When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[Contarini]

I know that in praxis the Church has consigned some heretics to the flames, yet it has never taught as you say that “it is good to burn heretics at the stake.” I would think that Luther’s comment is more a denunciation of the practice (although he himself incited violence) rather than a denunciation of a teaching held by the Church.

But Leo’s condemnation of Luther’s statement is an affirmation of the practice. And the more you and other Catholics try to deny this, the more evident you make it that you’ve painted yourselves into an impossible position.

In fact, I’m in the process of reading a book called “The Spanish Inquisition” by Henry Kamen that cites a bull issued on the 18 of April 1482 by Sixtus IV which castigated the excesses of the Inquisition, and which the Historian Henry Charles Lea stated was extraodinary because “for the first time heresy was declared to be, like any other crime, entitled to a fair trial and simple justice” (as quoted in Kamen’s book).

How is this relevant? Kamen does not deny that the Church sanctioned and approved of the execution of heretics–he just argues that the Spanish Inquisition in particular executed “only” a couple thousand people. The Lea quote is not, in my opinion, fair to the Catholic Church, so I’m not sure why you use it. I see no reason to think that the Catholic Church had not previously defended heretics’ right to a fair trial.

One of the most frustrating things about discussing this issue is that Catholics will cite any statement that makes the Church’s record look relatively better than its critics claim as if this simply dismissed all possible criticisms.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

On Exsurge Domine, I agree that the burden of proof lies in this matter Jimmy said. And as he said Canon Law provides that NO DOCTRINES is UNDERSTOOD to be INFALLIBLY defined unless it is CLEARLY Established as such.

I would like to define it myself, but for what its worth who cares. But may I?

Is it the will of the Spirit to put heretics ot death? I say yes. Now let me answer this in a Catholic view which I know Edwin you will not agree but its my call.

To put heretics to death would be to excommunicate them from the CC. Okay now how is that putting them to death. Simple, You are cutting them off from the Living Church Christ and cutting them off food. The bread of eternal life. Without the bread from heaven you will starve the soul. What is worse death of the Soul or death of the body?

But there is absolutely no reason to think that that’s what Leo meant. You can’t take historical documents and randomly reinterpret them to mean something more convenient to you–if, that is, we are actually talking about what they meant in their original context. And that’s what *I’m *talking about. You and the other Catholics persistently want to turn this into a conversation about “what Catholics are required to believe on the basis of this statement,” and I don’t care about that. That’s a conversation for you to have among yourselves. I’m interested in a historical statement about what Catholics *did *believe–and what the words and actions of the Church’s leaders gave them every reason to believe–in the past.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I find in this discussion a parallel to dialogues I’ve had with atheists who point out the OT passages in which God commands, essentially, genocide. While Christians have made many attempts to provide apologia for this, each argument presented seems a bit, well, lame. See Jimmy Akin: “Hard Sayings of the OT”.

Similarly, I can see why non-Catholics are not convinced by the arguments of Catholics that the CC did not promote the persecution of heretics.

In the end, I suppose when confronted with the history of the church’s persecution of heretics I have to resign myself, like I do when confronted with OT verses of a destructive God, to this: there are some “hard sayings of the CC”.

This is an excellent point–perhaps the most insightful thing anyone has said in this discussion so far! My own view of the “hard sayings of the OT” is much more liberal than probably you or Akin would be happy with. I do not and cannot believe that God ever commanded the slaughter of whole nations, including women and children. I do not believe that God actually approved of Phineas sticking a javelin into two people while they were having sex, just because the woman was a Midianite (and to be fair, the text assumes that having a relationship with a Midianite woman automatically means worshiping her gods, which of course is the point of the passage, just as for you the point of IV Lateran and Exsurge Domine is “the Church is at war with heresy”). I believe that these passages reflect what the ancient Hebrews believed God wanted, and that their divinely inspired meaning can be determined only by looking at Scripture as a whole in light of the analogy of faith and the tradition of the Church.

I have absolutely no problem with your taking the same approach to the “hard sayings of the Church.” And I ought to be more patient with Catholic unwillingness to say simply “the Church erred,” since I’m unwilling to say simply, “The Bible erred” or “The Bible commanded genocide.” However, I am also unwilling to say simply “the Bible does not err” or “the Bible did not command genocide.” Rather, I would distinguish between the Bible as a collection of historical documents to be read in their original context and the Bible as the inspired Word of God. The two things are not independent of each other. But one is not reducible to the other.

I would agree that a similar distinction has to be made with regard to the Church, between “the Church as the company of baptized people, full of sin and error as all people are” and “the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ.” Nor would I disagree with the Catholic claim that the Church in the second sense speaks authoritatively in and through the leaders of the Church in the first sense. But there is a big difference between the Bible and the Church. The Bible is, as Catholic apologists are fond of pointing out, a book–a set of words containing ideas. It is not a person, although the Holy Spirit, who inspired the Bible and speaks through it, is a Person. But the Church in the first sense *is *a company of people. And I worry that the official/conservative/'orthodox" Catholic definition of the Church makes actual people almost irrelevant.

So distinguish all you like between what is eternally and infallibly taught by the Holy Spirit working in the Mystical Body and what is fallibly and temporally decreed and done by the mixed-up people who constitute the Church on earth. But don’t tell me that we can’t speak of the company of people as “the Church.”

Edwin

Edwin

 

[josie_L]

But Leo’s condemnation of Luther’s statement is an affirmation of the practice. And the more you and other Catholics try to deny this, the more evident you make it that you’ve painted yourselves into an impossible position.

And I am well aware of that, Contarini, my point was to underlay the fact that Luther was condemning a practice not a teaching of the church, i.e., Leo was not the Church even if he was pope.

How is this relevant? Kamen does not deny that the Church sanctioned and approved of the execution of heretics–he just argues that the Spanish Inquisition in particular executed “only” a couple thousand people. The Lea quote is not, in my opinion, fair to the Catholic Church, so I’m not sure why you use it. I see no reason to think that the Catholic Church had not previously defended heretics’ right to a fair trial.

One of the most frustrating things about discussing this issue is that Catholics will cite any statement that makes the Church’s record look relatively better than its critics claim as if this simply dismissed all possible criticisms.

Do you know what’s frustating Edwin, the fact that you jump to conclusions, i.e., because I’m Catholic “I’m tring to dismiss all possible criticism”, i.e., my post was not meant to exonerate Leo X. Moreover, my mention of the bull was in essence a defence of my earlier statement, i.e., that Luther was condemning a practice not a TEACHING of the Church.

p.s. I don’t give a sh*t about your criticisms of Catholics when they argue with you Edwin, so I suggest that when you’re replying to Catholics such as myself you quit mentioning other Catholics in your response to them (you’ve been doing this a little too much lately).

 

[Contarini]

Do you know what’s frustating Edwin, the fact that you jump to conclusions, i.e., because I’m Catholic “I’m tring to dismiss all possible criticism”, i.e., my post was not meant to exonerate Leo X. Moreover, my mention of the bull was in essence a defence of my earlier statement, i.e., that Luther was condemning a practice not a TEACHING of the Church.

But a practice that it’s unorthodox to condemn clearly rests on a teaching. Otherwise there would be no problem with disagreeing with it.

Suppose, for instance, that Luther had said “the Church shouldn’t be building big, beautiful buildings,” and the Pope had condemned that. Clearly there would be a teaching in there about the value of art in glorifying God. And there’s a teaching here as well, about the value of using the civil power and its horrific physical punishments to put down heresy.

I’ll try to avoid cross-referencing–probably I should avoid getting into so many conversations at the same time. That’s what usually leads to these frustrated remarks about what Catholics tend to do. But I have been on here for a very long time, and I do have some basis for my generalizations! It would be nice if you would consider whether my criticisms may have some validity instead of simply being annoyed by them.

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

But there is absolutely no reason to think that that’s what Leo meant. You can’t take historical documents and randomly reinterpret them to mean something more convenient to you–if, that is, we are actually talking about what they meant in their original context. And that’s what *I’m *talking about. You and the other Catholics persistently want to turn this into a conversation about “what Catholics are required to believe on the basis of this statement,” and I don’t care about that. That’s a conversation for you to have among yourselves. I’m interested in a historical statement about what Catholics *did *believe–and what the words and actions of the Church’s leaders gave them every reason to believe–in the past.

Edwin

Why then Edwin do you think I just said I could define it but what good would it do. Did you miss my point completely.

You continue to try to push something Edwin that does not exist. We have tried to explain to you a thousand different ways that a teaching cannot change, and it it is a teaching of the Church it is to be believed. Case closed. But because you cannot understand the difference between a teaching and a discipline you do you best to make a impossible situation for everyone.

We try to explain to you that mistakes made by humans cannot be blamed on the Holy Spirit in defining scripture. But you cannot see this. No one can help you see something Edwin that you refuse to open your eyes to.

If the Pope right now said that he believed in a discipline and we followed it you would never accept it anyway. We would. We do not have to have him do flips to show us why this is a discipline he chooses to do.

We believe that no matter what God allowed it and there has to be something in it for us. Or we would not be Catholic.

We know that the Pope can make mistakes. My heart goes out to your poor parents Edwin. What a life they must have had with you when they made a discipline in the past for you could not understand ! And God forbid when they handled it in a manner you could never accept. It must be so hard for you to accept human beings do human things.

But you still refuse to accept that a Pope making disciplines on his own human reasoning and teaching the word of God by the Power of the Holy Spirit.

What you again cannot accept is the authority given to him by Christ. Well get over it Edwin he gave him that authority and Power to act with his own conscience on things also. Just because you cannot comprehend this does not give you the right to judge us because we can.

I understand you cannot accept this, and just because God did not answer to US why and how he choose to do things, he still indeed chose to do them that way.

Why do you want us to say? It is what it is Edwin. We did not call the shots God did. He is the one who put these leaders to lead the Church and gave them times that they could make thier own calls also in a human way. So for goodness sakes we forgive you for being human Edwin, why can’t you forgive anyone else.

I am honestly beginning to believe that you think that the Leaders of the Perfect Church should be perfect also. Well its not going to happen Edwin. There is, and will always be, ONLY ONE GOD. So forget it, no leader of the CC or any other Church will ever please you Edwin because they are human, and humans can fail.

 

[rinnie]

But a practice that it’s unorthodox to condemn clearly rests on a teaching. Otherwise there would be no problem with disagreeing with it.

Suppose, for instance, that Luther had said “the Church shouldn’t be building big, beautiful buildings,” and the Pope had condemned that. Clearly there would be a teaching in there about the value of art in glorifying God. And there’s a teaching here as well, about the value of using the civil power and its horrific physical punishments to put down heresy.

I’ll try to avoid cross-referencing–probably I should avoid getting into so many conversations at the same time. That’s what usually leads to these frustrated remarks about what Catholics tend to do. But I have been on here for a very long time, and I do have some basis for my generalizations! It would be nice if you would consider whether my criticisms may have some validity instead of simply being annoyed by them.

Edwin

It would be nice. But unfortunately Edwin when you continue to tell us what us Catholic’s always tend to do we do get frustrated. All that you do is throw stones Edwin. You have really been on a role for the last 2 months, thats for sure.

Did you ever think Edwin that not only Catholics disagree with you and your remarks.

You cannot understand that there is a lesson in everything we do. Right or wrong. But you would still call it a official Church teaching because you refuse to do otherwise. And because no one here agrees with you then you continue to start name calling.

And if the Pope would choose to condemn Luther that is such a big thing to you, but then you can turn around and condemn the Church but thats okay

 

[rinnie]

But there is absolutely no reason to think that that’s what Leo meant. You can’t take historical documents and randomly reinterpret them to mean something more convenient to you–if, that is, we are actually talking about what they meant in their original context. And that’s what *I’m *talking about. You and the other Catholics persistently want to turn this into a conversation about “what Catholics are required to believe on the basis of this statement,” and I don’t care about that. That’s a conversation for you to have among yourselves. I’m interested in a historical statement about what Catholics *did *believe–and what the words and actions of the Church’s leaders gave them every reason to believe–in the past.

Edwin

And by the way Edwin you can make your comments or opinions on something but If I want to state mine or anyone else does we cannot do this. Only you can Edwin. And God forbid if we DISAGREE WITH YOU!

 

[Contarini]

I am honestly beginning to believe that you think that the Leaders of the Perfect Church should be perfect also.

I think that we should use language clearly and consistently. And I think that Catholic insistence that “the Church is perfect” and that imperfect leaders are to be identified with the Church in some circumstances but not in others creates confusion and impedes responsibility.

So basically I’m saying that it should be one way or the other. Either admit that “the Perfect Church” is something quite distinct from the visible organization, or admit that the Church isn’t perfect. But you want to have things both ways, and become extremely annoyed when someone calls you on it, as this discussion has shown.

All the accusations of having a “chip” or a “grudge” simply amount to a tacit admission that I’m making valid points and you don’t want to deal with them.

Edwin

Edwin

 

[BrianH]

When unable or unwilling to handle the content of a post, take it to a personal level. I hope Contarini does not take the bait…

 

[Contarini]

And by the way Edwin you can make your comments or opinions on something but If I want to state mine or anyone else does we cannot do this. Only you can Edwin. And God forbid if we DISAGREE WITH YOU!

Of course you can disagree with me. I can’t stop you even if I wanted to.

But I can point out that you haven’t provided a historical response to my three pieces of evidence (IV Lateran, Exsurge Domine, and Aquinas) showing that the common teaching within the Catholic Church in the late Middle Ages was that heretics should be executed. People keep coming up with clever alternate things that these texts could have meant. IV Lateran could have meant that heretics should be exiled–but Aquinas clearly didn’t interpret it that way, and no one has provided me with an example of someone interpreting it differently.

So come up with a historically based alternative, or admit that people at the time thought that the Church taught that heretics should be persecuted.

Edwin

 

[josie_L]

But a practice that it’s unorthodox to condemn clearly rests on a teaching. Otherwise there would be no problem with disagreeing with it.

If this were an official teaching of the Church then how pray tell would you explain prior statements contradicting Leo X? And if Leo X did believe that burning heretics was in accordance with the will of Holy Spirit, how is this official church teaching rather than a testament of his own wickedness/ignorance (moreover the bull in question is not an ex-cathedra statement)?

Suppose, for instance, that Luther said “the Church shouldn’t be building big, beautiful buildings,” and the Pope had condemned that. Clearly there would be a teaching in there about the value of art in glorifying God. And there’s a teaching here as well, about the value of using the civil power and its horrific physical punishments to put down heresy.

The Church (ecclesiastics) throughout the ages has exhibitied anti-judaism and/or anti-semitism in some form or another, yet it never officially taught anti-semitism and/or anti judaism, i.e., does it necessarily follow then that because the Church burned heretics, it was following some official (and thereby binding) teaching of the Church?

I’ll try to avoid cross-referencing–probably I should avoid getting into so many conversations at the same time. That’s what usually leads to these frustrated remarks about what Catholics tend to do. But I have been on here for a very long time, and I do have some basis for my generalizations! It would be nice if you would consider whether my criticisms may have some validity instead of simply being annoyed by them.

Edwin

You would be more than annoyed, if, for example, I made it a habit of posting my criticism of Protestants everytime I was speaking to one . . . . “You know you Protestants . . . .”, i.e., it’s downright rude.

 

[GKC]

If this were an official teaching of the Church then how pray tell would you explain prior statements contradicting Leo X? And if Leo X did believe that burning heretics was in accordance with the will of Holy Spirit, how is this official church teaching rather than a testament of his own wickedness/ignorance (moreover the bull in question is not an ex-cathedra statement)?

The Church (ecclesiastics) throughout the ages has exhibitied anti-judaism and/or anti-semitism in some form or another, yet it never officially taught anti-semitism and/or anti judaism, i.e., does it necessarily follow then that because the Church burned heretics, it was following some official (and thereby binding) teaching of the Church?

You would be more than annoyed, if, for example, I made it a habit of posting my criticism of Protestants everytime I was speaking to one . . . . “You know you Protestants . . . .”, i.e., it’s downright rude.

Josie, I’ve pretty much stayed out of this. But I have a question that I asked before, and I don’t remember if there was an answer.

First, though, I don’t think that anyone is suggesting that Exsurge Domine meets the test for an ex cathedra statement. A Bull is merely a particular form of papal communication and being a Bull doesn’t establish a level of theological certainty associated with the document, at all.

But then, my question. Was Exsurge Domine a form of teaching act on the part of Leo? And if so, what degree of theological certainty would be associated with the contents (Ott, pp.9-10)? If it was not act of teaching, what was it? A personal opinion of Leo’s? Was that true for all 41 of the propositions Leo condemened? How would these distinctions be established?

GKC

 

[PRmerger]

But then, my question. Was Exsurge Domine a form of teaching act on the part of Leo? And if so, what degree of theological certainty would be associated with the contents (Ott, pp.9-10)? If it was not act of teaching, what was it? A personal opinion of Leo’s? Was that true for all 41 of the propositions Leo condemened? How would these distinctions be established?

GKC

These questions you pose, GKC, reminds me of questions my beloved children ask me: “do you really mean I have to be home by 10pm?” “did you mean that I have to pick up my toys now?” “What degree of certainty are you proposing that I can’t watch that movie?”

As parents when I give my children directives I don’t believe I need to say, “I am speaking with 50% certainty here!”. Children ought to obey their parents, no matter how fallibly I’m proclaiming my words!

 

[placido]

I think that we should use language clearly and consistently. And I think that Catholic insistence that “the Church is perfect” and that imperfect leaders are to be identified with the Church in some circumstances but not in others creates confusion and impedes responsibility.

Where do you get this from? … Can you please refer me to a Catholic document that states that “imperfect leaders are to be identified with the Church in some circumstances but not in others”?

So basically I’m saying that it should be one way or the other.

No, what you are saying is that you “basically” consider yourself infallible, therefore, whatever you say “should be” the truth.

Either admit that “the Perfect Church” is something quite distinct from the visible organization, or admit that the Church isn’t perfect.

Fine! You don’t understand how (name removed by moderator)erfect humans can lead a perfect church and you conclude that, since you can’t understand it, it is therefore not possible.

But you want to have things both ways, and become extremely annoyed when someone calls you on it, as this discussion has shown.

Question to ponder: can an imperfect individual teach perfect doctrine? If not, why did Jesus say what He said in Matthew 23:3?

placido

 

[GKC]

These questions you pose, GKC, reminds me of questions my beloved children ask me: “do you really mean I have to be home by 10pm?” “did you mean that I have to pick up my toys now?” “What degree of certainty are you proposing that I can’t watch that movie?”

As parents when I give my children directives I don’t believe I need to say, “I am speaking with 50% certainty here!”. Children ought to obey their parents, no matter how fallibly I’m proclaiming my words!

Parenting is a chore all right. And I can see how Edwin would get a tad frustrated in this thread. If I wasn’t a seasoned parent and terminally irenic, might happen, even to me. Doesn’t though.

The issue the question addresses was, what was Leo saying, specifically in #33? Was he teaching (as a part of the Magisterium) that it was RC doctrine that the Holy Spirit did not condemn the burning of heretics, in all circumstances? Note Josie’s statement quoted, to which my post was a response. It leads directly to the questions I asked.

And defining the theological degree of certainty of a doctrinal statement, from infallible ( for a number of reason) to grades of theological opinion (sententia probabilis, etc.), is commonplace, as noted in Ott, loc. cit. Hence my query. A Bull does not establish the degree of certainty, being only a stylized form of Papal communication.

I’m not involved in this particular thread, generally, it appearing an exercise in frustration. But I was curious. If I remain curious, that’s ok.

GKC

 

[PRmerger]

The issue the question addresses was, what was Leo saying, specifically in #33? Was he teaching (as a part of the Magisterium) that it was RC doctrine that the Holy Spirit did not condemn the burning of heretics, in all circumstances? Note Josie’s statement quoted, to which my post was a response. It leads directly to the questions I asked.

I thought that question was answered rather trenchantly by Jimmy Akin in the article previously cited.

And defining the theological degree of certainty of a doctrinal statement, from infallible ( for a number of reason) to grades of theological opinion (sententia probabilis, etc.), is commonplace, as noted in Ott, loc. cit. Hence my query. A Bull does not establish the degree of certainty, being only a stylized form of Papal communication.

I’m not involved in this particular thread, generally, it appearing an exercise in frustration. But I was curious. If I remain curious, that’s ok.

GKC

Oh, I am certainly not objecting to your curiousity, GKC.

I am merely saying that for me as a Catholic I’m not going to invest too much energy on what degree of doctrinal certainty exists in this particular 11-word sentence (#33). Given that I understand the fomal teaching of the Church–that all human beings have inherent dignity and worth–with 100% certainty, I don’t need to sweat it too much!

But I understand your curiousity. And my answer to what Catholics ought to understand that 11-word sentence to mean is: heretics hurt the Church. Heretics are wrong. Heretics need to be stopped. That is the will of the Holy Spirit.

 

[GKC]

No, I disagree re: Akin.

Then you understand that the Bull implies heretics may be burned, IAW the will of the Holy Spirit . If so, we are done.

Let it ride.

GKC

I thought that question was answered rather trenchantly by Jimmy Akin in the article previously cited.

Oh, I am certainly not objecting to your curiousity, GKC.

I am merely saying that for me as a Catholic I’m not going to invest too much energy on what degree of doctrinal certainty exists in this particular 11-word sentence (#33). Given that I understand the fomal teaching of the Church–that all human beings have inherent dignity and worth–with 100% certainty, I don’t need to sweat it too much!

But I understand your curiousity. And my answer to what Catholics ought to understand that 11-word sentence to mean is: heretics hurt the Church. Heretics are wrong. Heretics need to be stopped. That is the will of the Holy Spirit.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I disagree re: Akin.

Fair enough.

Then you understand that the Bull implies heretics may be burned, IAW the will of the Holy Spirit . If so, we are done.

I hope we are not done, for I don’t believe the Bull implies heretics may be burned.

Again, from Akin’s article, cited earlier (bold mine)
For example, if the Church chose to condemn the proposition “The sky is white,” one could not then infer that the Church adhered to the proposition “The sky is black.”

Let’s apply this reasoning to the case at hand. If the Church condemned the proposition that it is contrary to the will of the Spirit to put heretics to death,** that does not mean that the Church holds that it is the will of the Spirit to do so.** There is the possibility that the application of the death penalty in such circumstances is one that the Spirit willed in one age but does not will today. There is also the possibility that he wills it in the case of some offenses against the faith but not others, or that he wills it in the case of some individuals but not others, or that he neither wills for nor against it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Huh? :shrug:

Let’s apply this reasoning to the case at hand. If the Church condemned the proposition that it is contrary to the will of the Spirit to put heretics to death,** that does not mean that the Church holds that it is the will of the Spirit to do so.** There is the possibility that the application of the death penalty in such circumstances is one that the Spirit willed in one age but does not will today. There is also the possibility that he wills it in the case of some offenses against the faith but not others, or that he wills it in the case of some individuals but not others, or that he neither wills for nor against it.