deposit of faith can claim infallibility:

“Infallibility can apply ONLY to those teachings that are part of the Deposit of Faith (taught from the beginning of the Church). The Pope or a Council CANNOT create new dogma. They can only solemnly define that dogma which has already been taught from the beginning.”

The website from whence I took this quote actually helps to put the section in question into perspective, this particular statement stood out:

“The Church punishment for heresy is excommunication, NOT death. Death was a penalty enacted by the State for its own purposes.”

The Church handed over heretics to the state because heresy was considered a civil crime in that the civil disorder which could ensue from religious “revolutionaries” would cause untold trouble (one only has to look to the Reformation to see this). Please read the following:

saint-mike.org/apologetics/qa/answers/defending_faith/p0305080036.html

I’m not offering some kind of logical proof. I’m offering the kind of probable arguments one normally uses in trying to figure out what people believed historically. The fact that you keep trying to judge my arguments by this extremely (indeed, artificially) high standard of proof just makes my point: you have to create such high standards in order to defend what you think is the Catholic position. You can’t maintain that the Catholic Church has never taught error if you define the “Catholic Church” as the historically discernible institution led by the Pope and bishops, and if you define “taught” in terms of what contemporaries or historians would reasonably conclude from the evidence.

Yes, I can maintain that the Catholic Church taught error but not in an official capacity, i.e., not infallibly (limbo was a teaching held by the church but has now come to be rejected).

It may be useful to recall (which I had practically forgotten) how we got onto this subject in the first place. Charlemagne II argued that two religious bodies whose teachings disagree with each other can’t both be part of the true Church, and that if I believe Rome erred at some point I’m logically compelled to believe that Rome is not part of the true Church. I am not engaging in this argument to prove that your Church erred by your definition. I’m trying to show that in order to say that your Church didn’t err, you have to create special categories quite different from the ones that, say, I would use in trying to decide whether Anglicanism has ever erred. (For the record, I think the answer is indisputably “yes” to that one!) Therefore, when I say, “Rome has erred, and we have erred, and maybe even the Orthodox have erred, but we’re all part of one Church,” I’m saying something that is wholly consistent on my own terms. And I have reasons to find your definition of “the Church” overly spiritualized and your definition of “error” unnecessarily narrow.

What did the early Church fathers have to say about Church and error/heresy Edwin?

Yes, although of course Romans didn’t have a category of “heresy.” The Church defined heresy as one of the gravest crimes on the book. You’re right that the conclusion, “Therefore heretics should be executed,” came from late Roman law.

Putting heretics to death was not a teaching of the Church, but it most definitely was a practice of the state.

Anti-Judaism, not anti-Semitism (though the lines can sometimes be confusing). No, but I want you not to assume in an argument that something “never” happened when we haven’t even discussed the matter, and when in fact there is lots of evidence suggesting that such a thing did happen. Of course you can explain that evidence away the same way you explain the evidence I’ve been providing regarding the persecution of heretics. My point is simply that it’s a parallel issue raising the same sorts of questions, and you can’t assume that it’s settled in order to use it to settle this one.

I initially specified anti-judaism and anti-semitism in my post so when you responded as you did I thought you were also saying that the Church officially taught anti-semitism which is not true.

 

[Michael57]

I’m interested in the historical approach Protestants take to when and where the Roman Church ceased to be the Church of Christ. I often hear Protestants say the early Church was pure, but later corrupted by false teachings. For this to be true, there has to a point that Protestant historians can point to where it can be said, “Now the Catholic Church has broken with the true faith.”

When, and by what particular heresy (or general heresies), do Protestants believe that the Catholic Church broke away from the true Church. In the meantime, what happened to the true Church? Where is its history … its central teachings, its leaders?

I grew up in the United Methodist Church (an oxymoron to be sure), and I remember quite well at our confirmation class our Pastor explaining the division of the Protestant Movement from the “Roman Catholic Church”. He seemed to think that the “Roman” church had been corrupted over the 1500 years following the Apostolic Age, and the natural response to this was Martin Luther’s 95 Theses. Then he got a little hazy about how successive schisms occured as he was losing the other students. By the time he got to John Wesley he was dashing through the history rather fast, I’m thinking to avoid some embarrasing details about Rev. Wesley’s personal life…

What this did was to plant a seed in my mind to seek the truth of this matter, and seek the inheritors of the “Apostolic” church…though it took a long time to get past the propaganda of the various Protestant and Evangelistic denominations (aka Schismatics) and finally into an RCIA class two years ago…and into the True Apostolic and Catholic Faith that I had been seeking for nearly four decades.

Thanks be to God for His Patience with me, a stubborn fool…I stood in a field asking God to reveal Himself to me, and I saw the clouds chasing each other across the clear blue sky, the wind making waves across the tall prarie grasses, the birds in flight from tree to tree - all the glory of His creation. And over the years, all the fine Catholics that came into my life until it finally struck me that He had been there all along and I best get into full communion with the True Church.

But I digress…the “when and where” depends on which flavor of Protestant schism you sample (for an interesting peek take a look at the history of the Church according to Haley’s Bible Handbook, lots of subtle and not-so-subtle propaganda sprinkled through that)…I don’t think you will find a consistent answer between any Protestant denomination, based on my experience with many of them through the years.

This is strictly my point of view, if it has any value then that’s a blessing, and if it has no value then disregard it with my apologies.

 

[josie_L]

They didn’t need to. Leo was defending standard practice. Everyone knew what he was talking about. This is the aspect of your argument that I find so objectionable from the standpoint of common honesty. You play “divide and conquer”–each piece of evidence I cite is allegedly insufficient because it can be explained in some other way. But the three pieces of evidence I’ve sited reinforce each other and stand against the background of several centuries in which Church courts *were *handing impenitent/relapsed heretics over for execution and Catholic civil rulers *were *executing them.

Leo did not teach that burning heretics was the will of the Spirit.

Actually I find the statement extremely clear and think that it provides a pretty strong basis, short as it is, for concluding that the Church taught that heretics should be executed. But of course such a statement never would stand on its own–there is always a context. And we know that the context was several centuries during which the Church had handed heretics over for execution (whether through the “Inquisition” or through local episcopal courts) and Catholic civil authorities had executed them; during which Church Councils had urged civil rulers to eliminate heresy from their dominions; and during which major theologians had defended the view that heretics should be executed.

First, Aquinas, from what I just read thought it may be necessary to kill heretics if there was an immediate threat to the populace. He does not state however that the means by which heretics should be punished is by death. Here is an excerpt:

He is not directly advocating the death penalty for heretics. Rather, he is setting up a conditional: if forgers and the like are executed under the law, then heretics should, with much more justification, be likewise punished. Thomas himself does not directly advocate that forgers should be killed; he is merely describing how they were dealt with within his own society. Forgers are not executed in modern, liberal democracies; we reserve the death penalty for our most heinous murderers. In medieval society, however, many lesser crimes were punishable by death. Heresy, which endangers a person’s eternal salvation, surely is a greater evil than forgery. Furthermore, Thomas reserves the execution of heretics to the secular authority. Today, with our total separation of Church and State, the secular authority would have no concern with heretics. Perhaps, medieval society, which was based on the divine right of kings, or England under Henry VIII, would be threatened politically by religious dissenters. Our own society would experience no such threat.

**If, however, we examine the Thomistic doctrine on the death penalty in general, we can see that he only favors it when the common good is in immediate danger: **

Therefore, if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good… (ST II-II, q. 64, a. 2)

In the same place, however, Thomas adds that evil-doers should be tolerated if their destruction would harm the virtuous:

Wherefore Our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked.(Ibid., ad. 1)

aquinasonline.com/Topics/tolernce.html

Why do you find the distinction among these categories so significant? Whichever category applied, you still have a condemnation and thus a teaching. The question is only about the level of the teaching, isn’t it? (Again, I thought that was an extremely telling point when Eck made it against Luther.)

I don’t know per se what you are refering to with your mention of Eck and Luther (I didn’t quite get the point you were making). Moreover, I don’t deny that the bull is a teaching of some sort but I can’t understand why you can’t see that I can’t condemn Leo X for something he did not define or explain vis a vis #33. It’s not a question of history or a level of teaching at this point it’s a question of fairness.

You keep insisting that only official teaching matters. Then when I provide official teaching, you demand more official teaching to interpret the official teaching. You can keep doing this till the cows come home. But it just demonstrates how far away you are from what we’d normally consider a fair historical analysis of the question.

The problem we have here Edwin (apart from the inconciseness of Leo’s bull), is how we are defining “official teachings” I take it to mean, that by official, we are referring to something infallibly taught, and quite frankly the evidence you provide this? Moreover, if it was not infallibly taught then the Church could not have erred (do you see where I’m getting at with all this).

to be continued. . .

 

[josie_L]

continuation:

I can’t “keep it in mind,” because my mind doesn’t accept it in the first place. I accept that the category matters with regard to whether a dogma of the faith is being defended or something on a lower level. But it still implies a teaching. These levels matter to you as a Catholic, and that’s fine. *They don’t matter to me. *If Pope Leo thought that it was “scandalous” or “impious” or “offensive” to say that the Holy Spirit didn’t want heretics burned, then he was still teaching something. Maybe you can explain to me how one can say that something is scandalous or impious or offensive without offering a teaching.

If it doesn’t matter to you why are we having this conversation, i.e., we’lll be going around in circles because my understanding is different than your understanding. And again, I don’t know what he’s teaching, that’s the problem, for all I know he could actually be scandalized by the thought that Luther believed the Church taught burning heretics is the will of the Spirit (I’m really starting to hate this phrase).

I admit that I haven’t dealt adequately with Akin’s point about the difference between teaching that heretics should be burned and condemning the teaching that they shouldn’t. I originally assumed that we all agreed that burning heretics is wrong, period. When Akin’s argument first appeared in this discussion (I forget if it was you or PRMerger or someone else who raised it), I should have stopped and clarified the point. If you are willing to commit yourself to the position that burning heretics is sometimes justified but not always mandatory, then I will grant that you at least hold a position consistent with the historic teaching of your Church.

PR Merger brought this up, perhaps you might want to contact Jimmy Akin (on his blog) so you can debate this with him (I’m not kidding).

To return to the main argument: Leo was certainly teaching that burning heretics was legitimate and appropriate. I am not claiming and never intended to claim that he thought it was mandatory. Mercy was always an option, and in fact part of the context needed to interpret Exsurge is the policy of only executing impenitent or relapsed heretics.

Edwin

It’s a possibility but I can’t say with certainty that it was. God bless Edwin.

 

[GKC]

“The problem we have here Edwin (apart from the inconciseness of Leo’s bull), is how we are defining “official teachings” I take it to mean, that by official, we are referring to something infallibly taught, and quite frankly the evidence you provide this? Moreover, if it was not infallibly taught then the Church could not have erred (do you see where I’m getting at with all this).”

One comment only. What Edwin said, what I said, is that Exsurge Domine certainly is a teaching, a Papal exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium, which is not infallible. But that to which assent must be given, as is anything taught under the Magisterium.

Now resuming not posting.

GKC

 

[guanophore]

Do you seriously believe that people in the sixteenth century, reading Exsurge Domine, would have come to any conclusion other than “the Church teaches that heretics should be burned at the stake”? Because that’s what I’m interested in determining.

I think it is very difficult for us to determine this, because it is so hard to insert our modern mentality into the past. I can certainly see how it would be easy to conclude that the Church was teaching that.

 I'm totally fine with Catholics *today* saying "we can affirm the point we think the Church was making through Leo without saying that heretics should be burned,"

It might be equally the case that it is a reaction to Luther presuming to know the mind of the HS. Who is Luther, to be able to say what the HS does, or does not want?

you still have a formal document of the ordinary magisterium condemning the proposition that God doesn't want heretics burned at the stake. As GKC said, this clearly is a teaching, however you want to qualify it.

I am certain that the Leo was attempting to apply the Church teaching to the current political situation, and that he was trying to give some pastoral guidance to the faithful.

I imagine that he was scandalized by Luther’s cheek, and rebellion against authority. In the mind of the Church, no one monk or priest has the authority to determine the will of the HS for the world.

…and why Leo would condemn Luther for condemning the burning of heretics.

What if he is condemning Luther’s presumption to determine the will of the HS?

…you have to create such high standards in order to defend what you think is the Catholic position. You can’t maintain that the Catholic Church has never taught error if you define the “Catholic Church” as the historically discernible institution led by the Pope and bishops, and if you define “taught” in terms of what contemporaries or historians would reasonably conclude from the evidence.

This is certainly true. It is impossible, apart from divine intervention, for men to do anything infallibly. If the Church is no more than the historically discernible institution led by the Pope and the Bishops, she would have no hope of avoiding the teaching and practice of error, humans being what they are. It is only a church defined by the Apostles, which has a Divine Head, and who is ensouled by the HS that can accomplish such a feat.

And because Catholics receive this definition of “church” from the Apostles, we then interpret history in the light of this infallible teaching. We believe that the HS does not err, and that all that is infallibly taught is done so according to the standard illustrated in the NT “it seemed right to the HS and to us…”.

Therefore, if any church leader has taught error, then such a person has departed from the unity of the faith, and separated themselves from the protection of the gift of infallibility.

It may be useful to recall (which I had practically forgotten) how we got onto this subject in the first place. Charlemagne II argued that two religious bodies whose teachings disagree with each other can’t both be part of the true Church, and that if I believe Rome erred at some point I’m logically compelled to believe that Rome is not part of the true Church.

I can see how a person could come to this conclusion, if one’s concept of “true church” suffers such a deficiency as demonstrated here. Since the Church founded by Christ is not just a “religious body” of people, then the premise is flawed, and so is the conclusion based upon it.

I am not engaging in this argument to prove that your Church erred by your definition. I’m trying to show that in order to say that your Church didn’t err, you have to create special categories quite different from the ones that, say, I would use in trying to decide whether Anglicanism has ever erred. (For the record, I think the answer is indisputably “yes” to that one!) Therefore, when I say, “Rome has erred, and we have erred, and maybe even the Orthodox have erred, but we’re all part of one Church,” I’m saying something that is wholly consistent on my own terms. And I have reasons to find your definition of “the Church” overly spiritualized and your definition of “error” unnecessarily narrow.

It seems to me that, if one is to make such a claim (the church cannot err), then the definitions NEED to be narrow, and reflect a very high standard.

Yes, although of course Romans didn’t have a category of “heresy.” The Church defined heresy as one of the gravest crimes on the book. You’re right that the conclusion, “Therefore heretics should be executed,” came from late Roman law.

The principle is clearly evident in the NT. The Roman Empire began executing Christians for being “atheists and traitors” in the first century.

Of course you can explain that evidence away the same way  you explain the evidence I've been providing regarding the persecution  of heretics.

I don’t think anyone here has tried to explain away the evidence that there was persecution of heretics. I think we can all agree that this was done on all sides of the argument. What you seem to be forwarding is that this activity represents the Sacred Tradition (infallible teaching) of the Church, rather than persons in positions of leadership making erroneous applications of that teaching.

 

[guanophore]

And I’m applying normal historical methods to figure out what the Bull would have been understood to mean in its own time. You are essentially saying that official teachings can only be interpreted by other official teachings, and that allows you to deny any interpretation (however reasonable, or even historically unavoidable) that you happen to find inconvenient.

Edwin

Apples and oranges, Edwin. Even if the Bull had been understood to mean that the Church should burn heretics at the stake, this does not necessarily equate to an official Teaching of the church. The fact that people sin or go astray, even when they are in positions of authority, and lead others to do so does not change the fact that the Church is infallible. I bring again the example of Peter with the disciples in Antioch. Peter had helped to develop the infallible teaching of the Church with regard to the Gentiles. He then went out from the Apostolic council and failed to act in accordance with that infallible teaching. His conduct set a bad example to the brethren, and Paul confronted him about his hypocrisy. His failure as a leader (and our first Pope) to live out the infallible teaching of the Church does not mean that the Church erred.

 

[guanophore]

I think that in the first place there are reasonable grounds for arguing whether God actively kills anyone or simply allows them to die. Whether it’s correct to say that God kills people is something on which I’m genuinely undecided.

That seems to be an essential element of the current quandary. If you do not accept that God puts people to death, then it stands to reason that you will not be able to accept the death penalty as right under any circumstance.

However, scripture is clear over the course of many millenia that God does put people to death. Sometimes He does so by divine intervention, such as the flood through which He saved Noah. Sometimes, He uses the sword of His people, as in the case of the Canaanites. Sometimes, He allows His people to witness and pronouce the death penalty, as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira.

Whether He allowed the deaths, accomplished the deaths through natural phenomena (or unnatural, as in the case of the Egyptian chariots drowning in the sea) or ordered the executions seems to be a moot point.

But these are difficult questions and I don’t quite know what I think of them.

I think that is blocking you as much as the notion of infallibility.

(Hence the inconsistency of what I’m saying here with my earlier endorsement of Hauerwas’s statement that God can kill whomever God wants to–there’s a sense which I’m sure this is true, but I also believe that God does not desire the death of the sinner and that God’s actions are always lifegiving.)

God’s desire that we all choose life does not prevent death from occurring. In the case of some, He has waited long enough. It seemed that Ananias and Sapphira had no warning, although we don’t have any record of how the HS tried to reach them prior to their death penalty.

At any rate, whatever may be the case in this regard, there’s a huge difference between God killing people or allowing them to die and God commanding some people to kill other people. And that’s where I draw the line.

How do you see that these are different? Can he not use any method of His choosing to bring about His will?

When I find someone in the Bible being commanded by God to do a certain thing, and I know that if someone today were to claim such a divine command I would conclude without doubt that they were wicked or insane, then I have to question whether in fact God commanded this act, or whether the Biblical record reflects how the divine commands were understood in a particular cultural context.

I think it is always wise to understand the biblical record within their cultural and historical context. However, the justice of the death penalty is consistent throughout the millenia.

So the frequent commands to annihilate the enemy are clearly shaped by a cultural context in which you normally kill those enemies whom you think will be a threat, and take the others for slaves and as trophies of your victory.

Yes. But are you suggesting that because there is a cultural context, it is contrary to God’s willl?

 

[thegreypiper]

When did Rome go wrong? It is difficult to say, especially from an Eastern perspective, but that Rome gradually drifted off into her own little world (theologically speaking) is undeniable.

If any there were any one moment, any one anti-Eureka, I would lay it at the feet of that Doctor of the Church, St Bernard of Clairvaux, yes, the St Bernard, the ‘Mellifluous Doctor’, ‘Last of the Fathers of the Holy Church’:

The knight of Christ, I say, kills with tranquil conscience . . . . In dying he benefits himself, in killing he benefits Christ… When he kills a malefactor, it is not homicide but, so to say, “malecide”; and he is clearly considered the avenger of Christ in the case of those who do evil, and the defender of Christians… The Christian glories in the death of a pagan, because Christ is glorified…Not that the pagans should be slain if by any other means they can be impeded from persecuting and oppressing the faithful. But presently it is better that they be killed ……

In regard to the Crusades of course. Now, this would be understandable (if not acceptable) coming from the pen/mouth of a Templar Knight or even Couer de Lion himself. But this is from a SAINT, a DOCTOR OF THE ROMAN CHURCH!!!

Can any of you really, truly, justify this? Does this sound anything like what Christ or the Apostles would utter? Is this really the voice of Christ’s True Church?

Rome says it is.

 

[guanophore]

Civil rulers certainly tended to take a more summary approach, but I would like to see evidence for your claim that the normal practice was to put accused heretics to death simply on the basis of an accusation.

I think this principle is clearly obvious in the Martyrdom of Polycarp.

I can’t imagine any ruler adopting such a policy, unless he was a very corrupt ruler and was using the policy selectively to get rid of people he disliked.

I think you don’t understand the insidious and divisive nature of heresy.

But more to the point, I know of no evidence that this was the policy. Certainly the Church was concerned with the possibility that heretics were not being fairly treated by civil courts, and that at times of fear and suspicion they were summarily killed. But to suggest that this was the only possibility before the formation of the Inquisitions is surely to exaggerate wildly at best.

The Church was even more concerned with the possibility that persons who were accused of heresy but were not guilty may be executed without due process. What reasons do you think there were for the formation of the Inquisitions?

I'm also dubious about the claim that recantation could not save you in a civil court, though I can see why it wouldn't normally do so under civil procedure, and it seems a more reasonable claim on the face of it than the other one.

I just watched the movie “Joan of Arc”, which devotes a considerable amount of time to the proceedings of the Inquisitions, and shows the relationship between the civil and religious authorities. There was an inseparable quagmire of religious and civil authority.

The problem as I understand it was that there was no bridge between Church courts and civil courts. Church courts jealously guarded their prerogatives (that was one of the main issues behind St. Thomas a Becket’s conflict with Henry II), and then as now this could result in offenders escaping just punishment. The Inquisition, if I’m not mistaken, was an attempt to solve this problem–to provide an efficient but fair court that had the full backing of the Church and the ability to hand incorrigible offenders over to civil authorities for execution. If you start with the assumptions that heresy is a serious crime and that execution *is *a just punishment for it, and that the civil authorities ought to defend orthodox Christianity through all the means at their disposal, then this was a reasonable and indeed humane approach.

I don’t know… it seems barbaric to me, but then I am having the same difficulty understanding what happened then, based upon what we know now. I have always lived under a separation of Church and State, so it is hard for me to imagine another way of living.

And I do this because on many other points Catholics routinely identify the actions of these same leaders with the Church. I’m just applying a consistent methodology. You want to have one definition for good stuff and another for bad stuff.

Well, of course! Since the Church is protected by the gift of infallibility, only good can come from infallible teachings, and “bad stuff” is, by definition, not protected by the Gift.

If you are defining “the Catholic Church” as the Roman Communion, then they were.

No, I do not. The Latin Rite is the largest in the Western world, and the best known, but constitutes only 1 of 23 Rites. None of the Eastern Rites were involved in this type of political scandal and conundrum.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This might be a very overly-simplistic question but it entered my mind. Why did the Catholic Church condone slavery and burning heretics at the stake hundreds of years ago but now claim it to be unacceptable? Why is the Church so anti-death penalty sometimes rushing to the cause of convicted murderers, etc. and yet hundreds of years ago it was standard procedure to lop off the head of a heretic? And why the change of opinion on slavery? Is there some societal pressure exerted upon Catholicism that makes it bend over time in certain areas? I’d like to hear people’s opinions on this…

 

[guanophore]

Yes, I can maintain that the Catholic Church taught error but not in an official capacity, i.e., not infallibly (limbo was a teaching held by the church but has now come to be rejected).

If you do this, then you are falling into the same erroneous definition of “church” under which Edwin is suffering. There is only One Church, whose Head is Christ, and who is ensouled by the HS. It is these divine elements that make her infallible. She cannot teach error, for in doing so, she would open the gates of hell to the faithful, and watch them pass through.

Limbo was never a teaching held by the Church. It was a theological speculation that was never considered to be at odds with the Teaching of the Church. It was never held by the Eastern Rites, being based upon Acquinas’ theology.

What did the early Church fathers have to say about Church and error/heresy Edwin?

This is a very good question, and bears heavily on undestanding the writings that Edwin has brought to this discussion.

If he responded to the scriptures I posted, I missed it. I am still wondering what he makes of the Apostolic teaching that the body of the heretic should be delivered to Satan so his soul can be saved.

Putting heretics to death was not a teaching of the Church, but it most definitely was a practice of the state.

But it was clearly supported by the Church leadership in Europe at the time. Catholic rulers were given to understand that they would have treasures in heaven by engaging in such actions, just like the soldiers that went to the Crusades were promised that they and their loved one’s would spiritually benefit if the Saricans were put to the sword.

 

[guanophore]

When did Rome go wrong? It is difficult to say, especially from an Eastern perspective, but that Rome gradually drifted off into her own little world (theologically speaking) is undeniable.

If any there were any one moment, any one anti-Eureka, I would lay it at the feet of that Doctor of the Church, St Bernard of Clairvaux, yes, the St Bernard, the ‘Mellifluous Doctor’, ‘Last of the Fathers of the Holy Church’:

The knight of Christ, I say, kills with tranquil conscience . . . . In dying he benefits himself, in killing he benefits Christ… When he kills a malefactor, it is not homicide but, so to say, “malecide”; and he is clearly considered the avenger of Christ in the case of those who do evil, and the defender of Christians… The Christian glories in the death of a pagan, because Christ is glorified…Not that the pagans should be slain if by any other means they can be impeded from persecuting and oppressing the faithful. But presently it is better that they be killed ……

In regard to the Crusades of course. Now, this would be understandable (if not acceptable) coming from the pen/mouth of a Templar Knight or even Couer de Lion himself. But this is from a SAINT, a DOCTOR OF THE ROMAN CHURCH!!!

Can any of you really, truly, justify this? Does this sound anything like what Christ or the Apostles would utter? Is this really the voice of Christ’s True Church?

Rome says it is.

No, I could not reconcile it with the teachings of Christ. But, neither does “Rome”. Not all that the Father’s write is part of the Sacred Doctrine of the Faith. There are plenty of opinions like this found in the doctors of the Church that are not part of the Teaching of the Church. Their writings are not held to be equal with Scripture in that they are inspired or inerrant. And since they are not always in sych with the infallible teachingsm we are not bound to accept them.

 

[josie_L]

If you do this, then you are falling into the same erroneous definition of “church” under which Edwin is suffering. There is only One Church, whose Head is Christ, and who is ensouled by the HS. It is these divine elements that make her infallible. She cannot teach error, for in doing so, she would open the gates of hell to the faithful, and watch them pass through.

Actually, I don’t believe that this was an error per se (as in it was at odds with the deposit of faith), I just used error as another way to say that it was wrong, i.e., the idea of Limbo.

Limbo was never a teaching held by the Church. It was a theological speculation that was never considered to be at odds with the Teaching of the Church. It was never held by the Eastern Rites, being based upon Acquinas’ theology.

I should have put teaching in quotations because I am aware it was a theological speculation, i.e., it did not require the assent of the faithful.

 

[guanophore]

I have provided evidence that they were part of the ordinary Magisterium.

Even without it, I would be willing to stipulate to this. 80% of the Bishops fell into the Arian heresy also, and they were all considered part of the ordinary magesterium.

That's not exactly true, but certainly the  relationship is different. The Byzantine Empire did persecute heretics,  but the Church was not as directly involved.

I contend that where Rome went wrong was trying to create the Kingdom of God here on earth through human political structures.

Let’s do a thought experiment. Suppose that the same three authorities I’ve cited–IV Lateran, Thomas Aquinas, and Pope Leo in a Bull–had said the opposite of what they said. Suppose that IV Lateran had urged the Catholic faithful to show Christ’s love to heretics and win them back to the faith by strictly nonviolent means. Suppose St. Thomas Aquinas had begun Article 3 of Question 11 of the Second Part of the Second Part of the Summa Theologiae with the words, “It seems that heretics ought not to be tolerated.” (As I’m sure you know, he generally starts out by saying “it seems that” whatever it is he’s going to refute.) Suppose that Pope Leo had condemned as heretical or scandalous or whatever term he chose to use the proposition: “To burn heretics *is *the will of the Spirit.”

Can you deny that in that case you and other Catholics would be quite happy to say that “the Church taught” that heretics shouldn’t be executed?

I don’t know that I would be happy about it, but it seems that it would be quite likely that I would believe this to be a teaching of the church, however, much I may be in error to embrace such a belief.

I am unaware of any  evidence showing that heretics were generally classified as traitors. I  have encountered this claim before on this forum, but have never seen  any evidence to support it. The two crimes were quite distinct.

No, they were not. Since the entire political structure was based in religious belief, heresy was considered undermining to the political structure.

 I'm basing it on *prescriptive*  documents. And I have made that point clearly over and over again, only  to be met over and over with the stubborn insistence, "No, this is just  stuff people did, not stuff the Church said they should do."

It seems that your deficient definition of church makes it impossible for you to accept that people in positions of authority may teach and act in a way that does not reflect the gift of infallibility.

granting the point involves adopting a somewhat more modest doctrine of  authority

I think you are right. We are not permitted to abandon the faith that was handed down to us from the Apostles. If we were to adopt a more “modest doctrine of authority” it would constitute what the Apostles taught was “a different gospel”, and we would be accursed.

, and that would cripple some of the more extravagant claims made by apologists. In particular, it would make it harder for you to point fingers at other churches and ask, “How can you belong to a church that teaches/does X, Y, or Z?”

all that paling in comparison to the consequence of forfeiting our eternal soul.

But the three pieces of evidence I’ve sited reinforce each other and stand against the background of several centuries in which Church courts *were *handing impenitent/relapsed heretics over for execution and Catholic civil rulers *were *executing them.

You seem to be asserting that, since this was the common practice at that time and culture, that such a custom equates to Church teaching.

Actually I find the statement extremely clear and think that it provides a pretty strong basis, short as it is, for concluding that the Church taught that heretics should be executed.

I can see how you would come to this conclusion, being stuck with the defintion of “church” that you have.

And we know that the context was several centuries during which the Church had handed heretics over for execution (whether through the “Inquisition” or through local episcopal courts) and Catholic civil authorities had executed them; during which Church Councils had urged civil rulers to eliminate heresy from their dominions; and during which major theologians had defended the view that heretics should be executed.

I think this is one of the most detrimental aspects of conflating religious and temporal authority. It is a reflection of trying to make the Roman Empire into a Holy Roman Empire.
But Jesus came to make people Holy, not human empires. If there is any holiness in them, it must flow from the holiness of the individuals holding office.

 

[guanophore]

Why do you find the distinction among these categories so significant? Whichever category applied, you still have a condemnation and thus a teaching. The question is only about the level of the teaching, isn’t it?

Yes. The levels at which this teaching occurred do not constitute infallibility.

You keep insisting that only official teaching matters. Then when I provide official teaching, you demand more official teaching to interpret the official teaching. You can keep doing this till the cows come home. But it just demonstrates how far away you are from what we’d normally consider a fair historical analysis of the question.

I see your point. There is clearly “official” teaching that was not infallible. This is part of what distinguishes the traditions of men from Sacred Traditions, which are infallible.

I can’t “keep it in mind,” because my mind doesn’t accept it in the first place. I accept that the category matters with regard to whether a dogma of the faith is being defended or something on a lower level. But it still implies a teaching. These levels matter to you as a Catholic, and that’s fine. *They don’t matter to me. *

May I ask, then, why is it so important for you to have this discussion?

Leo thought that it was “scandalous” or “impious” or “offensive” to say that the Holy Spirit didn’t want heretics burned, then he was still teaching something.

I agree.

Maybe you can explain to me how one can say that something is scandalous or impious or offensive without offering a teaching.

He was making a pastoral response based on previous teachings of the church. These terms were applied to heretics by the post Apostolic fathers. Heresy has always been considered divisive and destructive to the Church. This is clear in the NT record.

I originally assumed that we all agreed that burning heretics is wrong, period.

It certainly is a different perspective, sitting where we are now, and looking back.

If you are willing to commit yourself to the position that burning heretics is sometimes justified but not always mandatory, then I will grant that you at least hold a position consistent with the historic teaching of your Church.

It seems that such a position would be impossible to affirm is one did not believe that the HS can will the death of a heretic.

Rome never changes and thus we can’t trust Rome–given the right circumstances, we all might find ourselves handed over to the civil authorities for execution once again!

Indeed, this fear and distrust has been a quality of all your posts in this thread. The theme seems to reflect the core of your angst on the subject. When it comes down to it, all of our defensiveness of any kind can be attributed to this fear of annihilation. It is part of the human condition.

Leo was certainly teaching that burning heretics was legitimate and appropriate.

The problem lies in confusing this opinion with the infallible teaching of the Church.

 

[guanophore]

This might be a very overly-simplistic question but it entered my mind. Why did the Catholic Church condone slavery and burning heretics at the stake hundreds of years ago but now claim it to be unacceptable? Why is the Church so anti-death penalty sometimes rushing to the cause of convicted murderers, etc. and yet hundreds of years ago it was standard procedure to lop off the head of a heretic? And why the change of opinion on slavery? Is there some societal pressure exerted upon Catholicism that makes it bend over time in certain areas? I’d like to hear people’s opinions on this…

Perhaps you can get us started by posting an official document that condones slavery?

 

[josie_L]

But it was clearly supported by the Church leadership in Europe at the time. Catholic rulers were given to understand that they would have treasures in heaven by engaging in such actions, just like the soldiers that went to the Crusades were promised that they and their loved one’s would spiritually benefit if the Saricans were put to the sword.

Yes, I do not deny this (it is the official teaching on which I am emphasize though, so I’m sorry if it sounded like I was denying this).

p.s. The Crusades albeit had a moral purpose (I do not refer to all the actions committed during the Crusades as moral), i.e., it was necessary to defend Christendom as it was being threatened by the Muslims (it took 400 years of muslim expansionism before the West took action).