Why shouldn't heretics be burned?

[Gregarious]

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.

See my last post with articles even further clarifying it.

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.

So when JPII pulled that priest out of office, France was still under the control of Napoleon III was it? Please read in context. I said when JPII made that statement, Church and State were already separated so there was no need for him to “act” on anything.

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.

Here let me make it clear as to what I mean by the Separation of Church and State and apparently what Benedict XVI and everyone else in the modern day interprets it as:

The concept of separation of church and state refers to the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

Happy?

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:

You can’t conveniently attempt to back away by throwing up a bluff and pretending this was an inconvenience due to definitional issues, which I’m not buying, nice try

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Why is it a big deal if one person wants the church and government in close relations (i.e government doing things in favor of the church), and if another wants separation? Unless you are the president or pope, what difference does it make? Some popes (like Benedict XVI) might prefer separation, and some popes (like Leo XIII) might prefer close connection. Both were in different time periods where one would work better than the other.

I’m just saying cause I think this discussion is becoming too heated and off topic.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

See my last post with articles even further clarifying it.

I did, I was addressing those as well, since I saw them as just repeating your point.

So when JPII pulled that priest out of office, France was still under the control of Napoleon III was it? Please read in context. I said when JPII made that statement, Church and State were already separated so there was no need for him to “act” on anything.

Mea culpa.

Here let me make it clear as to what I mean by the Separation of Church and State and apparently what Benedict XVI and everyone else in the modern day interprets it as:

And I agree with that definition. They should be distanced, if it fruitful for both. But I don’t think that is what Pius IX was condemning.

Happy?

I’ve been happy all day.

You can’t conveniently attempt to back away by throwing up a bluff and pretending this was an inconvenience due to definitional issues, which I’m not buying, nice try

I don’t feel like getting an infraction over derailing a thread. Nor do I want one for uncharitable posts.

Why is it a big deal if one person wants the church and government in close relations (i.e government doing things in favor of the church), and if another wants separation? Unless you are the president or pope, what difference does it make? Some popes (like Benedict XVI) might prefer separation, and some popes (like Leo XIII) might prefer close connection. Both were in different time periods where one would work better than the other.

I’m just saying cause I think this discussion is becoming too heated and off topic.

Exactly. Though, I’m not getting heated, but it is incredibly off topic. I’m also surprised I’m not heated. Sarcasm usually gets to me. But I’m rather mellow today for some reason.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[The_New_Man]

I know that they shouldn’t be, but I don’t know why since Aquinas’s reasons are persuasive:

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but “after the first and second admonition,” as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, “A little leaven,” says: “Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame.”

So how does one argue against that section of the Summa or by what authority is Aquinas bested?

Let me link the section

newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm

What we are discussing is under the heading “Whether Heretics Ought to Be Tolerated”.

Today’s methods for dealing with heretics have changed because circumstances have changed and the methods heretics use to promulgate their errors have changed. For one the secular authorities no longer burn people at the stake since they would consider it cruel and unusual punishment. Secondly the heretics back then were far more aggressive than the ones of the present day: most people ignore the fact that the heretics back then were also killing the Catholics in equally horrendous ways and so the punishment for them usually fit the crime. A lot of people call this murder but I fail to see how this is the case. In the present day criminals that have done horrible crimes and that pose a danger to society are usually given the death penalty which they rightly deserve and so I believe this was the case with what happened back then. Yet I’m not going to say that their methods were fool proof back then no more than I would say they are fool proof today. Innocent people back then as well as in the present day get convicted for crimes they didn’t commit and are executed for them which is sad and regrettable: however, it does not remove the need for the death penalty.

 

[Gregarious]

Why is it a big deal if one person wants the church and government in close relations (i.e government doing things in favor of the church), and if another wants separation? Unless you are the president or pope, what difference does it make? Some popes (like Benedict XVI) might prefer separation, and some popes (like Leo XIII) might prefer close connection. Both were in different time periods where one would work better than the other.

I’m just saying cause I think this discussion is becoming too heated and off topic.

I agree it’s off topic.

However the issue is not whether it’s a big deal or not, it’s supposedly that the separation of Church and State is a heresy, and that Benedict XVI and Pope Pius IX hold the same view of it, which is complete nonsense and which I have been attempting to disprove.

I think from all the evidence garnered so far, any rational person can come to the conclusion that Church does not believe the separation of Church and State is heresy, and also that Benedict XVI does not subscribe to such an ideology like some residents here.

 

[cerad2]

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

As opposed to hell?

 

[Gregarious]

Today’s methods for dealing with heretics have changed because circumstances have changed and the methods heretics use to promulgate their errors have changed. For one the secular authorities no longer burn people at the stake since they would consider it cruel and unusual punishment. Secondly the heretics back then were far more aggressive than the ones of the present day: most people ignore the fact that the heretics back then were also killing the Catholics in equally horrendous ways and so the punishment for them usually fit the crime. A lot of people call this murder but I fail to see how this is the case. In the present day criminals that have done horrible crimes and that pose a danger to society are usually given the death penalty which they rightly deserve and so I believe this was the case with what happened back then. However I’m not going to say that their methods were fool proof back then no more than I would say they are fool proof today. Innocent people back then as well as in the present day get convicted for crimes they didn’t commit and are executed for them which is sad and regrettable: however, it does not remove the need for the death penalty.

Murder is not the same thing as an execution.

Murder is homicide, execution (the death penalty) is a punishment carried out due to some heinous crime, usually murder.

So you are right in some sense that heretics were rather different, and the status quo of that day and age was also different, but that does not necessarily mean it’s OK to kill heretics, it would have to be considered on a case by case basis. Killing a heretic because he killed some people is different to burning him because he had some radical idea.

Since Catholicism loves “objectivity” strictly speaking the time and place of these dealings shouldn’t matter because if it’s immoral to burn and kill someone for a radical idea now, it should have always been objectively immoral back in time, if not, then that’s relativism, but I digress.

 

[Gregarious]

I did, I was addressing those as well, since I saw them as just repeating your point.

Mea culpa.

And I agree with that definition. They should be distanced, if it fruitful for both. But I don’t think that is what Pius IX was condemning.

I’ve been happy all day.

I don’t feel like getting an infraction over derailing a thread. Nor do I want one for uncharitable posts.

Exactly. Though, I’m not getting heated, but it is incredibly off topic. I’m also surprised I’m not heated. Sarcasm usually gets to me. But I’m rather mellow today for some reason.

~ Pius :knight1:

Strange, argue with me at length about it, then after you’ve been conclusively disproven, claim that it is off-topic and that you must leave.

I think we’ve all seen the end of that strange idea.

 

[Corki]

One can argue on many different lengths and still nothing would justify your strange ideas because it’s a fallacy, the end does not justify the means, two wrongs do not make a right, but above all, leaving that aside, what you propose is not in any way reminiscent of what Jesus preached.

And you want to be a priest, right.

I am not arguing for burning heretics but there is no fallacy in what was posted. It isn’t a matter of “two wrongs” since one was a criminal act against God and the secular government. The second was the lawful response - capital punishment. You can’t argue that it is a fallacy unless you claim that the Church teaches that capital punishment is always wrong. She doesn’t.

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

But some of us missed all the fun last time.

 

[Gregarious]

I am not arguing for burning heretics but there is no fallacy in what was posted. It isn’t a matter of “two wrongs” since one was a criminal act against God and the secular government. The second was the lawful response - capital punishment. You can’t argue that it is a fallacy unless you claim that the Church teaches that capital punishment is always wrong. She doesn’t.

Yes, it is a fallacy

Burning a heretic because he committed a criminal act against God is a wrong, and if it’s a criminal act he committed (regardless of whether in the judicial or religious sense) it’s a wrong, so two wrongs here supposedly make a right. Fallacy.

What is difficult about this concept to get? Let me make it a bit clearer:

Two wrongs make a right

1. Criminal act (Wrong)
2. Burning a heretic for that act (Wrong)

Therefore it’s right?

Yes, it’s a fallacy.

Just because burning a heretic was a lawful response at that time, doesn’t make that lawful response a right one. Burning someone alive is an objectively immoral act, I didn’t say capital punishment was immoral did I? Neither did I say the Church has never said capital punishment was wrong, nice strawman.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

Strange, argue with me at length about it, then after you’ve been conclusively disproven, claim that it is off-topic and that you must leave.

I think we’ve all seen the end of that strange idea.

Well, I don’t think I’ve been “disproven”. The Holy Father (Benedict XVI) would not contradict the teaching of Pius IX, Gregory XVI, Leo XIII, and I am sure others. I am sure what he said is perfectly aligned with the previous teaching, but adapted it further to todays society.

Also, I was simply making you aware that it is off topic, as I wasn’t sure if you knew or not. And when did I say I was leaving?

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[Gregarious]

Well, I don’t think I’ve been “disproven”. The Holy Father (Benedict XVI) would not contradict the teaching of Pius IX, Gregory XVI, Leo XIII, and I am sure others. I am sure what he said is perfectly aligned with the previous teaching, but adapted it further to todays society.

Also, I was simply making you aware that it is off topic, as I wasn’t sure if you knew or not. And when did I say I was leaving?

~ Pius :knight1:

Ah you’re back.

Yes, yes so you keep saying it’s an adaptation apparently. Show me how these two ideas are an adaptation:

1. Church and State should not be separated
2. Church and State should be separated

I think the word you’re looking for is opposing

 

[Karenfern]

The fact that anyone in the 21st century is even asking that question is scary to me. The entire kerygma of the Roman Catholic church was developed in response to ideas branded heretical in their time. The magisterium is a collection of reactions to heresy. But what is heresy in the first place? The Greek word from which it stems means “freedom” as in freedom of thought. The notion is that heresiarchs (those who spread heresy) are abusing their freedom has absurd elements because giving freedom at all is an act of trust.

Some of the best ideas around now were considered heretical as late as the 19th century. It took a lot of thinking to move the huge ocean liner that is church doctrine around. Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for proposing that the sun does not revolve around the earth. We know what happened to Galileo.

Heretics should be welcomed, treated with respect, listened to with patience and then refuted with arguments rather than being threatened. The best way to handle a heretic is to know what the Church teaches, to understand WHY it teaches it and to meet his or her ideas head on without lapsing into ad hominem name calling.

 

[Gregarious]

The fact that anyone in the 21st century is even asking that question is scary to me. The entire kerygma of the Roman Catholic church was developed in response to ideas branded heretical in their time. The magisterium is a collection of reactions to heresy. But what is heresy in the first place? The Greek word from which it stems means “freedom” as in freedom of thought. The notion is that heresiarchs (those who spread heresy) are abusing their freedom has absurd elements because giving freedom at all is an act of trust.

Some of the best ideas around now were considered heretical as late as the 19th century. It took a lot of thinking to move the huge ocean liner that is church doctrine around. Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for proposing that the sun does not revolve around the earth. We know what happened to Galileo.

Heretics should be welcomed, treated with respect, listened to with patience and then refuted with arguments rather than being threatened. The best way to handle a heretic is to know what the Church teaches, to understand WHY it teaches it and to meet his or her ideas head on without lapsing into ad hominem name calling.

It is indeed scary, and strange! A lot of it boils down to how passionately someone subscribes to an idea, if you will not budge for any reasonable argument, you somehow start to justify things to eradicate the threat.

In these forums you’re not going to find much sympathy for heretics or people wrongly accused, there will be the detractors who claim it never happened the way it’s claimed, and the people who feel it’s justified.

 

[Karenfern]

Saint Thomas Aquinas was VERY much persuasive. There was another thread on this topic, but it got a bit “hot” (pun - not intended). I think it must be understood, that when the Holy Mother Church did such acts, She did them at a time when (in some regards) they were morally acceptable, and even needed. That being said, it must be understood that in today’s society, at a time when heresy runs rampant, the faithful must be controlled in a different manner. It is a delicate topic indeed. However, it is my view that if the Church were to begin dealing with heretics in such a way, then She would be overwhelmed with anti-Catholic violence. But I also believe that the Church MUST tighten Her hold on Catholic nations (Ireland, Malta, Liechtenstein) and drive formally Catholic nations back to the Church (Spain, France, Germany). Some individuals are TRYING to get excommunicated. Thus, making excommunication a bit invalid in some cases.

However, still, heresy cannot be tolerated, and must be suppressed. At the expense of sounding radical, I must offer my agreement that it is better for one soul to be damned than a million.

Separation of Church and State IS a heresy (an error). Religious tolerance (in other words, religious freedom) has also been condemned. (Though that latter point can be argued further using numerous encyclicals and syllabus’). I must also agree that it may seem morally acceptable to, in order to save the whole Body of Christ, to sever a diseased limb, so to speak. If a part of our Church may infect others, it must be swiftly taken care of.

But what do I know? I am a 16 year old Altar Boy from Boston. I’ll leave it up to the Holy Father.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[Gregarious]

Karenfern:
Your comments here are in stark contrast to your earlier post, choose one, you can’t choose both.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

Ah you’re back.

Yes, yes so you keep saying it’s an adaptation apparently. Show me how these two ideas are an adaptation:

1. Church and State should not be separated
2. Church and State should be separated

I think the word you’re looking for is opposing

I didn’t intend to leave. I was logged out and had to log back in. I apologize.

Those two ideas aren’t an adaptation. Because I don’t think number one is what Pius IX was condemning. allow me to quote it again.

The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.

This being said, I don’t think that this error is totally encompassed by the definition of the separation of Church and State that you stated earlier. By that I mean that the current Holy Father, Benedict XVI rephrased it well by saying (I am paraphrasing) that the Church ought not to be hostile to the State, and the State to the Church. That is how I come to understand it. Especially because I now know to whom the Syllabus was addressed to. It was addressed to the Bishops of Prussia. Pius IX was active in obtaining Catholic rights in Prussia for quite some time, so I believe it makes more sense, and I also think it may put us in agreement.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[Karenfern]

To the 16 year old altar boy who said that separation of church and state is a heresy or an error, stay in school for a while longer and learn that it was separation of church and state that allowed him to practice his Catholicism just as it allows Jews to be Jewish, Muslims to be Muslim, Buddhist to be Buddhist, etc. His entire family could have been forced to be Anglican or Southern Baptist – whatever religion is in power without that. He needs to learn more about the country and how the Church has contributed to it rather than brand separation as an error.

 

[rebecca123]

Well, don’t the Knights of Columbus still take an oath to “slay as many Protestants” as possible? I mean i know it’s illegal these days, but like in memory of the way things used to be.

 

[Gregarious]

I didn’t intend to leave. I was logged out and had to log back in. I apologize.

Those two ideas aren’t an adaptation. Because I don’t think number one is what Pius IX was condemning. allow me to quote it again.

This being said, I don’t think that this error is totally encompassed by the definition of the separation of Church and State that you stated earlier. By that I mean that the current Holy Father, Benedict XVI rephrased it well by saying (I am paraphrasing) that the Church ought not to be hostile to the State, and the State to the Church. That is how I come to understand it. Especially because I now know to whom the Syllabus was addressed to. It was addressed to the Bishops of Prussia. Pius IX was active in obtaining Catholic rights in Prussia for quite some time, so I believe it makes more sense, and I also think it may put us in agreement.

~ Pius :knight1:

How does “The church should not be hostile to the state” and vice versa render the same meaning as the “The church should be separated from state”

In that regard, hostile would mean the same thing as separated, and that’s not true at all. Yes, Benedict XVI was against hostility, but that’s of the least consequence because if you read the titles of those addresses in the relevant article what is the undertone and implication? That Church and State should be separated, which is not what Pius IX said or wanted, hence contradiction.