This may seem offensive, but I have a question. If men like Luther and Calvin were right, why were Arius and Pelagius wrong? All these men disturbed the peace of the Church and held to their own opinion against that of the Magisterium, but Luther and Calvin are often portrayed as heroes, while Arius and Pelagius are denounced as heretics. Why the double standard? Furthermore, if one holds that the Church can be divided by schism into denominations, why were heretics like Arius and Pelagius then outside the Church? Why under a mindset that believes in a church split among denominations would heresy still be considered a possible category of error, and how would it be determined?
I have to go do the lawn but will check back later.
The Catholic Church (not churchmen, but the Church itself) has long held that it is unlawful (spiritually speaking) to force someone to become a Christian, but for those who are baptized into the Catholic Church (most likely as infants) there is such a thing as lawful persecution and permissible coercion of a religious nature, but only if this baptized Catholic is a formal heretic who persists in teaching and believing things that are contrary to the Catholic Church and if he refuses to stop and recant when told to stop and recant.
The Catholic Church has given itself permission to use coercion in certain situations and to persecute in certain situations, and this permission covers the Church in all situations where teaching and belief is staunchly opposed to it. It doesn’t really matter if the heretic is a pacifist, or if there is no legitimate complaint pertaining to the misuse of Church property. The Church has given itself permission to do whatever it has to- coercion, persecution, exile, give them up to civil authorities for death- on the basis of wrong teaching and wrong belief, it the person in question was baptized Catholic and is in clear defiance of Church authority. The right to do all these things to heretics is considered a part of Catholic authority, as symbolized by the keys to the kingdom.
Catholics regularly pat themselves on the back for wiping out heresy, but are reluctant to talk about exactly how they got that done. The conversation changes just a bit when speaking of Calvinists and Lutherans, though, because those were not successfully wiped out. They were considered heretics by the Church in the same way that all other heretics were, and the Church did not just let them do what they wanted. The Church tried its best to wipe them out and, short of finding a way to force them to fall into line, just make their beliefs disappear and their adherents with it, if necessary.
I’m sure that Arians and Pelagians would have felt exactly the same way if their belief systems had survived. Let me finish that thought- if their systems had survived the persecution and coercion of the Catholic Church, which it gave itself full permission to do.
Come on people, how did you think Arianism and Pelagianism disappeared? Magic? Now they’re here for a couple of centuries, all of a sudden they aren’t. What’s your explanation? Did Catholic msisionaries use sound reasoning and persuasion? Did these things die out of natural causes? No, it wasn’t natural causes, and peaceful methods did not work so well. They went away because the persecution and coercion was very effective. With Calvin and Luther, it was not so effective in the short or long term.
Personally, I feel like Protestants typically don’t know very much about Church history prior to the Reformation, otherwise we wouldn’t be as inclined to give the Catholic Church a pass for its bad (albeit self-justified and self-excused) behavior for so much of its history pre-Reformation. Even if the Church was 100% on the side of truth and justice, you can’t use “defense of unity” as a pretext for religious coercion and religious persecution. It’s just wrong. You can’t do that. It was wrong in the 5th century (Donatism), it was wrong in the 12th and 13th centuries (Catharism), and it was wrong in the 16th and 17th centuries (Protestantism)- but it wasn’t until that last example that persecuted ex-Catholics lived to tell you that they have rights, which the Catholic Church has given itself license to violate. Wrongly, I might add.
You don’t get to force people to believe and teach a certain way. You shouldn’t be proud of yourself for the success your church has had in doing so. The way the Catholic Church has excused itself for crimes against heretics is basically indefensible, and if Protestants knew more about history Catholics would be embarrassed for their church affiliation far more often than they are proud of it.
To your question, though. Why are some heroes and the others heretics? The beliefs of the heretics did not survive, nice try but you were wiped off the map. The heroes have their names on churches that you can drive around and see today, quite easily. And how is the peace of the Church? Has this rupture plunged the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ into violent unrest? Actually no, it would seem that all the violence abated once the Catholic Church stopped with the persecution and coercion of people who believed the “wrong” thing.
Kind of makes it seem like the Catholic Church was a giant part of that whole violence problem all along, doesn’t it?
Dominicans eliminating Albigensians, that is.