Why shouldn't heretics be burned?

[divinefaith]

It wouldn’t matter to him, because if a Pope has said it, it must be so!

The Pope would not be teaching an infallible matter if he did.

 

[divinefaith]

My sister is a heretic should I start the fire?

 

[Gregarious]

The Pope would not be teaching an infallible matter if he did.

I know that, you know that, but not everyone seems to do. Even as a non-Catholic I can make the distinction between what is clearly a subject and discussion relevant to the time and and place it took in, and an issue that supposedly holds for the continuum of time on Earth.

The nonsense being soap-boxed here is contrary to Church teaching and seems more like informed trolling to me.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

As relevant as Pius XI was in the 20th century, it remains just that. His condemnation of it is no longer valid today, you think just because Pius XI said something that it is still valid? Do you even know how to interpret church documents? So sadly you are incorrect, and what’s more, you probably shouldn’t be reading documents you have no idea how to contextualize.

I am talking about Pius IX. As I said before, there is not a deadline to when a certain Church teaching becomes invalid. Atleast, I don’t think there is. If there is one, I really do want you to post a link to it. Help me understand as you do.

I humbly leave interpretation up to the Magisterium. But that is no reason not to be able to read them. If that was the case, they wouldn’t be public. What is more, is that you claim that I am incorrect, though, you don’t bring forth any reason that I am incorrect. I’m just reading about it to better understand it.

Using this line of reasoning the railway system was evil (according to Gregory XVI) and therefore we should still take him seriously? We are living in 2011, not 1865)

Though this may or may not be true, Pope Pius IX actually allowed for a railway to be built through the Vatican in 1851.

So you’ve gone and read some document by a Pope, and now you consider yourself an authority on matters related to something he said? Well done, we’ll be back to the Inquisition in no time. Leave church matters to the authorities, and get yourself out of the 1930’s, we are no longer there. Your meanderings in age-old agenda is directly contradicts the outcomes of Vatican II, and unless you’re some kind of sedevacantist, you’re in a precarious position. Your argument holds no water; just because it was stated by Pius XI it has no bearing on its relevancy or authority today, there are lots of things popes have promulgated over the years, and not all of it holds today, or have they always been correct.

There is a strong difference between invalid and irrelevant. The condemning of the Separation of Church and State is neither. It is not invalid because I don’t see how it could be. And it certainly isn’t irrelevant because the separation is thoroughly embedded in many societies around the world. I was not really doing anything that surpassed my “authority”. Nor was I claiming someone elses authority as my own. I don’t know when I mentioned the 1930’s, but this may be because you think I’m talking about Pius XI while I am talking about Pius IX.

Your reason for claiming that my argument holds no water is because it was in the past? I’m not sure if that is your meaning, but I certainly hope it isn’t. Though it is true, the Syllabus was not pronounced infallibly, a condemned error is a condemned error.

As for something being a heresy or not, I don’t subscribe to such issues because I don’t believe in the authority of the Church, so that’s subject to whether someone believes in or not, but I do know that just because a Pope has said something it doesn’t mean it’s still in effect today, and I believe that’s exactly what we’re looking at here.

You have admitted you don’t believe in the authority of the Church. However, the authority remains authority regardless of your belief in it. In the First Vatican Council, Papal Infallibility was defined. And the Holy Pontiff was infallible when he speaks Ex Cathedra.
As I have said before, what constitutes making a teaching invalid?

Does it involve something prior to Vatican II?

The Papal Encyclical ‘Quanta Cura’.

You’re missing the bigger picture, I’m not concerned with the details of it, what is of relevance is that he did not allow any more priests to be involved in politics, if that doesn’t spell separation of Church and state more blatantly to you, I don’t know what else will.

It doesn’t. He did allow Priests to be involved with politics, just not to run for election. There is a large difference, I think. I’m not actually sure where Blessed John Paul II did disallow it, it may have been unofficial, I’m not entirely sure.

Furthermore you can no longer enforce Church and state together because that would result in a civil war with the multiculturalism present in today’s society, and there are enough of wars hanging around without the need to further exacerbate things just because Pius XI said so.

I don’t really think it would cause a civil war.

You probably going to ruin the Church’s reputation by blindly quoting Pius XI based on contextualizing his statements incorrectly (that means to say they were probably relevant and more in-force for the time and place he reigned in). Stop living in the 1930’s and probably show more support for your current Pope, you can’t have been anymore irrelevant if you had been a Clement VI fanboy trying to convince people of some obscure statement made by him. Your leader at the moment is Pope Benedict XVI is he not? In fact I believe in Deus Caritas Est he recommends a separation, but wishes cooperation, no where has he asked for a merging between the two entities.

I’m not sure how I can “ruin” the Church’s reputation by stressing that an error is an error. Nor am I “blindly” quoting Pius XI. And again, I’m not sure how I incorrectly contextualized it. At the time that Pius IX had declared this, he had just been virtually overthrown as the monarch of the Papal States and had no temporal power, and excommunicated the King of Italy. But I’m not sure who he addressed the Syllabus to.

I’m not sure how Clement VI is relevant. The Syllabus was a big deal, and it was followed in 1907 by Pius X’s syllabus of errors, as well. My Holy Father is Benedict XVI. And Deus Caritatis Est does not reccomend a separation. It calls for its interrelation and says that the State may not impose upon religion.

Cheers, as well.

 

[Alexander_VI]

It may seem harsh, but it’s true anyways! Heresy should be punished, whether by fire or some other means. Burning heretics now obviously would be counter-productive, but it is not wrong, the Church uses excommunication to deal with them now, but that’s not very practical here on Earth as most heretics already know it and don’t care, but if that’s what the Holy Father suggests then I shall stand by it, whatever he says is what we must stand by because it is bound, reason no longer suffices when clearly God wants us to follow what the Holy Father says, why else would he institute him!

 

[CompSciGuy]

I suppose after the Protestant Reformation they kind of got the idea that “we can’t burn 'em all.” I’m actually glad; I have no desire to burn my family. Not to mention, I might well have been burned too, before I had the chance to convert.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

It may seem harsh, but it’s true anyways! Heresy should be punished, whether by fire or some other means. Burning heretics now obviously would be counter-productive, but it is not wrong, the Church uses excommunication to deal with them now, but that’s not very practical here on Earth as most heretics already know it and don’t care, but if that’s what the Holy Father suggests then I shall stand by it, whatever he says is what we must stand by because it is bound, reason no longer suffices when clearly God wants us to follow what the Holy Father says, why else would he institute him!

I agree, heresy should be punished. But not by earthly fire, certainly not. A more humane disciplinary action should be taken.

I suppose after the Protestant Reformation they kind of got the idea that “we can’t burn 'em all.” I’m actually glad; I have no desire to burn my family. Not to mention, I might well have been burned too, before I had the chance to convert.

That is very true, my dear mother is a Protestant We’d probably lose her if they were burning heretics nowadays. Though since we’re in America, we’d probably be all set.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[Debora123]

I’ve never read a more disgusting thread. How can anyone condone burning someone alive. Please stop this, its sick.

Ditto. I am at a loss of words here.

Really people? Killing someone in the most painful way possible for having different religious beliefs?? This is pure evil masked behind “Christianity,” and this whole thread needs to be deleted.

 

[Gregarious]

I am talking about Pius IX. As I said before, there is not a deadline to when a certain Church teaching becomes invalid. Atleast, I don’t think there is. If there is one, I really do want you to post a link to it. Help me understand as you do.

Pardon me for misreading them and mixing them up, but as you can imagine it makes no difference whether it was Pius XI or Pius IX, in fact Pius IX was some few decades before him and therefore his teachings for that time is even more irrelevant, in fact now that you bring my error there to light. Wasn’t he the Pope at the time when there was major uprising and there was a threat of Church and State being separated? Ah ha, I now see why this is even more irrelevant to today, not that I know much about Pius IX, but I do know that what you’re alluding to definitely does not apply to today, those encyclicals were aimed to rally against his dissidents, this was purely political agenda, luckily he did not win.

I humbly leave interpretation up to the Magisterium. But that is no reason not to be able to read them. If that was the case, they wouldn’t be public. What is more, is that you claim that I am incorrect, though, you don’t bring forth any reason that I am incorrect. I’m just reading about it to better understand it.

If you humbly leave interpretation up to the Magisterium, then please do just that - because currently you aren’t humbly doing that.

Though this may or may not be true, Pope Pius IX actually allowed for a railway to be built through the Vatican in 1851.

I said Gregory XVI not Pius IX, it was Gregory XVI who has issues with railways and considered it evil.

There is a strong difference between invalid and irrelevant. The condemning of the Separation of Church and State is neither. It is not invalid because I don’t see how it could be. And it certainly isn’t irrelevant because the separation is thoroughly embedded in many societies around the world. I was not really doing anything that surpassed my “authority”. Nor was I claiming someone elses authority as my own. I don’t know when I mentioned the 1930’s, but this may be because you think I’m talking about Pius XI while I am talking about Pius IX.

Yes, that error was mine I should have said 1860’s maybe? But this is considerably beyond the point, it was a passing reference to demonstrate the ridiculousness of your claims in relation to the teaching of the Church today. Whether it was 1870 or 1930, 2011 is a long time since, and we’ve had Vatican II/

Your reason for claiming that my argument holds no water is because it was in the past? I’m not sure if that is your meaning, but I certainly hope it isn’t. Though it is true, the Syllabus was not pronounced infallibly, a condemned error is a condemned error.

That is not what I said, I’m not saying that “just because” it’s in the past it holds no water, I’m saying it was so long ago in the past and now current Church teaching contradicts some of what was in the past, my references to the past is more a cementing procedure to validate my arguments, it is not my actual argument.

You have admitted you don’t believe in the authority of the Church. However, the authority remains authority regardless of your belief in it. In the First Vatican Council, Papal Infallibility was defined. And the Holy Pontiff was infallible when he speaks Ex Cathedra.
As I have said before, what constitutes making a teaching invalid?

I reject the notion, and the reason I mentioned it was so there were no mix-ups in regards to my position. In either case, Pius IX did not declare the issue of State and Church Ex-Cathedra did he? So therefore that statement is not an infallible one, so I’m not too sure why you brought that point up.

The Papal Encyclical ‘Quanta Cura’.

So I was right, it was well before. Don’t you think this fascination with Pius IX is leading to some misguided sentiment of sanctimony? I honestly don’t think as a Catholic you would actually be helping people embracing Catholicism, there was a reason Vatican II was instituted and I think it was a positive step. Not all of what Pius IX taught is valid for the present day, and this issue of Church and State is definitely one of them. Wasn’t Pius IX also the one who claimed that Christians don’t have a duty to animals because it would be a theological error to consider it? Funnily enough, it was him who made a theological error, and in his long pontificate he made plenty of them.

 

[Gregarious]

It doesn’t. He did allow Priests to be involved with politics, just not to run for election. There is a large difference, I think. I’m not actually sure where Blessed John Paul II did disallow it, it may have been unofficial, I’m not entirely sure.

Being “involved” with politics is a completely different issue, of course the Church is involved with politics! That is not what they are against, but it’s just that, he did not allow any merging between Church and State by allowing them to hold political appointments. You aren’t going to see a priest also being a minister of transport or something. Being involved with politics doesn’t mean one is a politician, and yes you’re right, there is a large difference and you’re not seeing it I think.

I don’t really think it would cause a civil war.

Oh no? So let’s announce that the Church is going to handle all political affairs from henceforth and all the atheists, muslims, hindus and whatever else is going to sit quietly? Heck, forget them, what about all the protestants? You don’t consider the serious political repercussions as well as the economic impact of what you imply, it’s all well to theorize about these things but what happens to the administration of policy? Leave it in God’s hands? I do not wish to be mean, but as good as you think to seem your strange ideas are, it’s very misguided and is largely impractical and most probably would take several decades to implement if people don’t kill each other by the time.

I’m not sure how I can “ruin” the Church’s reputation by stressing that an error is an error. Nor am I “blindly” quoting Pius XI. And again, I’m not sure how I incorrectly contextualized it. At the time that Pius IX had declared this, he had just been virtually overthrown as the monarch of the Papal States and had no temporal power, and excommunicated the King of Italy. But I’m not sure who he addressed the Syllabus to.

Yes, this is what you call contextualizing, look at the situation at time he wrote it. There were problems with him and the State, and he didn’t want to lose his political power and influence. You are the one making the error here, not the Church, not me.

So Pius IX said that in the 1800’s, and Benedict XVI stated the opposite in 2005, who are you going to side with?

I’m not sure how Clement VI is relevant. The Syllabus was a big deal, and it was followed in 1907 by Pius X’s syllabus of errors, as well. My Holy Father is Benedict XVI. And Deus Caritatis Est does not reccomend a separation. It calls for its interrelation and says that the State may not impose upon religion.

Cheers, as well.

Clement VI is not relevant, that’s the point, it was exaggeration

I’m not going to debate with you on what Benedict XVI is saying, there is no problem with interpretation there. Interrelated is not interconnected is it? Church and State have relations but there is no direct connection to them, their powers are separate.

Look, I’m not going to argue with you on the semantics of this issue, nor am I going to go ad-nauseam into irrelevance by getting you to agree with the interpretation of Benedict XVI, go ask your local priest what Benedict XVI meant and take your encyclicals of Pius IX and ask if his statement about the separation of church and state is still valid.

Have fun

 

[TrueLight]

I can’t believe this “burning heretics” thread has reincarnated here.

 

[Gregarious]

Bl. Pope Pius IX (and as ridiculous as I feel calling out that name in reference to a forum member here)

Here’s a link to prove you completely incorrect on your interpretation of Benedict XVI’s encyclical and hence how you’re at odds with Church authority today:

catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=29437

You are incorrect, and hence have been convincingly proved wrong by arguing on your own ground (Catholicism)

I forgot that there was a biblical ground for the separation of church and state too, luckily it was mentioned there, which should further reinforce the issue.

Using a quote from your own profile:

““We should always be disposed to believe that that which appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the Church so decides””

Please recant your position, the hierarchy of the Church has spoken, lest you be considered a heretic

 

[Alexander_VI]

I agree, heresy should be punished. But not by earthly fire, certainly not. A more humane disciplinary action should be taken.

If it was good for our spiritual forebears then, it is good for us now. Disciplinary action can be severe if it so warrants it, and heresy is definitely up there amongst one of the very worst sins, it sends a strong message.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

Pardon me for misreading them and mixing them up, but as you can imagine it makes no difference whether it was Pius XI or Pius IX, in fact Pius IX was some few decades before him and therefore his teachings for that time is even more irrelevant, in fact now that you bring my error there to light. Wasn’t he the Pope at the time when there was major uprising and there was a threat of Church and State being separated? Ah ha, I now see why this is even more irrelevant to today, not that I know much about Pius IX, but I do know that what you’re alluding to definitely does not apply to today, those encyclicals were aimed to rally against his dissidents, this was purely political agenda, luckily he did not win.

As I said, time does not equal irrelevance. It simply doesn’t. I also don’t think that the encyclicals are that old. And somewhat, Pius IX’s temporal reign was threatened by the Risorgimento. But that isn’t why he declared that.

If you humbly leave interpretation up to the Magisterium, then please do just that - because currently you aren’t humbly doing that.

I am trying my best.

Yes, that error was mine I should have said 1860’s maybe? But this is considerably beyond the point, it was a passing reference to demonstrate the ridiculousness of your claims in relation to the teaching of the Church today. Whether it was 1870 or 1930, 2011 is a long time since, and we’ve had Vatican II/

You keep bringing up Vatican II, why is that? Vatican II didn’t erase all previous Councils, I don’t think. Plus, that was in 1965, that was a while since today as well. Is that irrelevant too?

That is not what I said, I’m not saying that “just because” it’s in the past it holds no water, I’m saying it was so long ago in the past and now current Church teaching contradicts some of what was in the past, my references to the past is more a cementing procedure to validate my arguments, it is not my actual argument.

Again, I don’t think Deus Caritas Est contradicts previous teachings. It defines it further, but I don’t think they’re contradictory.

I reject the notion, and the reason I mentioned it was so there were no mix-ups in regards to my position. In either case, Pius IX did not declare the issue of State and Church Ex-Cathedra did he? So therefore that statement is not an infallible one, so I’m not too sure why you brought that point up.

No he did not declare it Ex Cathedra. I was bringing up that point to combat your disbelief in the authority of the Church.

So I was right, it was well before. Don’t you think this fascination with Pius IX is leading to some misguided sentiment of sanctimony? I honestly don’t think as a Catholic you would actually be helping people embracing Catholicism, there was a reason Vatican II was instituted and I think it was a positive step. Not all of what Pius IX taught is valid for the present day, and this issue of Church and State is definitely one of them. Wasn’t Pius IX also the one who claimed that Christians don’t have a duty to animals because it would be a theological error to consider it? Funnily enough, it was him who made a theological error, and in his long pontificate he made plenty of them.

I don’t think he even made theological errors. I may be mistaken, but he also declared the Church a “Perfect Society”. This is again, indicated in the Syllabus of errors. I don’t know about your animal point. Either way, it is irrelevant.

Being “involved” with politics is a completely different issue, of course the Church is involved with politics! That is not what they are against, but it’s just that, he did not allow any merging between Church and State by allowing them to hold political appointments. You aren’t going to see a priest also being a minister of transport or something. Being involved with politics doesn’t mean one is a politician, and yes you’re right, there is a large difference and you’re not seeing it I think.

I don’t understand your point, sadly. I never said the Church wasn’t involved with politics. This doesn’t mean he was acting for the separation of Church and State.

Oh no? So let’s announce that the Church is going to handle all political affairs from henceforth and all the atheists, muslims, hindus and whatever else is going to sit quietly?

I never advocated for the Church to handle all political affairs. And I don’t think Pius IX did either.

So Pius IX said that in the 1800’s, and Benedict XVI stated the opposite in 2005, who are you going to side with?

Both, I don’t think they contradict.

Interrelated is not interconnected is it?

No, it isn’t.

Bl. Pope Pius IX (and as ridiculous as I feel calling out that name in reference to a forum member here)

Just call me Pius, please.

Also, this argument is quite off topic, and I feel terrible about derailing the thread.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[Gregarious]

As I said, time does not equal irrelevance. It simply doesn’t. I also don’t think that the encyclicals are that old. And somewhat, Pius IX’s temporal reign was threatened by the Risorgimento. But that isn’t why he declared that.

And I’m continuously saying that’s not what I’m saying.

You keep bringing up Vatican II, why is that? Vatican II didn’t erase all previous Councils, I don’t think. Plus, that was in 1965, that was a while since today as well. Is that irrelevant too?

Did I say it did erase previous councils? I didn’t, did I? In fact the declaration of Pius IX wasn’t part of a council declaration, it was a power-hungry agenda he had, far removed from any council deliberation. Nice strawman about time and irrelevancy. Show me exactly where I made the statement that just because something is old it must be irrelevant?

No he did not declare it Ex Cathedra. I was bringing up that point to combat your disbelief in the authority of the Church.

Oh yes, because that will clearly get me to believe it.

I don’t think he even made theological errors. I may be mistaken, but he also declared the Church a “Perfect Society”. This is again, indicated in the Syllabus of errors. I don’t know about your animal point. Either way, it is irrelevant.

It was irrelevant until you said he didn’t make theological errors just now, considering you’re a big fan, if I were you I’d be definitely checking up on that error, because it’s a famous one, and it certainly is an error.

I don’t understand your point, sadly. I never said the Church wasn’t involved with politics. This doesn’t mean he was acting for the separation of Church and State.

He wasn’t acting for the separation of Church and State because it was already well separated by that time, do I need to state the extremely obvious?

I never advocated for the Church to handle all political affairs. And I don’t think Pius IX did either.

Pius IX didn’t care until his power was threatened, that should be reason enough for someone to connect the points and see why he made his statement; he was afraid to lose the power he once had. I see him as power hungry, but maybe he thought it was a God given right.

There is no reconciliation between Benedict XVI’s statements in his encyclical and and Pius IX’s statements. Both the article and the encyclical present views that are diametrically opposed to your own view and Pius IX.

Just wishfully thinking that they both don’t contradict doesn’t make it so. Continuously stating the Earth is flat doesn’t make it flat, I’ll let you ponder on the matter.

 

[Gregarious]

“A true separation between church and state does not leave out the spiritual dimension,” he explained, “but acknowledges that the latter is, in a radical way, a guarantee of our freedom and autonomy in earthly matters” since Jesus said that one ought to “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s . . . .” Indeed “if Roman coins bore Caesar in effigy and must be returned to him, the Creator’s fingerprint, that of the one and only lord of life, is in man’s heart.”

I’m not too sure which part of this would make anyone believe the Pope is asking for Church and State to be united, either someone is a troll trying to instigate a reprisal or is having a reading comprehension issue, for the life of me I can’t figure out what part of that is difficult to truly understand.

It couldn’t be anymore clear if the Pope danced across the street yelling, “Separation!”

 

[Swiss_Guy]

One thing that Martin Luther was told to recant was that the burning of heretics wasn’t against the will of the Holy Spirit.

And separation of church and state a heresy??

I support the government doing things in favor of the Church, with little separation of Church and state - in an ideal world, but even though I’m against separation of church and state (in an ideal world), what makes it a heresy? So is it a heresy to live in a country with it? Or a heresy to support it?

Because I support separation of church and state in today’s world, with all of the secular and Islamic countries. At the present time, I think it IS a good thing. Except in traditionally Catholic countries like Germany, Ireland, Switzerland, Spain, etc.

 

[Gregarious]

Further decimation of your view:

guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/10/pope-pakistan-repeal-blasphemy-law

He told an audience of ambassadors assigned to the Holy See: "The particular influence of a given religion in a nation ought never to mean that citizens of another religion can be subject to discrimination in social life or, even worse, that violence against them can be tolerated.

“In this regard, it is important for interreligious dialogue to favour a common commitment to recognising and promoting the religious freedom of each person and community.”

What does this mean? No particular religion should exercise control over a nation, what does the union of Church and State mean? The control of one particular religion in a nation. What is happening in countries where Islam and State are one? Thanks, no answers are required, it’s purely rhetorical.

Last one:

catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=1132384.0

VATICAN CITY, MAY 18, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI described the separation of the Church and state as “great progress for humanity.”

The Church is aware of the fundamental “distinction between what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God, in other words, the distinction between Church and state, or the autonomy of the temporal sphere,” the Pontiff said.

“The Church not only recognizes and respects this distinction and autonomy, but welcomes it, considering it great progress for humanity and a fundamental condition for her very freedom and for the fulfillment of its universal mission of salvation among all peoples,” Benedict XVI continued.

Of course read the entire thing if you don’t believe me, but considering it coming from a catholic forum, and in turn a catholic news article, should be reason enough for you.

Game over.

 

[Gregarious]

One thing that Martin Luther was told to recant was that the burning of heretics wasn’t against the will of the Holy Spirit.

And separation of church and state a heresy??

I support the government doing things in favor of the Church, with little separation of Church and state - in an ideal world, but even though I’m against separation of church and state (in an ideal world), what makes it a heresy? So is it a heresy to live in a country with it? Or a heresy to support it?

Because I support separation of church and state in today’s world, with all of the secular and Islamic countries. At the present time, I think it IS a good thing. Except in traditionally Catholic countries like Germany, Ireland, Switzerland, Spain, etc.

Funnily enough this forum seems to have more ardent traditionalists than the Pope himself.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

Bl. Pope Pius IX (and as ridiculous as I feel calling out that name in reference to a forum member here)

Here’s a link to prove you completely incorrect on your interpretation of Benedict XVI’s encyclical and hence how you’re at odds with Church authority today:

catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=29437

You are incorrect, and hence have been convincingly proved wrong by arguing on your own ground (Catholicism)

I forgot that there was a biblical ground for the separation of church and state too, luckily it was mentioned there, which should further reinforce the issue.

Using a quote from your own profile:

““We should always be disposed to believe that that which appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the Church so decides””

Please recant your position, the hierarchy of the Church has spoken, lest you be considered a heretic

Well, no. I wont recant. Because I do believe that the artical you linked doesn’t conflict with Pius IX’s teaching. i think that you believe Bl Pius IX called for the Church to politically rule nations, but I don’t think this is the case. I also have drawn to the conclusion that Pius IX is the only Pope that has condemned the notion - but not even this is true. Gregory XVI condemned it in Mirari Vos, and Leo XIII indirectly condemns it in Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae. That is three Popes, all from around similar, turbulent, times that condemned the notion. Not to mention, the condemnation in Mirari Vos proves that Pius IX wasn’t acting out of some “political agenda”. Especially so since the temporal power of the Pope was already threatened before hand.

He wasn’t acting for the separation of Church and State because it was already well separated by that time, do I need to state the extremely obvious?

It was separated in some areas, but not in others. France was still under the control of Napoleon III, and I believe that it did have a State Religion of Catholicism. I believe Spain and Austria had similar state religions as well.

I’m not too sure which part of this would make anyone believe the Pope is asking for Church and State to be united, either someone is a troll trying to instigate a reprisal or is having a reading comprehension issue, for the life of me I can’t figure out what part of that is difficult to truly understand.

It couldn’t be anymore clear if the Pope danced across the street yelling, “Separation!”

I don’t think Gregory XVI, Pius IX, or Leo XIII are calling for a union between the two entities. I’m not having a difficulty understanding, but I think that the barrier keeping us from potentially agreeing, is the actual definition of Separation of Church and State. Pius IX goes on to condemn another notion in the Syllabus: “The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government: hence, it can pass judgment on the instructions issued for the guidance of consciences, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the Church. Further, it has the right to make enactments regarding the administration of the divine sacraments, and the dispositions necessary for receiving them.” So by “Separation of Church and State”, I think it can be said that he condemns hostile actions against the Church or the State from either.

It CAN be fruitful. But not hostile actions against either from either. I will clarify further, but as I said, I’m sure the OP doesn’t like us derailing his thread.

Now. I will make an effort to steer this back to the topic of the thread. Though State and Church are separated, heretics should be dealt with in an Ecclesiastical Court (so to speak) instead of a secular court. That is obvious.

~ Pius :knight1: