Heretics

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]Well, at least its good that you don't approve of killing civilians.
(I thought if they were heretic or infidel civilians, this wouldn't be a problem.)

Yeah, going around bombing buildings sounds like a great way to spread the Faith (so long as you stick gov't buildings, I guess!)
A bunch of Catholic Osama bin Wannabes blowin' stuff up would be the perfect way to bring the Faith to the world!
(I mean, like after 9-11-01, I really wanted to be Muslim! - Get real!)

I suppose this doesn't matter anyway, since making people inclined to accept the Faith and bringing souls to Christ really isn't important, compared with not compromising one's position on on killing heretics (which is not a dogma of the Church, by the way.)

After all, was Christ concerned with bringing souls to Him or killing unbeleivers? Don't recall Christ killing anyone, or commanding others to kill. [/quote]


Wow are you really an idiot or do you just play one on Phatmass? Can you argue your Position or is hurling Sarcasm and insults the only weapon at your disposal?



First I never said that blowing up building was a great way to bring people to the faith... I challenge you to find anywhere that I said that, I tire of people on this forum putting words in others mouth and then crying the cry of the victim " oh look at _______ he's so mean and he says ______________. I never said that bringing souls to Christ wasn't important, I have spent a good deal of my life Evangelizeing and have had quite a bit of success in that area, but evangelization is not the topic of this thread, but even if it where evangelization where the Truth is sugar coated is not evangelization at all but simple treachery.

The Fact is that Ecumenical Councils have called for Crusades, to question the morality of the Crusades is therefore a questioning of the Moral Authority of Councils, to question that is to tread quite deeply into the realm of heresy. This doesn't even address the problems with questioning the Popes authority in these matters.
It is obvious from your Post that you have little understanding of Traditional Catholic doctrine regarding Just War, particularly "taking the combatant out of the man" In warfare killing must be accidental to the goal of removing the combatant, One cannot directly intend the death of the opponent, but one may use
methods which are likely to kill him if these are the most effective ant removing the combatant from him and are not inherently wrong in and of themselves. The insurgents in Iraq for example are perfectly with intthe moral law of combat when they attack a convoy or a police station but not when they blow up a bomb on the street. It ias a distinction vital to understanding the Catholic view of warfare, particularly agianst those who are directly attacking the Faith.


The fact is that Cathoics and other christians are being killed in africa right now and there children are being taken as slaves these same children are being raised to be musilms not Catholic( or any form of Christian) So yes violent confrentation of the Infidel WOULD bring people to Christ, immediatly, it would bring those children to Christ, as there parents intended.

Now as for Christ never killing anyone, Christ incarnate as fully man and fully God used violence when the Temple was being defiled by the money changers, he also said he cam to bring the sword, counciled his apostles to buy swords, and told numerous parables where the just used violence( even lethal violence) to achieve their rightous end. Additionally Christ is the son and therefore part of the Trinity, as such He has directly killed multitudes, and the striking down didn't stop with the resurrection either, read Acts.

[Socrates]

Listen pal, learn come civility.

You come into the thread insulting those who disagree with you, when no one had previously been insulting or uncivil on the thread, continue to be rude, insulting, and beligerent, and then get upset when I use sarcasm.

Seems some can dish it out, but not take it themselves!
You yourself said you condoned bin Laden's methods had he only attacked the Pentagon and the "paramilitary" tower. And I said nothing against the Crusades (which were ultimately a defensive war against Muslim agression.)
Driving the money-changers from the temple was not killing them. And we are not supposed to "play God."

Unless you can post in a civil manner, I'm done arguing with you.

[Guest Aluigi]

:huh:maybe it's just cause i'm a fan of sugarless convo... refreshing and real, but his post seemed quite civil to me... respond to his arguments.

Edited November 17, 2004 by Aluigi

[Paladin D]

[quote name='noncatholicname' date='Nov 15 2004, 07:54 PM'] You want the infidels dead.  I'm an infidel.  2+2=what? [/quote]
[b]5 ???[/b]

[Don John of Austria]

Socrates, I haven't seen you argue anything yet so I am really not sure how you could be "done with argueing with me" . Now I hate to break this to you but the conflict which you broke into between noncatholic name and myself was about the Crusades, [b]read the thread[/b] if you didn't intend to question them then you should have made that clear when you started to attack my position, in my post I specificly mention the Crusades ( not just thase agianst the Muslims either) you attack my position comparing the Crusaders to Osama ben Lauden would you like the qoute here you go

"Also, specific political situations were different in medieval Europe. Do you honestly think waging physical violence against "heretics" or "infidels" would bring anyone to Christ in today's world? Do you think Osama bin Laden would be right in his actions/strategy if he were a Catholic?"


That implys ( not even subtly) that the Crusaders actions where like to Osama's.

I reponded quite civilly to that attack and yet I still have yet to see you actually argue for any position you simply proclaim that things are so, and ask about the effectiveness of these issues, effectiveness has nothing to do morallity nor does what you think Should be the teaching of the Church make it so, the Church has in Ecuminical Councils declared wars agianst Heretics and Infidels, thus these wars cannot be immoral. That is Simply the Facts you must accept if you are a Catholic like it or not.

Edited November 18, 2004 by Don John of Austria

[Socrates]

Sorry, I think there is actually much less disagreement between us than you think. Tempers started flaring up, unfortunately lowering the level of the debate. I think we were both partially at fault for making attacks without carefully reading each other's postions. (This began with your "sweet and spineless" remark.)

My intitial problem wasn't really with your arguments about the crusades, but more with Catholic Crusader's position (stated in this post and elsewhere) that heretics should be killed for the simple crime of being heretics.
While this might work in a situation where the entire civil society is Catholic, I do not think this policy is at all practical in today's world, and I am sill firmly against a "convert or die" policy. (That is the Muslim way, not Christian).
I have no problem with a military attack on Muslims or others if they had commited acts of violent agression against Christians (as in the Crusades), but would be against violent attacks on people simply because of their erroneous beliefs.

Much of this probably falls more under issues of prudence than objective morality/immorality, but I think violence should be endorsed with extreme caution, and only under those circumstances where it is clear that it will save Christian lives, and not have the opposite effect.

Again, while Islam was spread by the sword and military conquest, Christianity grew by the blood of martyrs, and the example of saints (who rarely practiced violence.)

Edited November 18, 2004 by Socrates

[Don John of Austria]

I disagree with very little of what you say here, it was those who said there is never any reason to make war on Heretics or Infidels which I was responding to with the " sweet and sppinless remark". the only disagreement I can see that we have is this --- I would contend that there are certian beliefs and practices which are so evil and have such a great tendency or potental for destruction that they must be stoped, that is is Morally Obligatory to stop them( such as the religion of the Cathari and that of the Aztecs) even if it means useing Force, other than that I don't think that military force should be used as a means of conversion.

I do believe that Public Heresy ( as opposed to a Personal Private Heresy) is a crime for which it is Morally Permissable to execute the Guilty, I don't think that is always the best or wisest choice, but it is morally permissable and CC is right to say so, to say that it is not or to imply that it is unjust to do so is not in keeping with the Tradition of the Church.

Edited November 18, 2004 by Don John of Austria

[Socrates]

Don John,

Appears there's really not much disagreement here. I think I caused some confusion by addressing a number of people/issues in one post without making it clear.


Pax,

Socrates

[amarkich]

So, even if there is little confusion, why don't you (or we, I would like to join the discussion) try to establish which position is correct in regard to the area of disagreement. It seems that Socrates is claiming that it is not permissible to execute a public heretic for the sin of Heresy in itself. Socrates please defend this. You have not made any real argument substantiating this yet. I will simply post Saint Thomas Aquinas on the matter for now because I have class in 15 minutes.


Whether heretics ought to be tolerated?
Objection 1. It seems that heretics ought to be tolerated. For the Apostle says (2 Tim. 2:24,25): "The servant of the Lord must not wrangle . . . with modesty admonishing them that resist the truth, if peradventure God may give them repentance to know the truth, and they may recover themselves from the snares of the devil." Now if heretics are not tolerated but put to death, they lose the opportunity of repentance. Therefore it seems contrary to the Apostle's command.

Objection 2. Further, whatever is necessary in the Church should be tolerated. Now heresies are necessary in the Church, since the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:19): "There must be . . . heresies, that they . . . who are reproved, may be manifest among you." Therefore it seems that heretics should be tolerated.

Objection 3. Further, the Master commanded his servants (Mt. 13:30) to suffer the cockle "to grow until the harvest," i.e. the end of the world, as a gloss explains it. Now holy men explain that the cockle denotes heretics. Therefore heretics should be tolerated.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Titus 3:10,11): "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted."

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 Gal. 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."

Reply to Objection 1. This very modesty demands that the heretic should be admonished a first and second time: and if he be unwilling to retract, he must be reckoned as already "subverted," as we may gather from the words of the Apostle quoted above.

Reply to Objection 2. The profit that ensues from heresy is beside the intention of heretics, for it consists in the constancy of the faithful being put to the test, and "makes us shake off our sluggishness, and search the Scriptures more carefully," as Augustine states (De Gen. cont. Manich. i, 1). What they really intend is the corruption of the faith, which is to inflict very great harm indeed. Consequently we should consider what they directly intend, and expel them, rather than what is beside their intention, and so, tolerate them.

Reply to Objection 3. According to Decret. (xxiv, qu. iii, can. Notandum), "to be excommunicated is not to be uprooted." A man is excommunicated, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 5:5) that his "spirit may be saved in the day of Our Lord." Yet if heretics be altogether uprooted by death, this is not contrary to Our Lord's command, which is to be understood as referring to the case when the cockle cannot be plucked up without plucking up the wheat, as we explained above (10, 8, ad 1), when treating of unbelievers in general.


[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/301103.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/301103.htm[/url]

[Guest JeffCR07]

Adam, God Bless! I know that the above post was addressed to Socrates, but I hope you won't mind my responding to it.

I am really glad that you posted what the Angelic Doctor has to say on the matter, for I think that it is particularly important.

It seems to me that St. Thomas deals with two seperate issues within the broad topic of "whether heretics ought to be tolerated?" The first is the issue of excommunication, the second the issue of death.

Now it seems to me that St. Thomas has placed the consequences of heresy within two orders. He has placed the excommunication of the heretic and the condemnation of the heresy within the order of the Church, and the judgement and punishment of the crime within the order of the State, for he says:

[quote]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.[/quote]

In this manner, it seems that Aquinas has ordered heavenly justice (that is, excommunication) as being proper to the Church, and temporal justice (that is, death) as being proper to the State. Now, this is not to say that there must by necessity be a "seperation of Church and State" but rather, that when both entities exist, it is more fitting that the Church deal with the spiritual and the State with the temporal.

This makes sense because it is fitting for the Church, which, as St. Thomas says, "looks to the conversion of the wanderer" to relegate earthly punishment to earthly powers, and thus keep itself above the accusation of being in material cooperation with the damnation of a soul.



Now please keep in mind that the above does [i]not[/i] argue that it is "wrong" to kill the heretic, but rather, it argues, as the Angelic Doctor argues, that the Church should, when necessary, refuse to tolerate the heretic via the imposition of excommunication and the formal condemnation of heretical teachings, while the State deals with the earthly punishment. for it logically follows that if the State makes the determination of whether or not a man should die on account of his theft, so too does the State decide if a man should die on account of his heresy.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[Socrates]

Time prohibits me from really making an adequate response, but

I would agree that a Catholic state would have a right to execute heretics, but I would argue that it would be extremely imprudent to institute such a policy. In the modern world, I cannot see such actual good for the Church come out of such policies. In fact, it would likely inspire violence against the Church.

Conversion should be made by free will, not by fear of force.

Consider the parable of the Wheat and Cockle St. Thomas mentions.


(And, by the way, I agree with Don John about the Aztecs, etc.)

[JP2Iloveyou]

OK. All you people that are advocating that we should kill heretics, let's get a couple of things straight here. I have been away for a few days and I didn't expect to see this many responses to this thread. Anyway, I am so mad right now, I can't put it into words. You gusy sit here and try to make the claim that the Magisterium has instructed us to go around and kill everyone who doesn't believe what we believe. Yet, I show you documents, specific paragraphs in those documents, and you patently ignore them. For your sake, I'll repost the names again, but not the links. I gave you the links in a previous post. [i]Unitatis Redintegratio, Nostra Aetate, Ut Unum Sint, and the Declaration on the Freedom of Conscience and of Religion[/i] I could go on and on. Clearly, Pope John Paul II has not advocated killing anyone. In fact, I think you that are sitting here saying that we should "kill all heretics" may be closer to heresy yourselves. Speaking of that, let's define heresy, shall we, since no one on here appears to even know the simple definition.

[quote]Heresy: The refection of one or more truths revealed by God and infallibly defined by they Catholic Church, or the false interpretation of an infallibly defined doctrine, by one who has been baptized and who has professed the Christian religion.  Heresy is either [i]formal[/i] or [i]material[/i].  [i]Formal[/i] heresy, a serious sin, is committed when a baptized Christian knowingly and willingly denies or doubts one or more truths.  [i]Material[/i] heresy is the result of ignorance of the truth and is not accompanied by a rejectio of the will.  Material heresy is not sinful unless the individual suspects the truth and either neglects seeking the correct interpretations, or refuses to submit willingly to the rulings of the Church on the matter in question.  biblically speaking, the New Testament Greek word [i]heresis[/i] means a faction.  Heresy has existed since the beginning of the Church.  St. Paul speaks of "deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ" (2 Cor 11: 13).  Sacred Scripture also refers to those who had broken away from the teaching of the Apostles (cf. 1 Jn 2: 19, 2 Pt 2).  In the early centuries of the Church, there were many heresies, with some continuing into the Middle Ages and into the modern era.[/quote]

[quote]Heretic:  A baptized person who deliberately and with full consent of his will, rejects one of more infallibly defined doctrines of the Catholic Church.  The Church automatically excommunicates those guilty of heresy.[/quote]

You know, last year was my first year in seminary and some of the guys in my class were throwing those terms around (heresy and heretic). Our rector, a very holy and orthodox priest, gave us a stern chewing out session about using those terms. I remember a couple of the points he said. First, he said if you accuse someone of being a heretic who is not, it is sinful and it might be mortally sinful. Then I remember him saying that you could go to hell for that. Some of you people need to be VERY careful here.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Nov 19 2004, 08:04 AM'] Some of you people need to be VERY careful here. [/quote]
Heed your own advice, friend.

[popestpiusx]

By the way, the definition of material heresy provided in the quote is incorrect. MAterial heresy does not always involve the willful rejection of dogma, but it certainly can. All formal heretics are also material heretics. But not all material heretics are formal heretics.

What is the source for those? And how are they relevan to the discussion?

[popestpiusx]

Allow me to cause some scandal:

Some snippets from St. Bernard of Clairvaux's "In Praise of the New Knighthood" (a letter written to Hugh of Payn, Master of the Knights Templar):

BUT THE KNIGHTS OF CHRIST may safely fight the battles of their Lord, fearing neither sin if they smite the enemy, nor danger
at their own death; since to inflict death or to die for Christ is no sin, but rather, an abundant claim to glory. In the first case one gains
for Christ, and in the second one gains Christ himself. The Lord freely accepts the death of the foe who has offended him, and yet
more freely gives himself for the consolation of his fallen knight.


Neither does he bear the sword in vain, for he is God's minister, for the punishment of evildoers and for the
praise of the good. If he kills an evildoer, he is not a mankiller, but, if I may so put it, a killer of evil. He is evidently the avenger of
Christ towards evildoers and he is rightly considered a defender of Christians. Should he be killed himself, we know that he has not
perished, but has come safely into port. When he inflicts death it is to Christ's profit, and when he suffers death, it is for his own gain.
The Christian glories in the death of the pagan, because Christ is glorified; while the death of the Christian gives occasion for the King
to show his liberality in the rewarding of his knight. In the one case the just shall rejoice when he sees justice done, and in the other
man shall say, truly there is a reward for the just; truly it is God who judges the earth.

I do not mean to say that the pagans are to be slaughtered when there is any other way to prevent them from harassing and
persecuting the faithful, but only that it now seems better to destroy them than that the rod of sinners be lifted over the lot of the just,
and the righteous perhaps put forth their hands unto iniquity.


I do not know if it would be more
appropriate to refer to them as monks or as soldiers, unless perhaps it would be better to recognize them as being both. Indeed they
lack neither monastic meekness nor military might. What can we say of this, except that this has been done by the Lord, and it is
marvelous in our eyes. These are the picked troops of God, whom he has recruited from the ends of the earth; the valiant men of
Israel chosen to guard well and faithfully that tomb which is the bed of the true Solomon, each man sword in hand, and superbly
trained to war.