Who is My Brother?

[Shiann]

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.”

Exactly.

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.

Exactly.

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

Well certainly not just when compared to the modern definition of just, but I would say that they did the best they could with the information they had.

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.

Unles you renounced it of course.

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?

Yup. We have a better understanding of human rights, and the dynamics of inspiring true Faith. We seek now to embrace them into the fold with True understanding.

 

[StCsDavid]

Eden of Mind:

I said that Rome has spoken before, even here in the mouths of others, with the voice of Cain. StDavid, if only Rome had consistently spoken instead as you have spoken to me, calling so many “separated brethren” home instead of burning them alive with their children, what a different reflection that would have cast on the waters of history

My brother I speak to you as a member of this mystical body of Christ. I do not speak for Rome. I do not speak for the Archdiocese of Portland where I reside. Respectfully, you place too high of an emphasis on the higherarchy of the church as being the focal point of its representation. No, my brother, this mystical body of Christ is in how you and I bring Christ to one another. Yes Benedict XVI is our Pope, and I love him and pray he is a good shepherd; but when I think of my Catholic faith, I think of my friends who live my faith with me in my parish in Beaverton, Oregon. My Catholic faith is how our RCIA class goes to a local migrant camp to give a some desperately poor Hispanic kids a birthday party and bring a little more joy to their hearts. My Catholic faith is how one of my fellow team members spontaneously brought a homeless man to our RCIA class one particular night because he was hungry and we happened to be serving hamburgers that night …and my Catholic faith is how not one person in our class made that man who had been beat up by life feel anything but welcomed and loved…and how he wept before he left saying that no one had ever been so kind to him.

My Catholic faith is Eucharist. Christ made present, really present before my eyes at the mass, even though I am in no stretch of the imagination worthy of receiving such a gift. And yet he wants to give himself to me anyway.

I speak to you as someone who has had the grace of the truth about the Church Christ gave to humanity revealed to him. I speak as one who for many years rejected that truth in favor of my own personal bias. I used the Church was hypocritical excuse for nearly 16 years…and all it got me was 16 years being seperated from my Lord. You are not “seperated” from me, my brother, you are only reluctant to come home. I’ve been at the Easter Vigil and felt the saints and angels rejoice when Christ’s childen come into the faith. When you are ready…come home and we will rejoice together

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

I’m going to offer the following quote solely to establish a point in my next entry. This was taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

As the Divinely appointed teacher of revealed truth, the Church is infallible. This gift of inerrancy is guaranteed to it by the words of Christ, in which He promised that His Spirit would abide with it forever to guide it unto all truth (John, xiv, 16; xvi, 13). It is implied also in other passages of Scripture, and asserted by the unanimous testimony of the Fathers. The scope of this infallibility is to preserve the deposit of faith revealed to man by Christ and His Apostles (see INFALLIBILITY.) The Church teaches expressly that it is the guardian only of the revelation, that it can teach nothing which it has not received]/I]. The Vatican Council declares: "The Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter, in order that through His revelation they might manifest new doctrine: but that through His assistance they might religiously guard, and faithfully expound the revelation handed down by the Apostles, or the deposit of the faith" (Conc. Vat., Sess. IV, cap. liv). The obligation of the natural moral law constitutes part of this revelation. The authority of that law is again and again insisted on by Christ and His Apostles. The Church therefore is infallible in matters both of faith and morals. Moreover, theologians are agreed that the gift of infallibility in regard to the deposit must, by necessary consequence, carry with it infallibility as to certain matters intimately related to the Faith. There are questions bearing so nearly on the preservation of the Faith that, could the Church err in these, her infallibility would not suffice to guard the flock from false doctrine. Such, for instance, is the decision whether a given book does or does not contain teaching condemned as heretical. (See DOGMATIC FACTS.)

It is needless to point out that if the Christian Faith is indeed a revealed doctrine, which men must believe under pain of eternal loss, the gift of infallibility was necessary to the Church. Could she err at all, she might err in any point. The flock would have no guarantee of the truth of any doctrine. The condition of those bodies which at the time of the Reformation forsook the Church affords us an object-lesson in point. Divided into various sections and parties, they are the scene of never-ending disputes; and by the nature of the case they are cut off from all hope of attaining to certainty. In regard also to the moral law, the need of an infallible guide is hardly less imperative. Though on a few broad principles there may be some consensus of opinion as to what is right and what is wrong, yet, in the application of these principles to concrete facts, it is impossible to obtain agreement. On matters of such practical moment as are, for instance, the questions of private property, marriage, and liberty, the most divergent views are defended by thinkers of great ability. Amid all this questioning the unerring voice of the Church gives confidence to her children that they are following the right course, and have not been led astray by some specious fallacy.

(newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm))

(emphasis added)

 

[Eden]

Eden of Mind:

I think it is also clear that many of these “separated brethren” were tortured and/or, finally, murdered by Roman Catholic authorities (Wycliffe, Hus, Tyndale and Cranmer come to mind).

If these men acted with the utter sanction and backing of the Roman Catholic church or its doctrines concerning the proper treatment of heretics–in other words, they were not acting purely on their own–then the Roman Catholic church itself murdered or at least sanctioned the murder of “the brothers” as part of her teaching. Is it not, then, fair to judge that the Roman Catholic church itself, at that time in its history, was not of GOD but of “the world” which hates “the brothers,” according to the Apostle John?
.

I’ll condense your original post into one question “Can the Catholic Church be the True Church of Christ given its participation in the Inquisition?”

Answer: yes

I’ll give a longer, though not long-winded answer, as well. The image of the Inquisition that we have today is inaccurate. Not only was the Inquisition begun by the Church to save lives, on the rare occasion that a person accused of heresy by the Church was deemed to be a true heretic (which was a crime against the state), the person was handed over to secular authorities. The accusation that the *Church *burned heretics is a myth:

nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

StCsDavid:

My brother I speak to you as a member of this mystical body of Christ. I do not speak for Rome.

And you and others here, like Shiann (but also others), are why I, too, hope for Roman Catholics and care deeply about them and so much less about their church. I pray that we may eat together as brothers and sisters at the table of the precious LORD and the Father in the sweetest knowledge of each other and fellowship… as I know you pray of me.

Shiann has helped me greatly to understand her church… so much so that I have to keep reminding myself to offer others the fair opportunity to give their own answers to my question and receive fresh and strong impressions of the Roman Catholic faith in all its facets. Thank you, Shiann, for helping me. I will let this issue go, for now, and I have enough now to know which direction to explore further on my own. To be fair to those of you who helped me so much, I will tell you what conclusions I have carefully and personally reached, thus far, which will direct my future study (I am not finished, I know).

1. I know that the Roman Catholic church teaches that the church is itself infallible on matters of faith and morals and that, if the true Church could err “in any point” (see the quote on the infallibility of the Church below), then we would all be doomed to ignorance and a lack of guidance in the world on such essential matters.
2. I know that, at least according to some, the Roman Catholic church erred on a matter of grave significance whcih would be categorized as a moral issue (the improper killing of the brethren on, ultimately, false grounds) concerning which the true Church ought to be incapable of erring in any point.
3. I know that the Roman Catholic church was, in part, moved to the former error because it also erred on a matter of faith, regarding the nature and extent of the Body of Christ, His Church, which in part are those who make up the Church at large, including I assume the separated brethren (see the quote at the bottom of this post).

The answer to my initial question, “Who is my brother?” is a crucial and fundamental doctrine and matter of faith. Here the Roman church failed and for that many good people whom Christ purchased with His blood and were His perished. Also, because of this, the Name of Christ before the world was slandered (and still is today) and the cause of Christ was hindered.

1. I know that, if the true Church of Christ cannot err “in any point” on matters of faith and morals and, if the Roman Catholic church has grievously erred in both, then the Roman Catholic church cannot be the true Church.
2. I cannot, therefore, accept the Roman Catholic church as the true Church. Thus far, it has been shown to me that the true Church must be found elsewhere.

I do not see, thus far, what other conclusion to draw from what I’ve been given. If anyone wishes to address what I’ve written here, I assure you that I will return and read carefully and thoughtfully whatever you have to say in defense of a different conclusion.

The Church is the society of those who accept redemption, of those whom Christ “has chosen out of the world” (John, xv, 19). Thus it is the Church alone which He “hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts, xx, 28). . . . [The Apostles’] expressions leave no doubt that in them they always refer to the actually existing Church founded by Christ on earth – the society of Christ’s disciples.

(newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm))

The ecumenical spirit should be nurtured in the neophytes, who should take into account that the brethren who believe in Christ are Christ’s disciples, reborn in baptism, sharers with the People of God in very many good things. Insofar as religious conditions allow, ecumenical activity - should be furthered in such a way that, excluding any appearance of indifference or confusion on the one hand, or of unhealthy rivalry on the other, Catholics should cooperate in a brotherly spirit with their separated brethren, among to the norms of the Decree on Ecumenism, making before the nations a common profession of faith, insofar as their beliefs are common, in God and in Jesus Christ, and cooperating in social and in technical projects as well as in cultural and religious ones. Let them cooperate especially for the sake of Christ, their common Lord: let His Name be the bond that unites them!

(Documents of the II Vatican Council, *Ad Gentes//I], art. III, s. 15

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651207_ad-gentes_en.html))))*

(emphasis added)

 

[Eden]

Eden of Mind:

I admit that, having some familiarity with the history of Christendom, I have been confused in the treatment I have received by Roman Catholics and in the words I have read penned by Roman Catholic authorities. Protestants, are now deemed “separated brethren” and, at the same time, known as “heretics.” I don’t know precisely how this works itself out, though I’m sure someone here could tell me. In either case, this is not the root of the problem I seek to resolve.

Heresy is spiritual poison.

Just as poison kills the body, heresy kills the soul. Declaring someone “anathema” is not uncharitable or “hate”:

"The anathema excludes the one who professes heresies from the communion of the Church, if he does not retract his errors. But for precisely this reason it is an act of the greatest charity toward all the faithful, comparable to preventing a dangerous disease from infecting innumerable people. By isolating the bearer of infection, we protect the bodily health of others; by the anathema, we protect their spiritual health (The Charitable Anathema, p. 5).

To admonish the sinner is a spiritual work of mercy, so it cannot be said that to correct our brothers and sisters in the Faith is uncharitable. In the words of Cardinal Newman, “the fear of error is simply necessary to the genuine love of truth.”

Von Hildebrand also writes, “One cannot make a peace at the cost of truth, and especially not at the cost of divine truth. This would imply an offense of God.” And the great theologian and Doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas writes, “The greatest kindness one can render to any man consists in leading him from error to truth.” The identification of error is for the common good, as well as the good of the one who has fallen into error.

I think it is also clear that many of these “separated brethren” were tortured and/or, finally, murdered by Roman Catholic authorities (Wycliffe, Hus, Tyndale and Cranmer come to mind).

Again, heresy was a crime against the state. The Church did not murder these men. Let’s be clear here. The Church did not burn heretics, the state did. It is true that the Church turned those whom they deemed to be heretics over to the state but the Church did not do the burnings. If you want to discuss the culpability of the Church for participating by handing over heretics to the state, that would be an historically accurate concern.

catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/1112-96/column1.html

 

[Eden]

Eden of Mind:

No, I understand. I think that discipline in the Church is extremely important. The question is simply whether murder is part of the discipline ascribed by our LORD or whether such is inconsistent with the teachings we have been given.

"The rigors of the Inquisition violated the feelings of later ages in which there is less regard for the purity of faith; but they did not antagonize the feelings of their own time, when heresy was looked on as more malignant than treason.

In proof of which it suffices to remark that the inquisitors only renounced on the guilt of the accused and then handed him over to the secular power to be dealt with according to the laws framed by emperors and kings. Medieval people found no fault with the system, in fact heretics had been burned by the populace centuries before the Inquisition became a regular institution. And whenever heretics gained the upper hand, they were never slow in applying the same laws: so the Huguenots in France, the Hussites in Bohemia, the Calvinists in Geneva, the Elizabethan statesmen and the Puritans in England.

Toleration came in only when faith went out; lenient measures were resorted to only where the power to apply more severe measures was wanting.

Christ said: “Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matt., x, 34). The history of heresy verifies this prediction and shows, moreover, that the greater number of the victims of the sword is on the side of the faithful adherents of the one Church founded by Christ."

newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm#REF_VI

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Eden:

I’ll condense your original post into one question “Can the Catholic Church be the True Church of Christ given its participation in the Inquisition?”

Thank you for the contribution, Eden. I encourage you to read through the rest of the exchange that has already taken place. I do know of those things which you pointed me to. I know that the Inquisition was first installed to keep the mob from tearing people apart on the flimsiest of accusations and evidence. I also know that the Roman Catholic church never quite itself, not directly at any rate, tortured and killed anyone.

Nevertheless, if you will take a look at my analogy between this defense and that which argues that the Jews did not, in fact, kill Christ, you will perhaps see where I think it utterly fails. The Jews believed Christ to be a blasphemer and a heretic. They did not actually drive the nails into Him. They did not torture Him. Nevertheless, the Scriptures condemn them. It is rather clear, in history that the Roman Catholic church, whatever its initial motives, did sanction the torture and murder of those now recognized as Christians, as “separated brethren.”

Whether this moral atrocity was done through ignorance and moral error or by outright wickedness, the Roman Catholic church’s own doctrines about the infallible nature of the church seem to be self-refuting, given its past. It cannot err on mattes of faith and morals and this was a rather blatant error, given the Roman Catholic church’s current position on Protestants.

There is an important thing to take note of. I know that Shiann believes that the error of the Roman church and its teaching of that time represents a sort of innocent error of ignorance, even on so fundamental an issue as the question, “Who is my brother?”

Nevertheless, we are taught by Christ Himself that “If anyone’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory. . .” (John 7:17-18). Seeking one’s own glory is the motive of all public error and self-glorication is a wicked motive. Thus, public errors are never innocent. The Roman Catholic church’s error was continually public and was not, thus, innocent.

If the true Church is infallible in faith and morals, then it seems, in so far as I can see, that Rome is not the true Church.

 

[Eden]

Eden of Mind:

It is rather clear, in history that the Roman Catholic church, whatever its initial motives, did sanction the torture and murder of those now recognized as Christians, as “separated brethren.”

.

I’ll restate that a “heretic” is not a brother. They are spiritual poison. The members of the churches that once formed from heresy are now “separated brethren” not “heretics”. The actions and definition of what a distinguishes a heretic from a “separated brethren” should be clear from the terms.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Eden:

If you want to discuss the culpability of the Church for participating by handing over heretics to the state, that would be an historically accurate concern.

Again, Eden, thank you for taking all this time and trouble, but that has been exactly my issue the whole time. It is not merely that the Roman church handed over heretics to be burned but that they taught and sanctioned this use of capital punishment against people “purchased by the blood of Christ”, (according to present dogma defined in the II Vatican Council). I encourage you again to read the rest of the dialogue I’ve had for much of this day with other Roman Catholics. It will help to clear up the issues and then I would be very glad to hear anything you have to contribute to all of this.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Eden:

I’ll restate that a “heretic” is not a brother. They are spiritual poison. The members of the churches that once formed from heresy are now “separated bretheran” not “heretics”. The actions and definition of what a distinguishes a heretic from a “separated bretheran” should be clear from the terms.

I don’t mean to confuse the terms but Roman Catholics have been using both terms in the same sentence to describe Protestants. I am called a member of the “separated brethren” and a “heretic” in the same breath. If you would prefer to separate the terms, that is fine.

The point that I think is being missed is that those “heretics” that were burned and the modern “separated brethren” are one and the same. Nothing has changed. If I lived back in that time period, then I would be counted a heretic, though I am a mainstream Protestant. Many of those Protestants labelled “heretics” in the past would be called “separated brethren,” today. The only difference is the time in which I live. There is nothing different intrinsic to the people being labelled themselves.

 

[Eden]

Eden of Mind:

If the true Church is infallible in faith and morals, then it seems, in so far as I can see, that Rome is not the true Church.

This is a question of infallibility then?

“As to moral precepts or laws, as distinct from moral doctrine, infallibility goes no farther than to protect the Church against passing universal laws which in principle would be immoral. It would be out of place to speak of infallibility in connection the opportuneness or the administration of necessarily changing disciplinary laws, although, of course, Catholics believe that the Church receives appropriate Divine guidance in this and in similar matters where practical spiritual wisdom is required.”

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IV

 

[Eden]

Eden of Mind:

The point that I think is being missed is that those “heretics” that were burned and the modern “separated brethren” are one and the same. Nothing has changed. If I lived back in that time period, then I would be counted a heretic, though I am a mainstream Protestant. Many of those Protestants labelled “heretics” in the past would be called “separated brethren,” today. The only difference is the time in which I live. There is nothing different intrinsic to the people being labelled themselves.

Not exactly. To reject the Church when one has full knowledge of the teachings is heresy. To be Protestant in our time is not in and of itself “heresy”. This is where the term “separated brethren” comes in.

“Because the sins of ‘schism’ and ‘heresy’ are both willful acts, it is not really appropriate to use the words ‘schismatic’ and ‘heretic’ in reference to the Christians who through no fault of their own do not have the fullness of Catholic faith. Although the words ‘schism’ and ‘heresy’ are sometimes used in another sense, simply to describe the fact of separation, it is abundantly clear that those born into communities long since separated from the Church are not themselves guilty of that separation. They may, in a sense, be said to be ‘in schism’ or ‘in heresy’, but the sin of willful separation is not theirs. This point as well was noted by St. Augustine, who wrote that those whose false opinion was received from parents, led astray and fallen into error, and who themselves seek the truth, ready to be corrected when they find it, ‘are by no means to be counted among the heretics’” (CCC p214)

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

That definition of “heresy” and “heretic” is extremely helpful, Eden. Thank you very much. It requires certain qualifications that I shall have to ponder carefully and diligently. At the moment, where I live it is very late (2:14am) and I must get to bed.

Goodnight.

 

[Eden]

O.K. Goodnight.

I have another question for you to answer tomorrow:

We are dealing with two distinct issues here. One is heresy and the declaration of someone as “heretic” and the second is what the Church should do with a heretic.

Do you object to the existence of the judgment on someone as “heretic” or is your objection not the idea of heresy but only the way in which the Church dealt with heretics in the Middle Ages?

 

[mercygate]

Are we really convinced that heresy is not a capital crime? We live in a world today where individual autonomy is valued above Truth. And we have the hindsight of the hard lessons learned by generations of unsuccessful bloodshed over matters of faith. But this laissez faire attitude about personal choice may not be an improvement in our status – as the testimony of 45 million babies dead by “choice” since Row v. Wade testifies. Death of the soul, which is the fruit of heresy, is something against which we should throw the full weight of our resources.

When does a “heretic” become a “separated brother?” The heretic willfully and responsibly violates the faith, speaks out against it and against the Church, and attempts to draw others out of the fold. The “separated brother” is one who is born into his heresy and is therefore less culpable for his dissent. His error is no less pernicious to the human soul but he is not as culpable.

 

[Magicsilence]

The very fact that those who were against the Church were killed is nothing new, when they allow satan to enter their hearts the Lord can and will strike them down:

Acts 5
Ananias and Sapphira
1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

3Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."

5When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

7About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8Peter asked her, "Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?"
  "Yes," she said, "that is the price."

9Peter said to her, "How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also."

10At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

When one deliberately goes against the Church in order to spread lies and falsehoods i think it is well within the rights of the church through God to remove them.

 

[Mickey]

mercygate:

When does a “heretic” become a “separated brother?” The heretic willfully and responsibly violates the faith, speaks out against it and against the Church, and attempts to draw others out of the fold. The “separated brother” is one who is born into his heresy and is therefore less culpable for his dissent. His error is no less pernicious to the human soul but he is not as culpable.

This is right on point mercygate–thank you.

 

[Mickey]

Eden of Mind:

I cannot, therefore, accept the Roman Catholic church as the true Church. Thus far, it has been shown to me that the true Church must be found elsewhere.

You have been mostly polite and respectful as a non-Catholic on this Catholic forum. That is greatly appreciated. I personally believe that you have posed this question with your mind already made up. There are subtle overtones throughout your posts that point to your disdain for the Catholic Church. Please forgive me ahead of time if I have completey misinterpreted your motives, but I am ususally quite astute at reading between the lines. (I am aware that a forum of this type is impersonal, and words can be easily misconstrued).

Catholics believe that Christ instituted the Catholic Church 2000 years ago and He said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. If as you say, the Catholic Church fell into error at any point in time on matters of faith and morals, then you have accused Jesus of being a liar. And as you and I both know–Jesus cannot lie. This is one of many reasons that I am steadfast and confident in the validity of the One True Church–The Catholic Church. I do not expect you to convert according to what we say here. A lifetime of misinformation is difficult to overcome. My best friend is in the process of converting to Catholicism from the baptist church, and it has been trying at times for him.

Ignatius of Antioch

Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 A.D. 110]).

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Greetings to all…

Eden:

Do you object to the existence of the judgment on someone as “heretic” or is your objection not the idea of heresy but only the way in which the Church dealt with heretics in the Middle Ages?

Oh, I don’t object at all to the idea of judging someone a heretic. I think that’s straightforwardly Biblical and sensible. As it is, however, given the precise accusations levelled at certain victims of the stake, there were those who would merely be known today as “separated brethren” but who were labelled heretics back then and who were not consciously resistant enemies of Rome at all. Nevertheless, they were burned. For instance, the children of certain fathers labelled “heretics” that were burned with them as an example to others and also those who were burned (some with their families) for having been found in the possession of a Bible translated in a tongue which is accepted today by Rome. The historical account of those times and the deaths of certain Protestant martyrs gives testimony to this.

mercygate:

Are we really convinced that heresy is not a capital crime? We live in a world today where individual autonomy is valued above Truth. And we have the hindsight of the hard lessons learned by generations of unsuccessful bloodshed over matters of faith. But this laissez faire attitude about personal choice may not be an improvement in our status – as the testimony of 45 million babies dead by “choice” since Row v. Wade testifies. Death of the soul, which is the fruit of heresy, is something against which we should throw the full weight of our resources.

Mercygate, yours is precisely the voice I suspect will one day return to haunt Christians like myself. It has happened once and there’s no good reason to suppose that history cannot repeat itself. Nevertheless, in regards to abortion, I don’t think you are really talking about “heresy” as much as simply those who are lost. Even I, as a Protestant, do not accept as Christians those who advocate abortion.

Nevertheless, I refuse to burn them for this and I do not believe that Scripture teaches us to do so. Your “solution” for heresy sounds awfully hollow in the face of Christ’s injunctions regarding our enemies.

As for your definition of “separated brethren,” the children who perished in a number of ways for the faith of their family would easily fit this category. They were burned and the records of this are available for all to read.

Magicsilence:

The very fact that those who were against the Church were killed is nothing new, when they allow satan to enter their hearts the Lord can and will strike them down. . . When one deliberately goes against the Church in order to spread lies and falsehoods i think it is well within the rights of the church through God to remove them.

“Remove them” and their children to? That’s a nice, neutral term. You mean execute them all, do you not? I have to wonder why you would balk at Germany’s “solution” to the “Jewish problem” since he was seemingly “removing” those who speak against your church, your God, and advance lies for the sake of the enemies of Christ. Perhaps you do not disagree with it. I do not know.

Is that how the enemies of the Church are dealt with? Magicsilence, thank you for your candor. It teaches me much. If the teachings of the Roman church reflect your own beliefs, then I think the answer to the question of whether Rome is the true Church of Christ is clear. At the very least, I think you have probably given the most accurate exposition of the attitude the Roman Catholic church once, long ago, stated so confidently.