Burnings at the Stake

[HisChildForever]

God gave us free will and that should have been honored during those times. If a person chooses to reject Him, that person is permitted and should not be set on fire for that freely made choice.

God bless you for your sobriety, Tab. 

[Nihil Obstat]

3 hours ago, Tab'le De'Bah-Rye said:

If this aint the truth of the matter someone please correct me.

 

If you read my posts above you will see that I have already done so.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

So yall sayin my take is a mistake and my understanding of The holy roman catholic churches stance or no stance on the matter of the death penalty is wrong? Surely if the Holy Magesterium opposes Scriptural truth then she perhaps is in schsim? Perhaps these burnings at the stake where during the reign of one of 3 popes that the Church in all her authority has declared as evil, which means anti christ, which means heretic.

Perhaps these burnings at the stake where during the reign of one of 3 popes that the Church in all her authority has declared as evil, which means anti christ, which means heretic, which also means they where never actually a memebr of Christ body that they where a foreign cell that entered the body somehow, unless of course they repented before they died from there horrible mistakes, God only knows, but definately while they where in heresy though practising members of the holy priesthood where whatever that word is for an ex communicated person who is yet to be ex communicated.

So this means the Holy Catholic Church never actually burnt anyone at the stake as these men where perhaps heretics.

Anyhow, i have to go now peoples coz i only broke my fast off the net for new years eve and since the sun is rising this means it is new years day and i must go back to my fast or face the consequences of Gods wrath as he is calling me to be faithfull to his will and i have discerned it to be his will that i abstain from the internet for a minimum of 3 months due to my turning to music and other people when i feel uncomfortable all to often instead of him, though of course turning to others and music is fine in moderation. Understanding that i am also an adult and children must seek the knowledge and wisdom of older members of the body to encourage them in all things that are true and good. This includes my phone lol, i'm not recharging its credit either. Anyhow God bless you all and best wishes for the new year, may the light of Chrsit illuminate your hearts and minds that you may claim the prize and rise up. I pray and wish that anything i have stated in any of the forums may be of some help to someone.

Onward christian souls.

GodblesS

Edited December 31, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Nihil Obstat]

I am not going to attempt to read that.

[Pia Jesu]

OTOH, Tab'le De'Bah-Rye's responses appear--at least to me, and in all charity--to be quite an interesting blend of deductive reasoning and Freudian Stream of Consciousness.  To conclude, however, that 1 of the 3 popes determined by church authorities to be evil--was the anti-Christ, seems like a stretch.  Crisis Magazine recently had an article on the topic of heretic popes.  Most importantly, it differentiated between material heretics (whose beliefs arise out of ignorance) and formal heretics (who make a conscious, deliberate decision to promulgate/defend their beliefs).  Check out http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/can-pope-heretic

Especially pertinent to this discussion, the article states that...

"Most theologians agree that a pope could be a material heretic.  Just like any other well-meaning, but misinformed Catholic.  He wouldn't be culpable for any sin or guilty of any crime.  He could, in fact, remain in a state of grace, and, endowed with the virtue of faith, lead the Christian faithful in the faith delivered once for all to the apostles.  His material heresy might even appear his non-infallible teaching, although God gives him special help to avoid that (CCC 892). 

The issue of infallibility (with regards to a heretic pope) raises other questions.  On a lighter note (no pun intended), it's also interesting to me how the public spectacle of being burned at the stake remains--figuratively, of course--in our modern day lexicon.  Have you ever had a boss/supervisor tell you to put a "fire under your derriere" as a means of motivation?  Likewise, Era Might's earlier comment that "societies always have heretics that they want to burn or banish" reminded me of the Puritan's (both in England and the Massachusetts colonies) penchant for burning wives who killed their husbands--even in self-defense!  Whether it's the guillotine, public hangings, firing squads or ISIS beheading Christians, the intent is always control.

[Not A Real Name]

11 hours ago, Tab'le De'Bah-Rye said:

 

 

Jesus iz LORD!

Is*

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I'm not going to break my fast again after this one post but after careful examination of your statements nihil and some time with the holy spirit and my own interlect i have diserned that perhaps Nihil obstat your discernment of particular documents is incorrect and what you are thinking of such reasonable force is to do with just war doctrine and not how to deal with anyone else except an invading army or self defense. Just a thought for you and i could be wrong.

2 hours ago, Pia Jesu said:

OTOH, Tab'le De'Bah-Rye's responses appear--at least to me, and in all charity--to be quite an interesting blend of deductive reasoning and Freudian Stream of Consciousness.  To conclude, however, that 1 of the 3 popes determined by church authorities to be evil--was the anti-Christ, seems like a stretch.  Crisis Magazine recently had an article on the topic of heretic popes.  Most importantly, it differentiated between material heretics (whose beliefs arise out of ignorance) and formal heretics (who make a conscious, deliberate decision to promulgate/defend their beliefs).  Check out http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/can-pope-heretic

Especially pertinent to this discussion, the article states that...

"Most theologians agree that a pope could be a material heretic.  Just like any other well-meaning, but misinformed Catholic.  He wouldn't be culpable for any sin or guilty of any crime.  He could, in fact, remain in a state of grace, and, endowed with the virtue of faith, lead the Christian faithful in the faith delivered once for all to the apostles.  His material heresy might even appear his non-infallible teaching, although God gives him special help to avoid that (CCC 892). 

The issue of infallibility (with regards to a heretic pope) raises other questions.  On a lighter note (no pun intended), it's also interesting to me how the public spectacle of being burned at the stake remains--figuratively, of course--in our modern day lexicon.  Have you ever had a boss/supervisor tell you to put a "fire under your derriere" as a means of motivation?  Likewise, Era Might's earlier comment that "societies always have heretics that they want to burn or banish" reminded me of the Puritan's (both in England and the Massachusetts colonies) penchant for burning wives who killed their husbands--even in self-defense!  Whether it's the guillotine, public hangings, firing squads or ISIS beheading Christians, the intent is always control.

sorry i always rush, all 3 popes where anti christ and not 'the anti christ' and perhaps all 3 committed such atrocities. And yes in general such practices of capital punishment are about absolute control and not freedom, though of course crimes need disciplinary action. 

Edited January 1, 2016 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye
added thought

[Nihil Obstat]

I do not think your own interlect quite understands what you are trying to comment on.

[veritasluxmea]

Happy New Years everyone! 

[Ark]

On 12/30/2015, 12:00:43, Nihil Obstat said:

In which case perhaps protecting the society of the faithful from the heretic becomes a greater priority. As does temporal punishment for his crimes. But in either case, the sure knowledge of the day of one's death is a great blessing. Gives a man plenty of time to get his soul in order. One hopes that even if the heretic does not recant, at least he makes a genuine attempt to order his conscience.

To burn a human being alive is a horrific form of punishment for a supposed thought crime. I do not think the moderns running the Vatican today feel the same way as there predecessors that this was the will of the Spirit, rather this is looked upon with shame and rightfully so. It's indefensible. 

[Nihil Obstat]

I do not think it is really accurate to call it a "thought crime."

[Pia Jesu]

2 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

2 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

2 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I do not think it is really accurate to call it a "thought crime."

 

 

Insofar as a "thought crime" might be considered an opinion...I recall Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) writing in his famous Leviathan that "they [who] approve a private opinion, call it opinion; but they [who] mislike it, heresy: and yet heresy signifies no more than private opinion."  Sadly, many of the executed "heretics" were in conflict with ecclesiastical authorities for reasons (land holdings, power and influence, etc..) not related to church teachings.

We need to keep in mind the earlier posts that remind us that the local government carried out the executions of heretics after they were convicted by the Church.  And outside of that historical milieu...it undoubtedly looks barbaric and very Pontius Pilate-like.

[Guest]

nm

Edited January 1, 2016 by Guest

[Nihil Obstat]

2 hours ago, Pia Jesu said:

Insofar as a "thought crime" might be considered an opinion...I recall Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) writing in his famous Leviathan that "they [who] approve a private opinion, call it opinion; but they [who] mislike it, heresy: and yet heresy signifies no more than private opinion."  Sadly, many of the executed "heretics" were in conflict with ecclesiastical authorities for reasons (land holdings, power and influence, etc..) not related to church teachings.

The crime which is more necessary to punish in a temporal manner is the dissemination and promotion of heresy, rather than strictly the heresy itself. It is that dissemination which does true harm to society and to the faithful.

[Guest]

It's indefensible. Attribute it to being a different time or just an awful mistake but it's a stain on Catholicism. If you're gonna defend this then it becomes no problem defending Islamic terrorist when they blow people up or execute people "for disobeying God." Thank God Catholicism has moved past this sickening practice. Again WWJD? Burning people at the stake is not an option.

Edited January 2, 2016 by Guest