Should Heretics Be Burned?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1895429' date='Jun 18 2009, 06:04 PM']Another painful chapter of history to which the sons and daughters of the Church must return with a spirit of repentance is that of the acquiescence given, especially in certain centuries, to intolerance and even the use of violence in the service of truth.

It is true that an accurate historical judgment cannot prescind from careful study of the cultural conditioning of the times, as a result of which many people may have held in good faith that an authentic witness to the truth could include suppressing the opinions of others or at least paying no attention to them. Many factors frequently converged to create assumptions which justified intolerance and fostered an emotional climate from which only great spirits, truly free and filled with God, were in some way able to break free. Yet the consideration of mitigating factors does not exonerate the Church from the obligation to express profound regret for the weaknesses of so many of her sons and daughters who sullied her face, preventing her from fully mirroring the image of her crucified Lord, the supreme witness of patient love and of humble meekness. From these painful moments of the past a lesson can be drawn for the future, leading all Christians to adhere fully to the sublime principle stated by the Council: "The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with both gentleness and power".

[Pope John Paul II, [i]Tertio Millenio Adveniente[/i], no. 35][/quote]

It sounds to me like the Holy Father is talking about some of the torture which occurred during the various inquisitions.

[Patrick]

Let me respond to a couple criticisms of my post before they come up.

What of Constantine?

Is what is personally applicable institutionally applicable?

Standards are a bit different for those in the difficult position of the [i]physical[/i] lives of their people, i.e. the state. Also, we are grateful to those individuals who take up Christ's commandment to lay down their lives for us. I wish I were better read on this topic to be able to supply quotes, but I'm not, I'm afraid.

But for those in charge of the [i]spiritual[/i] lives of their people, i.e. the Church, it can obviously not employ the same methods, for spiritual life and danger are different than physical life and danger. Criminals, if being unruly with respect to the state, will be judged by the state. [b]But [i]heretics[/i] whose crime is [i]heresy[/i] must be treated according to the spiritual means employed by the Church, not the physical means of imprisonment, torture, and execution employed by the State[/b].

Has the relationship between Church and State been perfect in the Byzantine East? No, of course not. It took time to get it worked out, for instance.

My point is, though, that it is unfortunate that the Catholic Church ever entered the arena of the State, because at the very least it muddies things.

In my previous post, the first paragraph was more State-oriented, and the latter more Church/individual-holiness oriented. I apologize that I was not clear about this.

EDIT: Maybe applicable: Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Patrick

[Guest]

I think the answer in these times is no. Although if the answer is yes then abortion doctors should be burned also if they dont stop what they are doing.

[Patrick]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1895450' date='Jun 18 2009, 05:07 PM']I think the answer in these times is no.[/quote]

I'm still not sure that, as a Roman Catholic, you can answer that way. As I'm reading through the reading suggestions of the previous posts, it's seeming to be more and more the case that that papal bull is in fact still in effect today and to reject burning of heretics as being the will of God is against Church teaching, even today, because I cannot yet find anything to convince me otherwise. But I'm not yet finished yet, and so have not responded.

But even if it were not to be in effect today, then how does the Catholic feel about the ex cathedra pronouncement that has been either revoked or so marginalized as to be not currently relevant? I thought ex cathedra = in Magisterium = infallible teaching of the Church, not subject to the whims of zeitgeist and passing moral sensibilities of the times. If, indeed, we can pass off this ex cathedra pronouncement as just historico-politically irrelevant, then that leaves open the door to decry [i]any[/i] such pronouncement similarly. But I might be mistaken on this. I'm trying to sort that out too.

[MichaelF]

One of the achievements of Christian (descended) civilization is that we have progressed to the point where our society is robust enough, internally and externally, that we currently have no need of the extreme (though licit) methods we resorted to in the past.

We don't have to execute heretics, as we have the internal means to confront and expose them.

We don't have to Crusade to liberate Christian lands, as most pagan nations lack the wherewithal to assail us. Currently (though WWII was a Crusade in all but name).

France no longer needs a God-guided Saint to lead them against English occupiers.

Other means prevail. Today.

All of that because we did those things of old. Had we not, the World of today would have been fashioned to someone else's plan. As it was, we didn't preserve the civilization our Faith built as well as we might. As witnessed by the Mohammedan dominance in regions where a Christian Empire once preserve the land where our Faith was born, and the moribund Protestant "National Churches" of northern Europe, fatally undermined from within (having lost the Diving Protection the Universal Church enjoys).

[MichaelF]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1895450' date='Jun 18 2009, 07:07 PM']I think the answer in these times is no. Although if the answer is yes then abortion doctors should be burned also if they dont stop what they are doing.[/quote]


Actually, no. Check the definition of heretic.

They're just run-of-the-mill childkillers.

Edited June 18, 2009 by MichaelF

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

This is an interesting topic. It is one I hope to bring forward in dialogue locally with some of the Priests when I visit the local Catholic Church.

I hope we can continue this in honored respect as it can be a touchy situation regarding times when things were more violent and it was a survival time in history, where ideologies followed through meant existence and often time people were killed over dialogue. Death was common and around everyone in those days of old. Human life was respected, but could easily be taken in those times by all fronts. This is what I understand, and as people lived it was common to find people not living past 35. Only until the 20th Century do we find people giving more respect for life, and death was less common, if not eliminated out of some peoples lives until they reached much older ages. We fail to remember how it was.

[OraProMe]

If I was still trying to justify my homosexuality I'd say that the papal approval of burning heretics at the stake is a great example of cultural based Catholicism. Something which arose out of the political climate rather than any real religious reasons.

Maybe that's how we can explain away the taking of human life in such a disgusting, painful way........

Sorry, but if Exsurge Domine qualifies as infallible then I'm a heretic, and proud to be one.

Edited June 19, 2009 by OraProMe

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1895831' date='Jun 19 2009, 03:43 AM']Sorry, but if Exsurge Domine qualifies as infallible then I'm a heretic, and proud to be one.[/quote]

[PeteWaldo]

[quote name='MichaelF' post='1895363' date='Jun 18 2009, 02:54 PM']Luke 22:36 [color="#FF0000"]"But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."
[/color][/quote]

What was done with one of the two sword swords that were deemed enough?

Luk 22:50 [color="#000080"]And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. [/color]

And what did Jesus do?

Luk 22:51 [color="#000080"]And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him. [/color]

Jesus gave the apostles a lesson in exactly the verse that I quoted, that you seem to have thought was contradicted by the verse you replied with.
He taught them how to love their enemies:

Luk 6:27 [color="#000080"]But I say unto you which hear, [b]Love your enemies[/b], do good to them which hate you, [/color]

[quote name='MichaelF' post='1895363' date='Jun 18 2009, 02:54 PM']Matthew 10:34 [color="#FF0000"]"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword." [/color]

Missed those verses, did we?[/quote]

No I didn't miss those verses at all.
You don't seem to understand what sword Jesus is speaking of:

Eph 6:17 [color="#000080"]And take the helmet of salvation, and the [b]sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God[/b]: [/color]

Hbr 4:12 [color="#000080"][b]For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword[/b], piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. [/color]

Rev 2:16 [color="#000080"]Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with [b]the sword of my mouth.[/b][/color]

Edited June 19, 2009 by PeteWaldo

[PeteWaldo]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1895138' date='Jun 18 2009, 07:52 AM']If, during the Middle Ages when prisons weren't as great as they are now, a violent band of murderders who could not be contained in a prison went all through the country murdering citizens daily, do you think it would contrary to Christian charity for the State to execute such men?[/quote]

Folks were killed for preaching the Gospel and denying transubstantiation and such, not for being "a violent band of murderders".

1John 3:15 [color="#000080"]Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. [/color]

Edited June 19, 2009 by PeteWaldo

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='PeteWaldo' post='1895866' date='Jun 19 2009, 06:01 AM']Folks were killed for preaching the Gospel and denying transubstantiation and such, not for being "a violent band of murderders".

1John 3:15 [color="#000080"]Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. [/color][/quote]

Nobody was killed for preaching the Gospel.

[Patrick]

[quote name='T-Bone _' post='1895873' date='Jun 19 2009, 07:05 AM']Nobody was killed for preaching the Gospel.[/quote]

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. 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.

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.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Patrick

[Don John of Austria]

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."


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.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Don John of Austria

[Don John of Austria]

[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. 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.

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]


Why would the Church appologize for the protection of the Church fromn those who would destroy Her?

The Protestants by the way did plenty of killing of Catholics, far mor Catholic lives were lost in persecusion by Protestants than the other way around. Take a look at Elizabeth, she killed quite literally millions of Irish Catholics and tens if not hundreds of thousands of English Catholics. That is just in one not particularly impressive Country.