When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[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.

I don’t mind changing folks’ minds, esp. on facts, when I know them, as per my particular study areas. That’s the sort of thread you will most often find me in. But that’s not my goal. I do try to expand data bases, mine included.

To debate takes two. Which is why you have a hard time debating with me.

GKC

 

[pete_29]

This is such an incendiary debate… Hot stuff…

OUCH!!! :stretcher:

 

[PRmerger]

No. What he says means one can’t exclude burning. Is this current Church teaching?

Indeed it is, but it must be understood with some nuance, of course.

Capital punishment is not forbidden by the CC.
CP for heretics? Perhaps not, as there are other means of correction. But, woe to them!

Indeed, Scripture is quite clear that heresy is a very serious entity.

To promote heresy within the Church is rather like the sin of Korah’s rebellion (cf. Num 16) which Jude warned against:

Jude 10-11 “…these men revile whatever they do not understand…Woe to them! For they…perish in Korah’s rebellion.”

Luther and Korah seem to have been brothers in their rebellion. TAnd things did not fare too well for Korah–as decreed by God, no less!

 

[GKC]

Would you suspect the nuance, currently, would obviate the burning idea?

GKC

Indeed it is, but it must be understood with some nuance, of course.

Capital punishment is not forbidden by the CC.
CP for heretics? Perhaps not, as there are other means of correction. But, woe to them!

Indeed, Scripture is quite clear that heresy is a very serious entity.

To promote heresy within the Church is rather like the sin of Korah’s rebellion (cf. Num 16) which Jude warned against:

Jude 10-11 “…these men revile whatever they do not understand…Woe to them! For they…perish in Korah’s rebellion.”

Luther and Korah seem to have been brothers in their rebellion. TAnd things did not fare too well for Korah–as decreed by God, no less!

 

[PRmerger]

Would you suspect the nuance, currently, would obviate the burning idea?

GKC

Um…yes.

 

[GKC]

Um…yes.

Ok.

Let’s look at it from the other direction. Mr. Akin does a fine job of listing a number of possible interpretations of #33, all of which seem at least reasonable; threads like that can be teased out of the skein of #33. But there is one point that is directly given in #33, not requiring assumptions. One must not say that the will of the Holy Spirit is contrary to the idea of burning heretics. Whatever limits, logically, on such a course, practically, at any given point in time since, it is the only one Leo so defines, specifically, that one must assert is not contrary to the Holy Spirit’s will, as of some point in time (say, in early 16th century Europe).

Must one still affirm that, in the sense Leo taught it?

GKC

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

"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.

Would it be accurate to say Catholics in the sixteenth century had a moral duty to execute heretics, even though the Church now believes this was simply a popular opinion and that the *real *teaching was that heresy should be opposed?

 

[PRmerger]

Ok.

Let’s look at it from the other direction. Mr. Akin does a fine job of listing a number of possible interpretations of #33, all of which seem at least reasonable; threads like that can be teased out of the skein of #33. But there is one point that is directly given in #33, not requiring assumptions. One must not say that the will of the Holy Spirit is contrary to the idea of burning heretics. Whatever limits, logically, on such a course, practically, at any given point in time since, it is the only one Leo so defines, specifically, that one must assert is not contrary to the Holy Spirit’s will, as of some point in time (say, in early 16th century Europe).

Must one still affirm that, in the sense Leo taught it?

GKC

 

[PRmerger]

One must not say that the will of the Holy Spirit is contrary to the idea of burning heretics. Whatever limits, logically, on such a course, practically, at any given point in time since, it is the only one Leo so defines,

Here I must stop you. Did you intend to use the word “defines”?

If so, you must know that only when the Magisterium uses terminology such as “define” “solemnly” “declare” “formally” et al, a Catholic can understand this to be a formal, defined teaching of the Church.

It is quite clear that the pope is making no such claim in this Bull.

So was your use of the word “define” inadvertent?

 

[PRmerger]

Would it be accurate to say Catholics in the sixteenth century had a moral duty to execute heretics,

Absolutely not!

I don’t believe anyone–even a 16th century peasant–would have claimed “it’s my moral duty to execute heretics because that Papal Bull said so in item #33”.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Oh you fussy, grumpy old Anglican, will you quit disecting my sematics! Pick pick pick! Just for that I’m going to boycott Chesterton and Lewis today!

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

 

[josie_L]

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.

Exactly, PR merger, in fact, if I were to say “killing in self defence is in accordance with the will of the Spirit” and the Pope says that I have erred in stating this, does it necessarily mean he is taking a position contrary to this view, i.e., “killing in self defence is against the will of the Spirit”. Killing in self defence may be necessary but it does not mean therefore that the Spirit wills it (I would think that the Spirit would be saddened by the demise of any soul). Moreover, Leo X does not state in what capacity Luther erred, i.e., there is too much being assumed on so little evidence. Also, there is nothing I have read (including the decrees issued in Lateran IV) that would suggest the Church OFFICIALLY taught that burning heretics was in accordance with the will of the Spirit.

God bless.

Josie

Edit: I have also mentioned elsewhere that even though the Church (ecclesiastics) practiced some forms of anti-semitism there was no official teaching of the Church that taught anti-semitism was good or according to the Spirit’s will.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

People in the 16th Century of all stripes, Anglican or Catholic, had no problem watching or participating in setting someone on fire…It was a violent period and people of both sides had a mean streak with the torches or drawing and quartering folks. People were almost numb and immune to it all because it was so common place.

I think it’s painfully clear that the Anglicans executed more Catholics than Catholics executed Anglicans. While I’m not a real fan of Mary Tudor, I think the “Bloody Mary” moniker was a bit dramatic. More Catholics were executed under Henry, Edward, and Elizabeth than under Mary, easily.

But I think if you look at European history with Christianity, executing a person who was considered a heretic was a no-brainer. Martin Luther had to go into hiding as “Junker George” and basically grow a beard for a disguise and live in a castle for some time. Why? Because as an excommunicated man with no safe conduct, he had no rights. In medievel Europe, your baptism was your citizenship and rights package all together. When you were excommunicated, you had no rights really. And being given a safe conduct wasn’t even always a guarantee of safety. Ask Jan Hus!!

Absolutely not!

I don’t believe anyone–even a 16th century peasant–would have claimed “it’s my moral duty to execute heretics because that Papal Bull said so in item #33”.

 

[GKC]

Here I must stop you. Did you intend to use the word “defines”?

If so, you must know that only when the Magisterium uses terminology such as “define” “solemnly” “declare” “formally” et al, a Catholic can understand this to be a formal, defined teaching of the Church.

It is quite clear that the pope is making no such claim in this Bull.

So was your use of the word “define” inadvertent?

Since I do know that, then, yes. But , as I said before, is there any doubt that the Bull is a teaching of the Church?

GKC

 

[GKC]

People in the 16th Century of all stripes, Anglican or Catholic, had no problem watching or participating in setting someone on fire…It was a violent period and people of both sides had a mean streak with the torches or drawing and quartering folks. People were almost numb and immune to it all because it was so common place.

I think it’s painfully clear that the Anglicans executed more Catholics than Catholics executed Anglicans. While I’m not a real fan of Mary Tudor, I think the “Bloody Mary” moniker was a bit dramatic. More Catholics were executed under Henry, Edward, and Elizabeth than under Mary, easily.

But I think if you look at European history with Christianity, executing a person who was considered a heretic was a no-brainer. Martin Luther had to go into hiding as “Junker George” and basically grow a beard for a disguise and live in a castle for some time. Why? Because as an excommunicated man with no safe conduct, he had no rights. In medievel Europe, your baptism was your citizenship and rights package all together. When you were excommunicated, you had no rights really. And being given a safe conduct wasn’t even always a guarantee of safety. Ask Jan Hus!!

I’m not fond of religious executions, from any direction, though it certainly was what was the thing, back in the day. But what tends to get Mary Tudor her title was the efficiency: executions per years on the throne.

GKC

 

[josie_L]

Since I do know that, then, yes. But , as I said before, is there any doubt that the Bull is a teaching of the Church?

GKC

It was a reiteration of that teaching, no doubt, but as for #33 there is no evidence as to what Leo X meant when he said Luther was in error.

Edit: Please read my post to PR merger above.

 

[GKC]

It was a reiteration of that teaching, no doubt, but as for #33 there is no evidence as to what Leo X meant when he said Luther was in error.

Edit: Please read my post to PR merger above.

I did.

GKC

 

[PRmerger]

Since I do know that, then, yes. But , as I said before, is there any doubt that the Bull is a teaching of the Church?

GKC

So then I will say, “No, Pope Leo was making no solemn proclamation of Church teaching.”

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

See, and you’ve always maintained big government wasn’t efficient!

I’m not fond of religious executions, from any direction, though it certainly was what was the thing, back in the day. But what tends to get Mary Tudor her title was the efficiency: executions per years on the throne.

GKC

 

[GKC]

So then I will say, “No, Pope Leo was making no solemn proclamation of Church teaching.”

Fair enough.

What was he doing, specifically? Must a RC affirm any/all of the 41 points he made?

GKC