Should Heretics Be Burned?

[Patrick]

Thank you for joining this thread, by the way. Your arguments have had a higher quality than those that have been previously posted. I'm still working on some of it -- don't take my silence on a particular topic as avoidance.

I appreciate the historic perspective. It has motivated me to fill in a gap in my History lessons.

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1896148' date='Jun 19 2009, 04:32 PM']Further, heresy [i]per se[/i] has never been punished by the Church. Preaching heresy, writing heretical books, meetign with other s in heretical groups, setting up rival churches, etc, etc. these have indeed been punished.[/quote]

Forgive me, I'm still having a hard time swallowing this. Perhaps it's the previous Protestant in me. I will, however, try to stay more cool-headed, fair, and open-minded than I was when I was Protestant (that's more a commentary on my own personal growth than on Protestants -- you didn't know me then).

What of, for example, Jan Hus? I can see how you might argue that he stirred up dissension and riot and it led to the spread of heresy and deaths of many. But what was he convicted of in his defense before his burning? Wasn't he required to recant heresy, and [i]if he were to recant, then he would be released[/i]? Doesn't that imply that his sentence to burning was indeed heresy [i]per se[/i]?

[Patrick]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1896148' date='Jun 19 2009, 04:32 PM']The Greeks had been subjugated, thier sons and daughters taken as slaves, in a regular TAX one which the Greek Orthodox Church cooperated with ( I am not saying it was happy about it, just that it submitted to having the churches baptismial records searched by Turkish officials looking for boy flesh) knowing good and well the jannasaries would be converted to Islam and used to continue to subjegate the Greeks.[/quote]

Submitting under force is not the same as condoning while in power. Also, such actions are not the official teaching of the Orthodox Church.

You didn't mean this that strongly. I think you were trying to set the historical context, and in a light that both sides of the debate can sympathize to. I'm just clarifying.

Edited June 20, 2009 by Patrick

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1896355' date='Jun 20 2009, 12:57 AM']I thought we were talking about St. Joan of Arc?

Besides, I find it a bit appalling that you are dismissing pure fact. She was tried before a court of the Inquisition, which you will read below.

[b]In a cell in the castle of Rouen to which Joan was moved two days before Christmas, she was chained to a plank bed, and watched over night and day. On February 21, 1431, she appeared for the first time before a court of the Inquisition. It was presided over by Pierre Cauchon, bishop of Beauvais, a ruthless, ambitious man who apparently hoped through English influence to become archbishop of Rouen. The other judges were lawyers and theologians who had been carefully selected by Cauchon. In the course of six public and nine private sessions, covering a period of ten weeks, the prisoner was cross-examined as to her visions and voices, her assumption of male attire, her faith, and her willingness to submit to the Church. Alone and undefended, the nineteen-year-old girl bore herself fearlessly, her shrewd answers, honesty, piety, and accurate memory often proving embarrassing to these severe inquisitors. Through her ignorance of theological terms, on a few occasions she was betrayed into making damaging statements. At the end of the hearings, a set of articles was drawn up by the clerks and submitted to the judges, who thereupon pronounced her revelations the work of the Devil and Joan herself a heretic. The theological faculty of the University of Paris approved the court's verdict.[/b]

Source: [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/mary/joan.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/mary/joan.htm[/url][/quote]

I am perfectly aware that St. Joan of Arc was found guilty before an ecclesiastical court; however, the Pope later decreed that court's sentence invalid.

[Resurrexi]

The following is an artistic depiction of St. Dominic presiding over the burning of heretics:

[img]http://z.hubpages.com/u/645894_f520.jpg[/img]

[Resurrexi]

I don't know if that actually happened historically or is an event that only occurred in the mind of the painter...

Edited June 20, 2009 by Resurrexi

[PeteWaldo]

[quote name='T-Bone _' post='1895873' date='Jun 19 2009, 08:05 AM']Nobody was killed for preaching the Gospel.[/quote]

Try the Waldenses for as one example.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldenses"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldenses[/url]

You might even agree that they hardly qualify under a category such as "...a violent band of murderders who could not be contained in a prison went all through the country murdering citizens daily......."

Edited June 25, 2009 by PeteWaldo

[PeteWaldo]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1896008' date='Jun 19 2009, 12:52 PM']From [i]a[/i] Protestant viewpoint (having once been a Protestant, this was my view), those "heretics" in the Reformation were seeing excessive Catholic practices (such as indulgences and burning people for their heresy) as unbiblical.[/quote]

And now as a Roman Catholic you likely still don't see it as biblical.

[quote name='Patrick' post='1896008' date='Jun 19 2009, 12:52 PM']Preaching the Bible against these practices puts the Protestant at odds with the Catholic church and they are deemed "heretics", and put to death as such. Thereby, they were put to death for preaching the Gospel.[/quote]

Indeed they were.

[quote name='Patrick' post='1896008' date='Jun 19 2009, 12:52 PM']Thus, Protestants hold a memory of persecution by Catholics from the Reformation similar to Orthodox remembering the 4th Crusade. Orthodox have at least received some form of papal apology. Have there been any papal apologies to Protestants for the persecutions the Catholic Church imposed? How much more they are needed! It is arguable that the 4th Crusade was accidental and that the See of Rome did not intend to attack Constantinople and worse. Whereas the attack upon Protestants was deliberate and intentional.[/quote]

Luk 6:43 [color="#000080"]For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.[/color]

Edited June 25, 2009 by PeteWaldo

[PeteWaldo]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1896107' date='Jun 19 2009, 04:16 PM']That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit

Error 33 of Exsurge Domine.

Yes it would be an error to say that it is agianst the will of the Spirit to burn heretics.

That [b][i]does not [/i][/b] translate to " all heretics should be burned."[/quote]

Can you provide any scriptural support to suggest that it is acceptable for men to burn [b]any[/b] heretics?

1 John 4:7 [color="#000080"]Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. 8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.[/color]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1896107' date='Jun 19 2009, 04:16 PM']That said the Catholic Church did condone the burning of Heretics by the secular authorities in the past. It would be an error to attribute such action as decidedly incorrect. The Church, and many popes for centuries declared that indeed it was the will of God that some heretics be put to death for their crimes agianst man and God. That said, the Church almost always plead for mercy to the secular authority.[/quote]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but you seem to be suggesting that the Church turned heretics over to the secular state to be burned (as Roman Catholic dogma calls for), but then turned around and plead of the secular authority to which they had turned them over, to extend mercy to them.

Though your post seems more knowledgeable than those that I read in this thread that seem to want to blame the secular authorities who acted on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church, as if the Roman Catholic Church were innocent of these persecutions.

Edited June 25, 2009 by PeteWaldo

[VoTeckam]

I could not talk myself into reading this whole thread so forgive me if someone else has asked, but for those of you who believe that killing heretics is permissible, who gets to decide if someone is a heretic?

Secondly, do they have to be burned? Are, say, firing sqaud or death by lion mauling also acceptable punishments?

[PeteWaldo]

[quote name='VoTeckam' post='1901278' date='Jun 25 2009, 12:16 PM']I could not talk myself into reading this whole thread so forgive me if someone else has asked, but for those of you who believe that killing heretics is permissible, who gets to decide if someone is a heretic?

Secondly, do they have to be burned? Are, say, firing sqaud or death by lion mauling also acceptable punishments?[/quote]
They were tortured and killed in many ways.

Edited June 25, 2009 by PeteWaldo

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='PeteWaldo' post='1901256' date='Jun 25 2009, 12:16 PM']Try the Waldenses for as one example.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldenses"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldenses[/url]

You might even agree that they hardly qualify under a category such as "...a violent band of murderders who could not be contained in a prison went all through the country murdering citizens daily......."[/quote]




The Waldenses were not pursecuted in anyway for preaching the Gospel. That is a nice fiction, but fiction regardless.

The Waldenses preached numerous heretical doctrines and resembled strongly the Cathari heresy. THey created a wholy ficticious history to justify their sects existance and testified that this was true. They elevated men to the office of bishop and performed Sacraments as if they were ordained when they were not. They allowed members to disolve thier marriage without fault or the consent of thier spouse. They declared the efficacy of a Sacrament was tied to the worthiness of the minister. They broke followers into caste, the Perfect and teh Friends, and declared that morality was differant for these differant people. (THis is quite differant than monastic life, there is nothing it is intrinsicly evil for a monk to do that is not intrinsicly evil for anyone to do.)

They specifically rejected purgatory, indulgences ( not just their sale mind you) and Prayers for the Dead.
They preached that the Catholic Church was the Community of Satan ( at least the Lombard ones did).


There is a lot there that is worthy of persecution, but preachingthe gospel is not among them.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='VoTeckam' post='1901278' date='Jun 25 2009, 12:16 PM']I could not talk myself into reading this whole thread so forgive me if someone else has asked, but for those of you who believe that killing heretics is permissible, who gets to decide if someone is a heretic?[/quote]

A panel of well-educated clerics decides.

In many cases, though, it was not very difficult. If someone had written a book calling the Pope the "son of Satan," preached that the Catholic Church was the "whore of babylon," and set up a rival church or ecclesial community, then it was pretty obvious that such a person was a heretic.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='PeteWaldo' post='1901274' date='Jun 25 2009, 12:50 PM']Can you provide any scriptural support to suggest that it is acceptable for men to burn [b]any[/b] heretics?[/quote]


Sure thing Matthew 22:1–14
[quote]Once more Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying: 2‘The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son. 3He sent his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding banquet, but they would not come. 4Again he sent other slaves, saying, “Tell those who have been invited: Look, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready; come to the wedding banquet.” 5But they made light of it and went away, one to his farm, another to his business, 6while the rest seized his slaves, maltreated them, and killed them. [color="#2E8B57"]7The king was enraged. He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.[/color] 8Then he said to his slaves, “The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9Go therefore into the main streets, and invite everyone you find to the wedding banquet.” 10Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both good and bad; so the wedding hall was filled with guests.
11 ‘But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing a wedding robe, 12and he said to him, “Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe?” And he was speechless. 13Then the king said to the attendants, “Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 14For many are called, but few are chosen.’[/quote]

That one is off the top of my head.



[quote name='PeteWaldo' post='1901274' date='Jun 25 2009, 12:50 PM']Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but you seem to be suggesting that the Church turned heretics over to the secular state to be burned (as Roman Catholic dogma calls for), but then turned around and plead of the secular authority to which they had turned them over, to extend mercy to them.

Though your post seems more knowledgeable than those that I read in this thread that seem to want to blame the secular authorities who acted on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church, as if the Roman Catholic Church were innocent of these persecutions.[/quote]



Yes I am saying that eccesiastical courts tried people for heresy. Heresy was a civil Crime, States viewed it as distructive to society and a potential instigator of God's Wrath. If found guilty, they were almost always set free if they recanted and agreed to not say or do such things again. If found guilty a second time ( or sometimes the first time) they were turned over to the Civil authorities for civil punishment. The Majority of the time ( particularly if the person had recanted agian, the Church authorites woudl formally request mercy for the convicted. Often this was granted, though what was concidered mercy varies considerably from place to place and time to time.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Don John of Austria

[PeteWaldo]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1901295' date='Jun 25 2009, 12:47 PM']Sure thing Matthew 22:1–14


That one is off the top of my head.[/quote]

Do you know why Jesus spoke in parables?

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1901295' date='Jun 25 2009, 12:47 PM']Yes I am saying that eccesiastical courts tried people for heresy. Heresy was a civil Crime, States viewed it as distructive to society and a potential instigator of God's Wrath. If found guilty, they were almost always set free if they recanted and agreed to not say or do such things again. If found guilty a second time ( or sometimes the first time) they were turned over to the Civil authorities for civil punishment. The Majority of the time ( particularly if the person had recanted agian, the Church authorites woudl formally request mercy for the convicted. Often this was granted, though what was concidered mercy varies considerably from place to place and time to time.[/quote]

Quite a stunning parallel to Islam.
[url="http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/apostasy.htm"]http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/apostasy.htm[/url]

[PeteWaldo]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1901293' date='Jun 25 2009, 12:46 PM']A panel of well-educated clerics decides.[/quote]
Jhn 8:7 [color="#000080"]So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. [/color]
[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1901293' date='Jun 25 2009, 12:46 PM']In many cases, though, it was not very difficult. If someone had written a book calling the Pope the "son of Satan," preached that the Catholic Church was the "whore of babylon," and set up a rival church or ecclesial community, then it was pretty obvious that such a person was a heretic.[/quote]

Edited June 25, 2009 by PeteWaldo