Who is My Brother?

[Shiann]

Eden of Mind:

Thank you, Shiann. That’s a solid point to be considered. There’s only one problem. I do not disagree that the Church of Christ has the right to discipline. Indeed, she has the command to do so. She must even excommunicate some. However, given the Scripture I cited (and many others), can the Church of our LORD kill its own members or have them tortured and killed?

Excommunication is obviously not the concern. I am asking whether the true church can sanction the live burning of the brethren (with their families, including children), whether separated brethren or not?

If she can, then there are two things I don’t understand. Why is Rome now admitting this as a fault? And, secondly, if it is a good thing that was done, why is it not still in affect as Rome’s teaching on the proper recourse for these “separated brethren”?

Catholic Encyclopedia on Captial Punishment:

During the Middle Ages, in spite of the zealous humanitarian efforts of the Church, cruel punishments were commonly employed, and the death penalty was very frequently inflicted. This severity was, in general, an inheritance from the Roman Empire, the jurisprudence of which, civil and criminal, pervaded Europe. One of the most horrible forms of punishment, derived from ancient Roman usages, was burning at the stake. The nations of modern Europe, as they gradually developed, seemed to have agreed upon the necessity of extirpating all influences and agencies which tended to pervert the faith of the people, or which seemed to them to betray the potency of evil spirits. Therefore, the laws of all these nations provided for the destruction of contumacious unbelievers, teachers of heresy, witches, and sorcerers, by fire. The words of Exodus (xxii, 18), “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live”, sank deep into the consciousness of the medieval people, were literally interpreted, and rigidly observed. Witches were burned in England as late as the time of Sir Matthew Hale (1609-76). The Statute of Elizabeth in 1562 made witchcraft a crime of the first magnitude, whether directed to the injury of others or not…

…Canon law has always forbidden clerics to shed human blood and therefore capital punishment has always been the work of the officials of the State and not of the Church. Even in the case of heresy, of which so much is made by non-Catholic controversialists, the functions of ecclesiastics were restricted invariably to ascertaining the fact of heresy. The punishment, whether capital or other, was both prescribed and inflicted by civil government. *The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians. The advisabilty of exercising that power is, of course, an affair to be determined upon other and various considerations. *

newadvent.org/cathen/12565a.htm

Most governments are a lot more lenient when deciding the death penalty. I would assume why this is not a punishment practiced today.

 

[Mickey]

Eden of Mind:

Will you also go on record to say that the actions of the churches which endorsed the burning of Roman Catholics does not, of itself, preclude them from being the true Church of Christ? If you do, I cannot join you. Any church that would burn Roman Catholics is not the true Church of Christ, as described by the Apostle John.

I don’t understand what you are saying here.
I know that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ for many reasons: reasons that include things such as 2000 years of history, Apostolic succession, witness of the Church Fathers, compilation of the canon, interpretation of Scripture, the beauty and richness of the doctrine, etc., etc., etc., I could go on and on–but I’m sure that you have heard all of this before. I am steadfast in my faith and confident in the truth of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. At the same time, I will not judge you according to your affiliation (whatever that may be). I’m sure you are a devout and prayerful person.
Only God knows your heart.

More blessings to you.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Shiann:

Any nod of approval did not come from God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit- but a man who was acting outside the Church.

And the Catholics here have agreed that this would not be a reflection of a “member in good standing”. . . But the Church did not justify the killing of brethren- and any killing done, was certainly not done ex-cathedra (infallibly). . . . That is true. The Church protects her members, and now even seperated brethren.

Thank you so much, Shiann. This is an answer fit to the question. You undestand that it is the church that is my concern and not individuals. Good. So… it is your belief that consistently for centuries the Roman Catholic church did not itself endorse the general burning of heretic Protestants and others now accepted by the Roman church as “separated brethren”? John Paul II was only asking forgiveness for the actions of a few renegade Roman Catholic authorities who were not acting with the sanction of the church itself? This was not accepted church policy regarding those same heretics (“separated brethren”)?

In other words, the Roman Catholic church did not itself advocate the burning of any of those now called “separated brethren”?

Do the others in this forum agree with this view of history? Would this be the modern Church’s position?

If so, in the course of this discussion, I’ve come to wonder, is it morally right for the Church (not individuals) to sanction the killing of anyone who does not agree with the Church at all? If it is, then why not today?

If not,…

…then would you, Shiann (as well as all others), argue that the Roman Catholic church, in all of its history, has never once sanctioned or demanded the burning of anyone who disagreed with her or who were counted as heretics?

If Rome has done this, sanctioning and teaching the torture and killing of others, then does the true Church, according to Christ, have the right to demand capital punishment for religious offenses? Is this consistent with the Biblical reflection on the nature of Christ’s true Church?

This is a very serious question. Should I join with a church that has sanctioned and taught and demanded the torture and killing of anyone, proclaiming that church to be the true Church?

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

I just read your latest post, Shiann. Thank you. It has been the most helpful to me of all that I have received thus far.

 

[mercygate]

Eden of Mind:

Thank you so much, Shiann. This is an answer fit to the question. You undestand that it is the church that is my concern and not individuals. Good. So… it is your belief that consistently for centuries the Roman Catholic church did not itself endorse the general burning of heretic Protestants and others now accepted by the Roman church as “separated brethren”? John Paul II was only asking forgiveness for the actions of a few renegade Roman Catholic authorities who were not acting with the sanction of the church itself? This was not accepted church policy regarding those same heretics (“separated brethren”)?

In other words, the Roman Catholic church did not itself advocate the burning of any of those now called “separated brethren”?

Do the others in this forum agree with this view of history? Would this be the modern Church’s position?

If so, in the course of this discussion, I’ve come to wonder, is it morally right for the Church (not individuals) to sanction the killing of anyone who does not agree with the Church at all? If it is, then why not today?

If not,…

…then would you, Shiann (as well as all others), argue that the Roman Catholic church, in all of its history, has never once sanctioned or demanded the burning of anyone who disagreed with her or who were counted as heretics?

If Rome has done this, sanctioning and teaching the torture and killing of others, then does the true Church, according to Christ, have the right to demand capital punishment for religious offenses? Is this consistent with the Biblical reflection on the nature of Christ’s true Church?

This is a very serious question. Should I join with a church that has sanctioned and taught and demanded the torture and killing of anyone, proclaiming that church to be the true Church?

Are you saying that since Catholics and Protestants both at one time understood death to be the appropriate penalty for heresy, that there is no such thing as Christ’s True Church? That position is tenable. That would mean, of course, that Jesus is not who Christians believe him to be because he said that he would “build his church” and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Shiann, there is only one matter that I am confused about that needs clarification. The Encyclopedia you cited stated the following:

The punishment, whether capital or other, was both prescribed and inflicted by civil government. The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians. The advisabilty of exercising that power is, of course, an affair to be determined upon other and various considerations.

Now, the article is very unclear at this point. “Capital punishment” is advocated by the Roman church. I see that this is Biblical. I even agree that this is a punishment which the LORD has stated is granted to the state (under certain circumstances that do not include killing His people for their beliefs or errors). Then I read something that is mostly ambiguous, even silent, on the subject of the crimes for which the Roman Catholic church thinks “capital punishment” may be advisable. The criteria for “advisability” is based upon “other and various circumstances.”

Now, this is the meat of the matter, the very heart of the thing. Yes, thank you again Shiann for bringing this to my attention.

It is precisely my thinking that the Roman Catholic church taught centuries ago that it was “advisable” for the State to enforce its laws against heresy and against “separated brethren” even to the maximum penalty of “capital punishment.” In other words, that the church sanctioned the death of “separated brethren” by sanctioning this use of “capital punishment” upon them for their doctrinal teachings or errors. Now, is that true? Was St. Thomas More, for instance, acting with the sanction of the Roman Catholic church when he caught and strangled and burned William Tyndale for his English translation of the Scriptures? Did the church itself (and not a few men) teach and sanction the use of “capital punishment” on heretics such as those now known as “separated brethren”?

AND…

Does the Roman Catholic church now teach that capital punishment of this kind should be exercised upon “separated brethren” for their beliefs or errors?

Thank you so much for all that you’ve done thus far in helping to clear much of this up for me.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

mercygate:

Are you saying that since Catholics and Protestants both at one time understood death to be the appropriate penalty for heresy, that there is no such thing as Christ’s True Church? That position is tenable. That would mean, of course, that Jesus is not who Christians believe him to be because he said that he would “build his church” and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

No, forgive me, mercygate, if that is what I sounded as though I were arguing. It is not. In the case of individual Protestants and Roman Catholics, I would say that they were individually wrong for advocating this. In the case of churches, if they advocate or sanction the killing of Christ’s brethren because of their beliefs, then those churches are false churches.

Does this leave us with no real churches? No, because there’s no such thing as the “Protestant church,” as though there were an umbrella instituion under which all Protestant churches fit. There certainly are some Protestant churches that once advocated this very atrocity and acted upon it or sanctioned it (the church of England comes to mind). I stand behind my Biblical statement that Christ’s Church does no such thing.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

I’m sorry, Mickey, I don’t mean to pass by your response.

Mickey:

I know that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ for many reasons: reasons that include things such as 2000 years of history, Apostolic succession, witness of the Church Fathers, compilation of the canon, interpretation of Scripture, the beauty and richness of the doctrine, etc., etc., etc., I could go on and on–but I’m sure that you have heard all of this before.

I haven’t really heard it all before as I am not all that familiar with Roman Catholic apologetics. This would be one way of answering the dilemma. Isn’t there extraordinary evidence everywhere else for Rome’s claims to be the true Church? That is possible… but, if that is true, then it will certainly also be the case that there is an explanation for this particular dilemma and it is clear enough and important enough not to run off in haste after Rome without any further thought given to Rome’s past which supposedly evidences her status as that Church.

Our eternal destinies may depend upon whether we are careful about such things and I take that very seriously.

I am steadfast in my faith and confident in the truth of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. At the same time, I will not judge you according to your affiliation (whatever that may be). I’m sure you are a devout and prayerful person.
Only God knows your heart.

More blessings to you.

I appreciate that you are steadfast and confident. I just want to know why, given some of my own reservations about Rome.

 

[Shiann]

Eden of Mind:

Thank you so much, Shiann. This is an answer fit to the question. You undestand that it is the church that is my concern and not individuals. Good. So… it is your belief that consistently for centuries the Roman Catholic church did not itself endorse the general burning of heretic Protestants and others now accepted by the Roman church as “separated brethren”? John Paul II was only asking forgiveness for the actions of a few renegade Roman Catholic authorities who were not acting with the sanction of the church itself? This was not accepted church policy regarding those same heretics (“separated brethren”)?

In other words, the Roman Catholic church did not itself advocate the burning of any of those now called “separated brethren”?

I believe the Church- then and now- supports a correct use of Capital Punishment. It is a biblicaly supported punishment (Gen 9:6). It is my belief that the Church recognizes that though the punishments may have been just for the time, the Church should have supported more discretion when governments leveled a capital charge of “heretic”.

If so, in the course of this discussion, I’ve come to wonder, is it morally right for the Church (not individuals) to sanction the killing of anyone who does not agree with the Church at all? If it is, then why not today?

If not,…

…then would you, Shiann (as well as all others), argue that the Roman Catholic church, in all of its history, has never once sanctioned or demanded the burning of anyone who disagreed with her or who were counted as heretics?

Again, the Church realizes the biblical evidence for Capital Punishment. This was a just punishment of the time. It was erroneously used by governments to controll the masses in secular matters- as well as religous. Anarchy in the Church meant anarchy in the state during that time.

If Rome has done this, sanctioning and teaching the torture and killing of others, then does the true Church, according to Christ, have the right to demand capital punishment for religious offenses? Is this consistent with the Biblical reflection on the nature of Christ’s true Church?

There is biblical evidence for the handing down of capital punishment and as stated in my post above, the Church has defered to the state in this sentence. If the Church is in error at all, it is that it did not demand better consideration of who qualified for that sentence. (Which they do now btw.)

This is a very serious question. Should I join with a church that has sanctioned and taught and demanded the torture and killing of anyone, proclaiming that church to be the true Church?

Well, you have yet to prove that the Catholic Church did any of those things- assuming we are discussing the Catholic Church here.

 

[adnauseum]

stadre:

Eden,

I see that you posed this same question in the ask an apologist forum when you first joined. Please share with us why you are asking it in this thread when you have already received the answer to your question. What exactly is the intent here?

Applause.

A most excellent and enlightening question, which sadly received a transparently evasive reply.

 

[adnauseum]

“A prince can win heaven more easily by bloodshed than by prayer.” – Martin Luther

“One cannot meet a rebel with reason: your best answer is to punch him in the face until he has a bloody nose.” – Martin Luther

“The peasants’ ears must be unbuttoned with bullets, till their heads jump off their shoulders…He who will not hear God’s Word when it is spoken with kindness must listen to the headsman when he comes with his axe.” – Martin Luther

According to historian William Manchester, the number of German dead [due to Luther’s assault on the peasants] was more than a quarter million from the years 1523 - 1527.

I’m not making any conclusion. Just providing counterpoint to the claims of our separated brother.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

A question related to the one asked here as the subject of this thread might be:

"Who Killed Christ?"

The relation that this question has to the subject at hand is not immediately obvious, I expect. In quite a few independent places, the Jews were accused in Scripture of having been responsible for the death of our LORD. Nevertheless, today, they and others in their stead (such as Messianics) continue to argue that they could not have killed Christ because they did not have the power to exercise capital punishment. It was the Roman state who condemned the LORD and carried out the sentence.

There is a kernel of truth in this, yet, for all that, the Scriptures clearly implicate the Jewish sanction of the same and makes them primarily responsible .

Turning back to our present subject, if Rome itself or her clergy did not light the flames that burned the Protestants, Rome would still be as responsible (perhaps primarily so) for identifying “separated brethren” as “heretics” and encouraging the state to carry out the full measure of capital punishment. If capital punishment meeted out for the crimes of heresy was at all sanctioned by Rome, then Rome would seem to be guilty, analogous to the sanction of the Jewish authorities that sought the death of Christ for the same offense (heresy and blasphemy).

I am not here identifying the two crimes as equal in their measure or gravity. The murder of Christ was the most heinous sin ever perpetuated by man. Nevertheless, the relationship church to state was the same as church condemned and state willingly carried out the punishment.

An important thing to consider is that, in so far as I have learned, we do not find the Roman church condemning this practice of burning Protestant “heretics” at the stake. In history, Rome advocated this use of capital punishment. If that is true, then she would seem to be clearly guilty of the evil of violence against the people of GOD.

It is important, of course, that Rome did not light the fires herself, but that is hardly the end of the matter any more than it was the end in the case of the culpability of the Jews in the death of our LORD. In seeking after the death of GOD’s people, separated or not, the state was not alone.

Is this false?

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

adnauseum, it may not be a good idea for you and I to speak much longer as you seem intent on accusing me of deception without cause (i.e., false accusation). I did not offer stadre a “transparently evasive” enswer. I was honest with him (or her). The only reason I can see that you might assume my answer was evasive is because you have already made up your mind about what I’m doing here and supposed that I have some “ulterior” motives.

If you bother to read the response Fr. Serpa offered, you would see for yourself (if you understand my question) that the answer was not much of one. I came to this forum seeking to hear from others (like Shiann) because I am not in the habit of dismissing the beliefs of others on the basis of a single poor response.

“A prince can win heaven more easily by bloodshed than by prayer.” – Martin Luther

“One cannot meet a rebel with reason: your best answer is to punch him in the face until he has a bloody nose.” – Martin Luther

“The peasants’ ears must be unbuttoned with bullets, till their heads jump off their shoulders…He who will not hear God’s Word when it is spoken with kindness must listen to the headsman when he comes with his axe.” – Martin Luther

Yes, Luther said those things and much more and he was wrong about every one of them. For some reason, I am not often receiving the same level of openness from others on this issue.

According to historian William Manchester, the number of German dead [due to Luther’s assault on the peasants] was more than a quarter million from the years 1523 - 1527.

I’m not making any conclusion. Just providing counterpoint to the claims of our separated brother.

This is a counterpoint to a different argument about the activity of individuals. I have not brought up individuals. I have brought up the sanctinos of a church.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

I just saw your response, Shiann. Thank you yet again for a clear and insightful reply. I shall read it at once.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

I just saw (and read in part) your response, Shiann. Thank you yet again for a clear and insightful reply. I shall read it over more carefully again.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Excellent. That was, in my humble opinion, the best post to date, Shiann. You have helped me quite a bit already. I think that perhaps the answer is very close now. Please, forgive my sluggish mind, today, but I have one or two more areas of confusion to deal with on this subject and I would really appreciate any help you could give me concerning them.

You’ve said that the Roman Catholic church rightly advocates capital punishment. I believe you meant this, in general. Now, again, I want to clarify that I don’t disagree with this at all. I, too, think capital punishment is granted to every government from above. However, there are certain uses of capital punishment that are not granted to government and one of those is death to the children of GOD for their religious beliefs.

Now, the Catholic Encyclopedia you quoted from mentioned that the Roman authorities exercised the obligation to identify heretics, which once so identiffied would be handed over to the state for sentencing and often execution. As execution was a common enough punishment, the Roman church must have clearly understood what they were doing when handing a Protestant heretic over for sentencing.

You also mentioned that this use of capital punishment, regarding Protestant heretics, was morally justified “at the time.” In other words, as I understand you, it was actually morally right (“at the time”) for the state to burn Protestants because of their beliefs? The church, as I understand it, sanctioned this procedure. Their only error, it seems you are saying, was the Church’s misunderstanding at the time of the proper heretics to burn.

Of course, if greater “discretion” was required at the time, then the punishments for the Protestants could not have been “just” because they would not have been deserved. If it were just, then there would be no greater need for discretion. The right heretic would have been given the proper sentence.

Today, as you say, the Roman Catholic church does not regard Protestants as proper fodder for the states fires. Now, they recognize the children of Christ with greater clarity. Rome had mistook some of her “separated” children for the neighbor’s, so to speak. Before, they were thought to be heretics deserving of the flames and, so, the Roman church did not speak against the burning of Protestants but, rather, supported and used it, as some said, for their “purification.” Now, the Roman church has more “discretion” and understanding. They realize that Protestants were always among the “brethren.”

Then Rome did, at one time, advocate the use of capital punishment against Protestants solely because of what they believed. I am glad to have that answered. Rome does not want Protestants to suffer capital punishment today because they realize that we are “separated brethren” and not, on the grounds of our beliefs, anyway, the proper victims of capital punishment.

Nevertheless, you seem to still say that the punishment of the Protestants “at the time” was just. Is that what you believe?

Thus, if I were alive at that time and were captured and tried and found to be a heretic for my beliefs (as I most assuredly would), then I would be morally and rightfully burned at the stake per the morally just sentencing of the state. However, today, through greater “discretion,” the Roman church would not advocate I be sentenced to death for the exact same crime, though I remain the same person?

Is this what you are saying?

 

[Shiann]

Shiann, there is only one matter that I am confused about that needs clarification. The Encyclopedia you cited stated the following:

Now, the article is very unclear at this point. “Capital punishment” is advocated by the Roman church. I see that this is Biblical. I even agree that this is a punishment which the LORD has stated is granted to the state (under certain circumstances that do not include killing His people for their beliefs or errors).

So we are clearly in agreement to this point.

Then I read something that is mostly ambiguous, even silent, on the subject of the crimes for which the Roman Catholic church thinks “capital punishment” may be advisable. The criteria for “advisability” is based upon “other and various circumstances.”

Which is exactly the case. “Other and various circumstances” is dynamic in nature- that is, it is wording that is able to encompass current (or historic) laws, culture, and societal/secular/governmental requirements while still remaining true to Scripture.

Now, this is the meat of the matter, the very heart of the thing. Yes, thank you again Shiann for bringing this to my attention.

It is precisely my thinking that the Roman Catholic church taught centuries ago that it was “advisable” for the State to enforce its laws against heresy and against “separated brethren” even to the maximum penalty of “capital punishment.”

Actually it was also the Church which supported the State decision in these matters. As I stated above- the State realized the value of the Church in maintaining “control” of the population, and combined with very strict interpretation of Scripture at that time, and cultural norms (including stoning for adultery, crucifiction, etc.), the Church agreed that more pious living was the goal.

Today we see all of these punishments as extraordinary. Today we empower people to take advantage of their freedom to deny the Lord- because you and I have the exact same freedom to accept Him. Back then if you rejected the Lord or spoke against His teaching you WERE considered a heathen, and many believed you were under the control of Satan. Better you were dead than alive to spread vicious lies and turn people away from God.

Obviously there was not an appreciation of freedom of religion as there exists today. I know my immortal soul is not in jeopardy if my neighbor chooses to reject Christ. But I will use the full extent of the law to defend my Faith. Ironicly, this is exactly what the Church was doing for itself in the Middle Ages- using the full extent of the law to defend the Faith.

Was it misguided? Yup.

Was it unfortunate? Yup.

Was it unjust in today’s standards? Yup.

Would I stand up against it if it were happening today? Yup.

In other words, that the church sanctioned the death of “separated brethren” by sanctioning this use of “capital punishment” upon them for their doctrinal teachings or errors.

The state sanctioned the punishment. The state and the Church took advantage of it. The state for control of the populace, and the Church for defense of the Faith against those who would speak against it.

 

[Shiann]

Now, is that true? Was St. Thomas More, for instance, acting with the sanction of the Roman Catholic church when he caught and strangled and burned William Tyndale for his English translation of the Scriptures?

No, he was acting with the sanction of the anti-heretic laws of England.

As chancellor it was his duty to enforce the laws against heretics and, by doing so, he provoked the attacks of Protestant writers both in his own time and since. The subject need not be discussed here, but More’s attitude is patent. He agreed with the principle of the anti-heresy laws and had no hesitation in enforcing them. As he himself wrote in his “Apologia” (cap. 49) it was the vices of heretics that he hated, not their persons; and he never proceeded to extremities until he had made every effort to get those brought before him to recant. How successful he was in this is clear from the fact that only four persons suffered the supreme penalty for heresy during his whole term of office. More’s first public appearance as chancellor was at the opening of the new Parliament in November, 1529. The accounts of his speech on this occasion vary considerably, but it is quite certain that he had no knowledge of the long series of encroachments on the Church which this very Parliament was to accomplish. A few months later came the royal proclamation ordering the clergy to acknowledge Henry as “Supreme Head” of the Church “as far as the law of God will permit”, and we have Chapuy’s testimony that More at once proferred his resignation of the chancellorship, which however was not accepted. His firm opposition to Henry’s designs in regard to the divorce, the papal supremacy, and the laws against heretics, speedily lost him the royal favour, and in May, 1532, he resigned his post of Lord Chancellor after holding it less than three years.

newadvent.org/cathen/14689c.htm

Did the church itself (and not a few men) teach and sanction the use of “capital punishment” on heretics such as those now known as “separated brethren”?

Again, it was the English parliament which was teaching and sanctioning.

Does the Roman Catholic church now teach that capital punishment of this kind should be exercised upon “separated brethren” for their beliefs or errors?

When was the last time you heard of a Church sanctioned capital punishment for heresy?
:tsktsk:

 

[ekim61]

Eden of Mind:

the point I’ve made does not require that there be a specific number of executions or live burnings which the Roman Catholic church sanctioned. The church did sanction them and often ordered them and this way of dealing with those now known as “separated brethren” was a widely known policy.

You seem to forget that for much of Christiondum the Church was the sole source of government. States today execute people for treason. Isn’t this the same thing? They weren’t just put to death because they disagreed with church teachings. They were traitors who represented a serious threat to a nation.

 

[Shiann]

I’m sorry we keep staggering our posts. Sometimes there can be a loss of communication when the posts come so close together, but I think we are still understanding one another pretty well.
Eden of Mind:

Excellent. That was, in my humble opinion, the best post to date, Shiann. You have helped me quite a bit already. I think that perhaps the answer is very close now. Please, forgive my sluggish mind, today, but I have one or two more areas of confusion to deal with on this subject and I would really appreciate any help you could give me concerning them.

You’ve said that the Roman Catholic church rightly advocates capital punishment. I believe you meant this, in general. Now, again, I want to clarify that I don’t disagree with this at all. I, too, think capital punishment is granted to every government from above. However, there are certain uses of capital punishment that are not granted to government and one of those is death to the children of GOD for their religious beliefs.

Yes.

Now, the Catholic Encyclopedia you quoted from mentioned that the Roman authorities exercised the obligation to identify heretics, which once so identiffied would be handed over to the state for sentencing and often execution. As execution was a common enough punishment, the Roman church must have clearly understood what they were doing when handing a Protestant heretic over for sentencing.

Yes I believe they did. But hopefully by now you will have read my above post, and seen that the Church was looking to defend herself from those who sought to deny Christ. That, to them (and still is) is a terrible, terrible crime- though now we realize that the proper punishment for that comes from God alone, and not dispensed by the Church.

You also mentioned that this use of capital punishment, regarding Protestant heretics, was morally justified “at the time.” In other words, as I understand you, it was actually morally right (“at the time”) for the state to burn Protestants because of their beliefs?

Yes, the Church believed heretics to be the worst type of criminal to openly reject Christ.

The church, as I understand it, sanctioned this procedure. Their only error, it seems you are saying, was the Church’s misunderstanding at the time of the proper heretics to burn.

The Church accepted the secular government’s sanction of capital punishment for heretics. Again, I believe that the Church truly believed heretics were as real a threat as those who would rape and pillage. Their error then would be that of ignorance.

There were doctors of the time who believed all sorts of common ailments to be terrible demonic posessions, or divine punishments. Because of this, many people were “tortured” (drilling holes in someones skull to relieve headaches), and even killed- but it wasn’t malicious intent on the part of the doctors- it was plain ole ignorance.

Of course, if greater “discretion” was required at the time, then the punishments for the Protestants could not have been “just” because they would not have been deserved. If it were just, then there would be no greater need for discretion. The right heretic would have been given the proper sentence.

Yes, which by today’s standards would not be capital.

Here again, there are a number of defendants who have gone through American courts and sentenced for crimes they did not commit. DNA and other new technologies are proving these individuals innocent. But should scrap the American judicial system, and claim it to be inept- because those involved with investigating and judging the case had imperfect information (were ignorant)? Of course not.