Should Heretics Be Burned?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1896134' date='Jun 19 2009, 06:12 PM']Inappropriate means is wrong. I refer to my earlier post that the Catholic Church should not have used physical means employed by the state, but rather spiritual means should be employed by the Church. If the person's crime is heresy [i]per se[/i], their execution should not be condoned by the Church! If the relevant crime they are being executed for is not indeed heresy, and is rather something that concerns the state and physical welfare of the people, then the bull should have mentioned it in terms of that crime, and not heresy.[/quote]


Except the Church has the right to the Temporal sword not just the sword of the Spirit.

Unam Sanctum

" Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: 'Behold, here are two swords' [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest. "



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. These are grave crimes indeed when the Church is the glue binding people together. In the 1520's Europe was in constant danger from the Turks. 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. Spain and Italy were not just in fear of being attacked but were regularly being attacked by North African Slavers and Suliman the Magnificant had laid Seige to Rhodes ( the last Hold out in the East), and was already promising his men that they would counquer the "Red Apple" i.e. Rome.

During all of this Heretics who went about founding new churches and destroying the fabric of society. Further they were greatly effecting the military capabilities of Christendom... in 1525 the Tuetonic orders Grand Master became a Lutheran and secularized the Order! Private heresy was never really punished, and public heresy was a big deal it had all kinds of effects.

This doesn't even include the confiscation of church property, etc. etc.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Don John of Austria

[Apotheoun]

Pope Innocent III initially excommunicated the leaders of the Fourth Crusade for attacking Constantinople, but later rescinded those excommunications and eventually threatened excommunication to anyone who gave aid to the Greeks in restoring their rule in the territories of the former Byzantine Empire.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

The attempts of Pope Innocent to suppress and replace the Ecumenical Patriarchate with the newly created Latin Patriarchate are also a lamentable fact of history. That said, Pope John Paul II apologized to the Eastern Orthodox for the actions of Latin Catholics during and after the Fourth Crusade.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II TO HIS BEATITUDE CHRISTODOULOS, ARCHBISHOP OF ATHENS AND PRIMATE OF GREECE


Friday, 4 May 2001

Your Beatitude,
Venerable Members of the Holy Synod,
Most Reverend Bishops of the Orthodox Church of Greece,

Christòs anèsti!

1. In the joy of Easter, I greet you with the words of the Apostle Paul to the Church in Thessalonica: "May the Lord of peace himself give you peace at all times and in every way" (2Th 3:16).

It gives me great pleasure to meet Your Beatitude in this Primatial See of the Orthodox Church of Greece. I offer heartfelt greetings to the members of the Holy Synod and all the hierarchy. I salute the clergy, the monastic communities and the lay faithful throughout this noble land. Peace be with you all!

2. I wish first of all to express to you the affection and regard of the Church of Rome. Together we share the apostolic faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior; we have in common the apostolic heritage and the sacramental bond of Baptism; and therefore we are all members of God’s family, called to serve the one Lord and to proclaim his Gospel to the world. The Second Vatican Council called on Catholics to regard the members of the other Churches "as brothers and sisters in the Lord" (Unitatis Redintegratio, 3), and this supernatural bond of brotherhood between the Church of Rome and the Church of Greece is strong and abiding.

Certainly, we are burdened by past and present controversies and by enduring misunderstandings. But in a spirit of mutual charity these can and must be overcome, for that is what the Lord asks of us. Clearly there is a need for a liberating process of purification of memory. For the occasions past and present, when sons and daughters of the Catholic Church have sinned by action or omission against their Orthodox brothers and sisters, may the Lord grant us the forgiveness we beg of him.

Some memories are especially painful, and some events of the distant past have left deep wounds in the minds and hearts of people to this day. I am thinking of the disastrous sack of the imperial city of Constantinople, which was for so long the bastion of Christianity in the East. It is tragic that the assailants, who had set out to secure free access for Christians to the Holy Land, turned against their own brothers in the faith. The fact that they were Latin Christians fills Catholics with deep regret. How can we fail to see here the mysterium iniquitatis at work in the human heart? To God alone belongs judgment, and therefore we entrust the heavy burden of the past to his endless mercy, imploring him to heal the wounds which still cause suffering to the spirit of the Greek people.

Together we must work for this healing if the Europe now emerging is to be true to its identity, which is inseparable from the Christian humanism shared by East and West.

3. At this meeting, I also wish to assure Your Beatitude that the Church of Rome looks with unaffected admiration to the Orthodox Church of Greece for the way in which she has preserved her heritage of faith and Christian life. The name of Greece resounds wherever the Gospel is preached. The names of her cities are known to Christians everywhere from the reading of the Acts of the Apostles and the Letters of Saint Paul. From the Apostolic era until now, the Orthodox Church of Greece has been a rich source from which the Church of the West too has drawn for her liturgy, spirituality and jurisprudence (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, 14). A patrimony of the whole Church are the Fathers, privileged interpreters of the apostolic tradition, and the Councils, whose teachings are a binding element of all Christian faith. The universal Church can never forget what Greek Christianity has given her, nor cease to give thanks for the enduring influence of the Greek tradition.

The Second Vatican Council stressed to Catholics the Orthodox love of the liturgy, through which the faithful "enter into communion with the Most Holy Trinity and become sharers in the divine nature" (Unitatis Redintegratio,15). In offering liturgical worship pleasing to God through the centuries, in preaching the Gospel even in dark and difficult times, in presenting an unfailing
didaskalia, inspired by the Scriptures and the great Tradition of the Church, the Orthodox Church of Greece has brought forth a host of saints who intercede for all God’s People before the Throne of Grace. In the saints we see the ecumenism of holiness which, with God’s help, will eventually draw us into full communion, which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love (cf. Slavorum Apostoli, 27).

4. Finally, Your Beatitude, I wish to express the hope that we may walk together in the ways of the Kingdom of God. In 1965, the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI by a mutual act removed and cancelled from the Church’s memory and life the sentence of excommunication between Rome and Constantinople. This historic gesture stands as a summons for us to work ever more fervently for the unity which is Christ’s will. Division between Christians is a sin before God and a scandal before the world. It is a hindrance to the spread of the Gospel, because it makes our proclamation less credible. The Catholic Church is convinced that she must do all in her power to "prepare the way of the Lord" and to "make straight his paths" (Mt 3:3); and she understands that this must be done in company with other Christians – in fraternal dialogue, in cooperation and in prayer. If certain models of reunion of the past no longer correspond to the impulse towards unity which the Holy Spirit has awakened in Christians everywhere in recent times, we must be all the more open and attentive to what the Spirit is now saying to the Churches (cf. Rev 2:11).

In this Easter season, my mind turns to the encounter on the road to Emmaus. Without knowing it, the two disciples were walking with the Risen Lord, who became their teacher as he interpreted for them the Scriptures, "beginning with Moses and all the prophets" (Lk 24:27). But they did not grasp his teaching at first. Only when their eyes were opened and they recognized him did they understand. Then they acknowledged the power of his words, saying to each other: "Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?" (Lk 24:32). The quest for reconciliation and full communion means that we too must search the Scriptures, in order to be taught by God (cf. 1 Th 4:9).

Your Beatitude, with faith in Jesus Christ, "the firstborn from the dead" (Col 1:18), and in a spirit of fraternal charity and lively hope, I wish to assure you that the Catholic Church is irrevocably committed to the path of unity with all the Churches. Only in this way will the one People of God shine forth in the world as the sign and instrument of intimate union with God and of the unity of the entire human race (cf. Lumen Gentium, 1).

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1896200' date='Jun 19 2009, 07:48 PM']The attempts of Pope Innocent to suppress and replace the Ecumenical Patriarchate with the newly created Latin Patriarchate are also a lamentable fact of history. That said, Pope John Paul II apologized to the Eastern Orthodox for the actions of Latin Catholics during and after the Fourth Crusade.[/quote]


Without getting into a long drawn out debate abou tthe fourth crusade which has little place on this thread, the fact is the Crusaders were excommnicated, like most excommunications they where/are lifted when satisfaction for proper entry back into communion occured. JPII's statements are often interpreted as an apology, they are a far cry from an statement that we should not have tried to bring the Greeks back into the Church, or that establishment of the Latin Patriarchy was "regretable". He said "It is tragic that the assailants, who set out to secure free access for Christians to the Holy Land, turned against their brothers in the faith. The fact that they were Latin Christians fills Catholics with deep regret." which is a referance to the military aspects of the crusade but not the establishment of the Latin Patriarchate.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1896200' date='Jun 19 2009, 07:48 PM']The attempts of Pope Innocent to suppress and replace the Ecumenical Patriarchate with the newly created Latin Patriarchate are also a lamentable fact of history. That said, Pope John Paul II apologized to the Eastern Orthodox for the actions of Latin Catholics during and after the Fourth Crusade.[/quote]

He apologized for the sacking of Constantinople, not for the replacing of a schismatic bishop with a member of the Catholic Church.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1896233' date='Jun 19 2009, 06:25 PM']. . . JPII's statements are often interpreted as an apology, they are a far cry from an statement that we should not have tried to bring the Greeks back into the Church, or that establishment of the Latin Patriarchy was "regretable". He said "It is tragic that the assailants, who set out to secure free access for Christians to the Holy Land, turned against their brothers in the faith. The fact that they were Latin Christians fills Catholics with deep regret." which is a referance to the military aspects of the crusade but not the establishment of the Latin Patriarchate.[/quote]
John Paul II made lots of apologizes for the failing of the sons of the Church throughout history, and we should not try to lessen the impact of his intentions in that area. As far as bringing the Orthodox back into communion with Rome is concerned (or Rome into communion with the Orthodox -- as the Orthodox probably talk about it), that is a commendable thing, but it will never -- as both you and I know -- through acts of violence. The previous pope (and I am sure Benedict agrees with him on this) condemned the use of violence in defense of the truth.

Edited June 20, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1896235' date='Jun 19 2009, 06:35 PM']He apologized for the sacking of Constantinople, not for the replacing of a schismatic bishop with a member of the Catholic Church.[/quote]
The attempts by Innocent III to suppress the Byzantine rite were reprehensible, but I do not expect you to agree.

Edited June 20, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Resurrexi]

I doubt that he was trying to suppress the Byzantine rite, just the schismatics.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1896243' date='Jun 19 2009, 06:39 PM']I doubt that he was trying to suppress the Byzantine rite, just the schismatics.[/quote]
Actually he did try to suppress the rite itself, by replacing it with the Roman Rite in Hagia Sophia and the various Byzantine Churches that came under the control of the crusaders.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1896246' date='Jun 19 2009, 08:43 PM']Actually he did try to suppress the rite itself, by replacing it with the Roman Rite in Hagia Sophia and the various Byzantine Churches that came under the control of the crusaders.[/quote]

If Latins were living in those lands, it would only make sense that they be able to hear the Liturgy in their own rite.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1896241' date='Jun 19 2009, 08:38 PM']The attempts by Innocent III to suppress the Byzantine rite were reprehensible, but I do not expect you to agree.[/quote]


I do not believe that any actual Rite should be suppressed. Had the Emperor who made his bargin with the Crusaders not been murdered this would have probably never have happened. However, I thin it likly thet the [i]suppression[/i] had at least as much to do with who he knew was loyal to Rome as with any ill will towards the Greek rite. Innocent III did not seem to be particularly hostile other Eastern rites.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1896250' date='Jun 19 2009, 06:51 PM']If Latins were living in those lands, it would only make sense that they be able to hear the Liturgy in their own rite.[/quote]
Latins made up less than five percent of the population, and yet the Roman Rite became normative throughout the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople. It is the events that follow the Fourth Crusade (i.e., the sixty years of Latin rule) that -- more than anything -- caused the bitterness of the Orthodox against the Western Church. As one of my professors at FUS used to say, ". . . the schism between East and West didn't really happen in 1054; instead, it happened during the years 1204 to 1261."

[Don John of Austria]

Regardless that has nothing to do with the burning of heretics or apologizing to the Protestants.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1896256' date='Jun 19 2009, 06:58 PM']Regardless that has nothing to do with the burning of heretics or apologizing to the Protestants.[/quote]
John Paul II -- in the purification of memory ceremony back in 2000 -- apologized for the acts of violence performed by the sons of the Church against heretics, jews, etc. That is old news.

Edited June 20, 2009 by Apotheoun