When Did Rome Go Wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Huh? :p:shrug:
Akin is saying that one cannot assume that item #33 in the document implies that it is the will of God to burn heretics. It is not to be understood as a universal, infallible teaching
There is the possibility that the application of the death penalty was willed in one period, but is not willled 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.(source: Akin)
 
Then you understand that the Bull implies heretics may be burned, IAW the will of the Holy Spirit
How do you respond, GKC, to non-Christian’s arguments that some Scriptures imply that it is the will of God that entire races be exterminated?
 
How do you respond, GKC, to non-Christian’s arguments that some Scriptures imply that it is the will of God that entire races be exterminated?
Nope. Not even circling the target.

Thanks anyway.

GKC
 
Fair enough.

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.
Which is why I asked, long long ago, what that (which is certainly a Church teaching, implied at the time it was issued. What was Leo saying, then?

GKC
 
Heresy is when a Christian tries to break one of Christ’s bones.
 
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”?
I cannot speak for Contarini, though I think it would be helpful if such a document existed. It would help us apply some standard to assist in knowing when a teaching we now regret was really Church teaching, or simply the false private teaching of an imperfect leader or leaders.

In this current discussion, I could say something like, “The Church used to say it was right and proper to execute heretics, and that those who disagreed were in the wrong.” Since the Church does not teach this today, modern Catholics have to resolve this apparent contradiction. Instead, they could say something like, “This was what the pope believed, along with the majority of bishops and laity alike, but they were all expressing private opinions; the Church did not teach this.”

Personally, I think that if I had been a sixteenth century peasant, and the pope and my parish priest were saying that it was right and proper to execute heretics, it would have been very difficult for me to know they were simply expressing an opinion. St. Thomas More seems to have been a good sort, and it would have been nice if he had known the Church actually condemned the execution of heretics. If he, a highly educated man, could make the mistake of trusting the prevailing opinion of the bishops and pope, rather than following the teaching of the Church, how would I, as an uneducated peasant, fare any better?

It appears to me that it is safe to say, “The Church teaches,” or “The Church taught,” so long as it matches the current catechism. If there is anything in the past that does not agree with the catechism, no matter how strongly the “declares and defines” are worded, then those past teachings are the fallible opinions of those who taught. So, I can rest assured I am not in error for not executing heretics, and I can feel pretty justified using a crossbow when I go to battle. However, several hundred years from now, Catholics may very well ask something like, “Why were they listening to Humanae Vitae, the private opinion of Pope Paul VI, rather than the infallible teaching of the Church?”

If the Church never teaches error, it would be helpful to know what the teaching office of the Church is. As it is, if anything from papal encyclicals to conciliar documents could end up being simple opinion, it is very difficult to know what the Church teaches at all.

Perhaps I should just say the following: “The Church has never supported the execution of heretics, the Church has never said that sexual intercourse in marriage was an unfortunate necessity and inferior to celibacy, the Church never blamed the Jews for Christ’s crucifixion, the Church has always supported Natural Family Planning, the Church has always believed in papal infallibility, the Church has always supported the possibility of evolution and an old Earth, the Church has always supported heliocentrism, the Church did not endorse the Crusades or Inquisition, and we have always been at war with Oceania.”
 
Nope. Not even circling the target.

Thanks anyway.

GKC
I am sad that you are refusing to engage in this dialogue, as the parallel is quite obvious. Heck, even Edwin acknowleded this! :confused:

However, as you wish. 🤷 We won’t discuss what a Christian’s response is to hard sayings apparently given by God.
 
Which is why I asked, long long ago, what that (which is certainly a Church teaching, implied at the time it was issued. What was Leo saying, then?

GKC
And I thought I answered it.

"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."
 
And I thought I answered it.

"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."
It used the word “burned”, not “stopped”. What would that imply, what was Leo meaning to teach, to that day and age and circumstances?

GKC
 
I am sad that you are refusing to engage in this dialogue, as the parallel is quite obvious. Heck, even Edwin acknowleded this! :confused:

However, as you wish. 🤷 We won’t discuss what a Christian’s response is to hard sayings apparently given by God.
It is, as you say, a dialogue. Some folks miss that

The parallel you posit fails in that I do not possess teaching authority parallel to what the Church claims (that is not a derogatory definition, BTW). The parallel would be what the Church taught, in that time, that the scriptures implied.

Off to Mass.

GKC
 
It used the word “burned”, not “stopped”. What would that imply, what was Leo meaning to teach, to that day and age and circumstances?

GKC
Yes, it did use the word “burned”, just like God used the word “execute” in Numbers 25

The LORD said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of the people and execute them in broad daylight before the LORD, (E)so that the fierce anger of the LORD may turn away from Israel.”

It’s a hard thing to read, isn’t it?

As to what Pope Leo meant to teach, to that day and age and circumstance, in that 11 word sentence was: Luther, you are wrong. Heretics need to be stopped!
 
It is, as you say, a dialogue. Some folks miss that

The parallel you posit fails in that I do not possess teaching authority parallel to what the Church claims (that is not a derogatory definition, BTW). The parallel would be what the Church taught, in that time, that the scriptures implied.

Off to Mass.

GKC
No, GKC, that would not be a parallel. That’s the subject at hand–what did the Church teach?
 
Yes, it did use the word “burned”, just like God used the word “execute” in Numbers 25

The LORD said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of the people and execute them in broad daylight before the LORD, (E)so that the fierce anger of the LORD may turn away from Israel.”

It’s a hard thing to read, isn’t it?

As to what Pope Leo meant to teach, to that day and age and circumstance, in that 11 word sentence was: Luther, you are wrong. Heretics need to be stopped!
How may they be stopped, in Leo’s teaching?

Now, really off to Mass.

GKC
 
How may they be stopped, in Leo’s teaching?

Now, really off to Mass.

GKC
He doesn’t say, does he?

As I say to all my family as they’re leaving for Mass, “Pray for me!” 🙂
 
👍
However, several hundred years from now, Catholics may very well ask something like, “Why were they listening to Humanae Vitae, the private opinion of Pope Paul VI, rather than the infallible teaching of the Church?”
I understand what you are saying, and in fact posed a similar question on the CAFs a while back, regarding embryonic stem cell research, homosexual unions, etc.

Itjustdave1988 gave a lengthy but trenchant response: (see here for full discussion)

"I understand that they are my superior, not because they are always right, but because they were commission and appointed by lawful authority.** I often suffer to submit to the will of another, even though I believe they are wrong. **Being wrong is not the same as being contrary to God’s will.

For example, wasn’t Moses often going the “wrong” direction, away from the promised land while wandering in the desert? There were many who didn’t want to submit to him anymore (Korah, cf. Num 16). Yet, even though Moses was headed the wrong way, he was being navigated by God every step of the way. We cannot always understand why God navigates his holy people in divergent directions. But the response of the faithful is the “obedience of faith” spoken of by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans, even if we can’t understand why.

The problem is that many people aren’t really obeying God when they enter into homosexual relations, or appreviate the Bible and start their own church like Luther did. They aren’t really applying Act 5:29, but instead obey their own faulty understanding rather than the submitting to the Church, what Scripture calls “the pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Tim 3:15)

Everyone needs limits and correction from lawful authority, because we have a tendancy, as individuals, to go faster than the speed limit, for example, and otherwise rationalize our unlawful actions, pretending that God wants me to do X, despite the norms established by lawful authority.

By doing so we make our faulty self the de facto pillar of truth, which is certainly contrary to God’s will. It is certainly contrary to Christ’s affirmation that the final arbiter is the Church (see Matt 18:15ff). We are commanded by Scripture to “listen to the Church.” All the evil in the word can be attributed to a failure to do so. How are we to responsond “if he refuses to listen even to the church” as the final arbiter of truth? And make no mistake, heresy and dissent from the teachings of the Church is certainly a sin against Christ’s brethren. Scripture is quite clear in this regard.

And this:

St. Catherine of Sienna:
“For divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil.” (letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza)

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
Pius IX:
“we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withold assent and obedience to those judgements and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and it rights and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.” There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church.” (Pius IX, Encyclical Quanta Cura (1864), Denzinger 1698)

Pius XII, Humani Generis, 20
"Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 892:
892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.
Code of Canon Law:
“Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff OR the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.”
 
what a second we Catholics are the true church and with out the church fathers they would not even a bible because the church fathers made the bible this is our oral tradition they need to wake up and see we our the 2000 year old church and they are the 500 year church. Some of our fathers lived with Christ and the apostoles 2000 years ago.
 
He doesn’t say, does he?

As I say to all my family as they’re leaving for Mass, “Pray for me!” 🙂
No. What he says means one can’t exclude burning. Is this current Church teaching?

I did. Ora pro nobis

GKC
 
Slow motion, too. But remember, it’s a dialogue, not a debate or argument. That implies someone is trying to change someone’s mind. I rarely do that.

GKC
Dialogue/discussion/debate/discourse…I use all of those words interchangeably, actually.

If there is no need to change minds to the truth, then when we are in a wild goose chase, without the Golden Goose of Truth (to borrow from Peter Kreeft). 🤷

IOW, I do want to change people’s minds, perhaps my own, in order to conform to truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top