Featured Explain about atheists to me

evil is evil no matter who does it. But protestants are free to condemn it - where as catholics have this idea that their ecumenical councils were "infallible" so that when one calls for the "extermination of Jews and heretics" they have a hard time condemning it as a crime against humanity -- even all these many centuries later.

 

Catholic Popes promised their followers "more heaven" if they would go out and kill Catholics who followed a rival pope. No wonder their supposedly "infallible" ecumenical councils could pass laws calling for the "extermination" of Jews and heretics.

 

There is no Catholic teaching that says kill anyone. Easily proven wrong by citing catechism.

Anyone who kills has sinned against Catholic teaching, period.

Official teaching of the SDA, however, states abortion is ok. There is no squirming around that.

 

I'm your Huckleberry ...

Official Roman Catholic teachings, whether Papal [decree, bull etc], Council, Catholic Canon Law, Chatechism, etc, and even historical practice is that [supposedly] the "innocent" are not to be "killed". It is simply a matter of Roman definition then [written like a slick wordsmith, snake-oils salesman, and contains the venom of the dragon hidden beneath a sheath of lambskin], who is "innocent" [even "righteous"] in their written law. For according to their written statements, in their Law, whosoever is deemed an obstinate "heretic" is not [but is even latae sententiae excommunicated/guilty] "innocent" and may be put to death, since they are a "grave" threat to all "innocent" life, and may be put down as a rabid beast, and is not therefore "murder", but a "just penalty", even a "just war", and even called a "just 'defense'", and "preservation" of the "common [or "universal"] good".

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

I pity you, really. You are zealous of a faith you do not understand, and will ultimately devour you should you get in its way, or even apparently get in its way, or suits its purpose to simply use you to its own ends, or if you do understand and pretend otherwise, my pity deepens for you even more so, because of such a masked cruelty.

Let's go ...

 

Let's go:

Catechism of the Catholic Church; PART THREE; LIFE IN CHRIST; SECTION TWO; THE TEN COMMANDMENTS; CHAPTER TWO; "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF"; ARTICLE 5; THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT

" ... 2258 "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."56 ...

56 CDF, instruction, Donum vitae, intro. 5. ..."

"... 2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous."61 The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere. ..."

"... Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent." 68 ..."
​

If you really want to deal with "abortion" on the Roman side, let's see why the Roman Catholic Supreme Court 'justices' [they are Roman justice] allows abortion in protestant America, in such as Roe V. Wade, etc [and are not latae sententiae excommunicated for it, it is because they are doing exactly what Romanism ordered them to do, by their own oath they took to advance its cause over and above the Constitution of the united States, to not only demoralize their enemy, but to scandalize and to weaken its base, by elimination of children who would be raised against them. For it is simply a modern way of continuing that age-old warfare, a 'just war' against the enemies of Romanism, even as they smashed the heads of children against the rocks, and tore open the wombs of the women by the sword of the state during those dark times, and even today during the 'enlightenment' ...:

"... Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72 ...

... 72 Cf. CDF, DÚnum vitae I,1."
​

How does Romanism define "innocent", and "grave offense", and "heresy", "heretics", "just penalty", "just war", "just defense", "common good", "legitimate authority". Let's look more closely, at their own sources:

[Latin] “...C. XLVII. Non sunt homicidae qui adversus excommunicatos zelo matris ecclesiae armantur

Item Urbanus II. Godifredo, Lucano Episcopo 607. ..."

[English] “...They are not to be accounted murderers who, zealous for the mother church, have killed excommunicated persons. ...” [“The Decretum of Gratian Part 2 Case 23 Question 5 chapter 47-48”; Decreti Secunda Pars Causa XXIII. Quest. V. c. 47-49; [47,48 specifically; section 49 given in 'defense' of these actions/reasons]] –
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/collections/cul/texts/ldpd_6029936_001/pages/ldpd_6029936_001_00000531.html?toggle=image&menu=maximize&top=&left= AND http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/collections/cul/texts/ldpd_6029936_001/pages/ldpd_6029936_001_00000532.html?toggle=image&menu=maximize&top=&left=
​

This is because Romanism, does not accept, define, obstinate "heretics", etc as "innocent", but "guilty" of a "grave" crime in "moral" matters and are more dangerous than physical killers or thieves, and as such they contain "moral" contagion, "heretical" ideologies, they are rabid beasts to be put down by any and all means defined.

Let's continue this ... since I have not even scratched the surface of their wickedness, hidden behind 'smooth' words.

 

Oh good grief, you are living in a fantasy world with things like this dreamed up from nothing. The next thing you will be telling us that we are roasting little children in our homes daily as a sacramental requirement.

 

Continuing:

Here is what the Roman Catholic Catechism [CCC], [Thomas Aquinas] Summa Theologica, and Roman Catholic Encyclopedia, [current] Roman Catholic Canon Law [and commentators], History, Popes, Papal Bulls, Cardinals, Bishops, etc., say on the subject:

[Roman Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church, from here on "CCC"]

" … ARTICLE 6
MORAL CONSCIENCE

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct. ..." [Roman Catholic Catechism; Erroneous Judgment] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P62.HTM​

[CCC]

" … II. THE DEFINITION OF SIN


1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121 ..." [Roman Catholic Catechism; Definition of Sin] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6A.HTM​

The Roman Catholic Church just previously defined what being in "right conscience" was in regards to "moral conduct"... and it includes accepting her "authority and her teaching". To not accept, or to reject her "authority and her teaching" is then a blatant violation [according to this system] of "right conscience" in "moral conduct", being a "desire contrary to the eternal law" [to be seen in more depth further in], injuring "human solidarity" ["common good"] [and thus needs a "just penalty", a "just defense", a "just war" to stop the 'attack' of the heretical ideology] and therefore is "sin" as defined by the Roman Catholic theological position which defines all things regarding "faith and morals". By that definition then, any and all persons who are then continually and knowingly ["obstinate ill will"] in an open state of "denial" and/or "rejection" of the "faith" [Roman Catholicism] or in open knowing "denial" and/or "rejection" of the official doctrinal position given by Roman Pontiffs [popes] and/or Official Councils, is then for those persons to be in "mortal sin".

[CCC]

" … IV. THE GRAVITY OF SIN: MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN


1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131 ..." [Roman Catholic Catechism; Mortal Sin] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm​

"... The gravity of the matter is judged from the teaching of Scripture, the definitions of councils and popes, and also from reason. ..." [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; Sin] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6C.HTM​

Remember it is said and written by them that,

"The pope's will stands for [in the place of] reason."

" ...quia in his, quae vult, ei est pro ratione voluntas (Instit. de jure natu. § sed quod principi. haec quippe.)

and he can do these things, because his will stands for reason. ..." - DECRETALES D. GREGORII PAPAE IX, SUAE INTEGRITATI UNA CUM GLOSSIS RESTTUTE Ad exemplar Romanum diligenter recognite, LUGDUNI, 1584, liber I, titulus VII – De Translatione Episcopi, cap. III, col. 217. (138)​

We then see at this point that "grave matter" [and "gravity of the matter"] on "faith and morals" is also judged by the "definitions of councils and popes" of the Roman Catholic Church. So when one is obstinately and voluntarily in clear, full, open and conscious denial of the Roman Catholic Churches official doctrinal position, and unwilling under any circumstance to alter their decision/position, "she" may then condemn at will by those very "definitions of councils and popes". According to the Roman Catholic Church [as it has in the past, to excommunicate, bring under interdict, consign, or worse] is then without recourse, so that "she" may then use "force" [whatever it deems fit or necessary] to correct/reclaim or even destroy/eliminate "heretics" [for these who deny Roman Catholic teaching are then considered in "erroneous judgment" in regard to "faith and morals", and being "reprobate", "wicked" and "evil", openly and defiantly committing "mortal sin", supposedly endangering not only themselves [like someone classified as a rabid "beast"], but also an evil danger to the faith/faithful of the Roman Catholic Church and the "common good" [as defined by themselves, "injures human solidarity"; thus allowing for "just penalty", "just war" and "just defense" [for they say heresy, disagreement with her definitions, is an attack upon herself and all peoples, since she claims authority over all peoples]...and should the person/s not "repent" or "recant" properly then they are considered hopeless and forever lost, an immediate and overt danger to themselves, to society and any others who may come into contact with them and so they may be freely handed over for "justice" or to be warred against by whatever means necessary according to law [falls under the Roman Catholic Church's definition and category of "just war" [a holy "crusade"]; no longer seeking the heretics [RCC def.] conversion, but rather their swift and total elimination]].

So we now see that the Roman Catholic Church in her dogmas teaches that to "knowingly" and "voluntarily" reject the official doctrinal teaching of the "Pope" is to automatically reject the LAW of GOD, being the eternal "Divine Law", because it is taught of the "Pope" that, “... Furthermore, he is, so to say, the living law, for he is considered as having all law in the treasury of his heart ("in scrinio pectoris"; Boniface VIII. c. i, "De Constit." in VI). …" [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; Canon Law, The Living Law] - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09056a.htm#III which is then to commit [according to their definition] a "mortal sin", thus being in "erroneous judgment" in the "grave matters" of "faith and morals", and is therefore subject to whatever penalty/judgment is given.

So, by this, it is therefore claimed to be theirs ["Pope" and the "Church" [RCC]] to condemn when deemed fit:

"... Moreover, the powers conferred in these regards are plenary. ... nothing is withheld. ... They do not need the antecedent approval of any other tribunal. ... It is theirs to judge offences against the laws, to impose and to remit penalties. ... Further, since the Church is the kingdom of the truth, so that an essential note in all her members is the act of submission by which they accept the doctrine of Christ in its entirety, supreme power in this kingdom carries with it a supreme magisterium — authority to declare that doctrine and to prescribe a rule of faith obligatory on all." [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; The Pope] - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm​

 

Acts 24:14 KJB - Yet, please allow this quote, "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:​

So, let us ask, “What does 'she' [RCC] deem must happen to those 'she' finds as Heretics and/or harboring what 'she' deems Heresy?”, but before we can answer that question more fully, let us ask, “What does “she” [RCC] deem as “heresy”?, and what does she deem fit for them?”

[Roman Catholic Church Encyclopedia, referred to from here on as CCE, when needful]

"...Pertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a point of faith clearly defined by the Church is heresy pure and simple, heresy in the first degree. …" [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; Heresy] - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm#REF_VIII​

[CCC]

" … 2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11 ..." [Roman Catholic Catechism; PART THREE: LIFE IN CHRIST; SECTION TWO THE TEN COMMANDMENTS; CHAPTER ONE YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; Article 1 THE FIRST COMMANDMENT; I. "You Shall Worship the Lord Your God and Him Only Shall You Serve"; Ending Notation 11, refers to Canon 751 of Roman Catholic Canon Law] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7C.HTM​

Let us also consider the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas on the subject:

"Summa Theologica: Article 3. Whether heretics ought to be tolerated? ..."

"… 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. ..."

"...Yet if heretics be altogether uprooted by death, this is not contrary to Our Lord's command ..."

"...For this reason the Church not only admits to Penance those who return from heresy for the first time, but also safeguards their lives, and sometimes by dispensation, restores them to the ecclesiastical dignities which they may have had before, should their conversion appear to be sincere: we read of this as having frequently been done for the good of peace. But when they fall again, after having been received, this seems to prove them to be inconstant in faith, wherefore when they return again, they are admitted to Penance, but are not delivered from the pain of death. ..."

"...Reply to Objection 1. In God's tribunal, those who return are always received, because God is a searcher of hearts, and knows those who return in sincerity. But the Church cannot imitate God in this, for she presumes that those who relapse after being once received, are not sincere in their return; hence she does not debar them from the way of salvation, but neither does she protect them from the sentence of death. …" [Summa Theologica The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas

Second and Revised Edition, 1920
Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province
Online Edition Copyright © 2008 by Kevin Knight
Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.
Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.
APPROBATIRDINIS
Nihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.
Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis Angliæ
MARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ] - http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm​

Let us now keep in mind that the "sentence of death" can [and even must be, when "necessary" and able in a issue of "grave matter"] be given for what the Roman Catholic Church deems "Heresy" [as defined: "Pertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a point of faith clearly defined by the Church" -- whatever "she" may deem this is] in the matter of "faith and morals".

So are such "heretics", and their 'children' "innocent" according to Romanism? Nope. Guilty, even in the womb ... for having imbibed the words, through the womb, of heretics ...

They slaughtered untold millions, unborn children in the womb, babes sucking at the breast, little children, adults, smashed them, tore them open, burned them [mostly alive], threw them over cliffs, drowned them, quartered them, racked them, etc, etc... Let's see that ...

 

Tell you what, why not ask your own Canon Lawyers about what I have written. Ask them if an obstinate heretic is under the definition of "innocent" according to Roman Canon Law, ask them if obstinate heretics are considered "unjust agressors", and what should be done with them according to Canon Law. Go on, I have the Canon Lawyers in what they themselves have written on the subject.

I pity you in your ignorance, really. It is sad, because like most Roman Catholics [as I used to be for many years], they do not carefully READ their own doctrinal material, but spend all their energies in useless forms, phrases and platitudes [none of which really represent their written material at all].

Therefore, do yourself a favor, go ask. Be serious. Ask for straight answers from them. Read CAREFULLY their answers.

 

We are about to see that the power, council and approval to do so are still in "her" to kill "heretics" by condemning them to death [though they would say that they condemnded themselves to death against Romanism]. It is not gone, nor removed, but merely in "abeyance"... [not at 'this time' openly practiced...but not removed.]

"ABEYANCE ...

…Def: 1 : a lapse in succession during which there is no person in whom a title is vested; 2 : temporary inactivity : suspension ..." [Merrian-Webster's Online Dictionary; "Abeyance"] - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abeyance or http://www.britannica.com/bps/dictionary?query=abeyance​

So, is this "old news, old ways"?

[CCE]

"...Like other powers and rights, the power of rejecting heresy adapts itself in practice to circumstances of time and place, and, especially, of social and political conditions. ...

"...The ancient discipline charged the bishops with the duty of searching out the heresies in their diocese and checking the progress of error by any means at their command. ..."

"...In some particularly aggravated cases sentence of death was pronounced upon heretics..."

"...The Synod of Verona (1184) imposed on bishops the duty to search out the heretics in their dioceses and to hand them over to the secular power. Other synods, and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) under Pope Innocent III, repeated and enforced this decree, especially the Synod of Toulouse (1229), which established inquisitors in every parish (one priest and two laymen). ..."

"...The present-day legislation against heresy has lost nothing of its ancient severity; but the penalties on heretics are now only of the spiritual order; all the punishments which require the intervention of the secular arm have fallen into abeyance. ..."

"...To restrain and bring back her rebellious sons the Church uses both her own spiritual power and the secular power at her command. ..." [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; Heresy] - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm#REF_VIII​

... for "all the punishments which require the secular arm" at "her command" have merely fallen into "abeyance" [merely a temporary cessation, until "she" can use it openly again], but have "lost nothing of its ancient severity" in this "present-day legislation against heresy"... for the Roman Catholic Church, in this practice of condemning "heretics" to "death", actually hides itself, biding its time and "...adapts itself in practice to circumstances of time and place...", until "she" may condemn to death whom "she" deems as heretics openly.

For those who need to read this again do so carefully. LOOK! UNDERSTAND! These words clearly reveal that the [H]RCC may still bring about DEATH to a Heretic as they deem fit [when they are able], but it is yet at this time not being enforced (that is openly known of), but it is NOT GONE, NOT DONE AWAY, NOT REMOVED! The punishment for HERESY (as defined by the [H]RCC) is still VERY REAL (it is merely dormant and sleeping, not dead), and is only biding its time, waiting to resurface in it all of its UNMITIGATED FURY, for as the previous quote given says, "...adapts itself in practice to circumstances of time and place..." and as soon as it is needed again, as soon as it can, and wherever it can and will do so, it can be drawn upon in FULL FORCE! The Bible declares that it is going to happen again soon, The Second Beast makes the Image to that of the First Beast, and will be the "sword" in "her" hand:

Revelation 13:12 KJB - And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

Daniel 12:1 KJB - And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.​

 

In the Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia, it says:

“The question has been raised whether it be lawful for the Church, not merely to sentence a delinquent to physical penalties, but itself to inflict these penalties. As to this, it is sufficient to note that the right of the Church to invoke the aid of the civil power to execute her sentences is expressly asserted by Boniface VIII in the Bull "Unam Sanctam". This declaration, even if it be not one of those portions of the Bull in which the pope is defining a point of faith, is so clearly connected with the parts expressly stated to possess such character that it is held by theologians to be theologically certain (Palmieri, "De Romano Pontifice", thes. 21). The question is of theoretical, rather than of practical importance, since civil Governments have long ceased to own the obligation of enforcing the decisions of any ecclesiastical authority. This indeed became inevitable when large sections of the population ceased to be Catholic. The state of things supposed could only exist when a whole nation was thoroughly Catholic in spirit, and the force of papal decisions was recognized by all as binding in conscience.” [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; The Pope] - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm​

It is coming to the united States of America, because the whole nation does not actually have to be Roman Catholic in "population", but only in "spirit". Apostate protestantism, will follow the orders of her "mother", as Athaliah and Jezebel, as Salome and Herodias ...

See how that important question that "has been raised" and asked was avoided?

"...David of Augsburg (cf. Preger, "Der Traktat des David von Augshurg uber die Waldenser", Munich, 1878 pp. 43 sqq.) pointed out to the inquisitor four methods of extracting open acknowledgment:

… fear of death, i.e. by giving the accused to understand that the stake awaited him if he would not confess; ...

… more or less close confinement, possibly emphasized by curtailment of food; ...

… visits of tried men, who would attempt to induce free confession through friendly persuasion; ...

… torture, which will be discussed below. …

... Had this papal legislation been adhered to in practice, the historian of the Inquisition would have fewer difficulties to satisfy. In the beginning, torture was held to be so odious that clerics were forbidden to be present under pain of irregularity. Sometimes it had to be interrupted so as to enable the inquisitor to continue his examination, which, of course, was attended by numerous inconveniences. Therefore on 27 April, 1260, Alexander IV authorized inquisitors to absolve one another of this irregularity. Urban IV on 2 August, 1262, renewed the permission, and this was soon interpreted as formal licence to continue the examination in the torture chamber itself. The inquisitors manuals faithfully noted and approved this usage. The general rule ran that torture was to be resorted to only once. But this was sometimes circumvented — first, by assuming that with every new piece of evidence the rack could be utilized afresh, and secondly, by imposing fresh torments on the poor victim (often on different days), not by way of repetition, but as a continuation (non ad modum iterationis sed continuationis), as defended by Eymeric; "quia, iterari non debent [tormenta], nisi novis supervenitibus indiciis, continuari non prohibentur."..." [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; Inquisition] - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm​

["fewer difficulties to satisfy"? ["she" openly admits that there is such a past, and stretches "her" mind to explain "her" methods satisfactorily, with "reason", even in the light of all available evidence], "numerous inconveniences"?, "absolve one another of this irregularity"? ["irregularity" is speaking of that which is defined and written in Canon Law] ...and why "odious"?, obviously not because of concern for the living being tortured, maimed or about to be burned, killed, but for their own "sanctity", for their own "purity" so that they [priests, etc] would not incur, what they term "irregularity", which they later could simply "absolve" their ownselves of, by Papal authorization, which means the Pope knew exactly what was going on. [see also, "Ad Extirpanda", "Inquisitors" are "commissioned by the Apostolic See" and are "obtained" from the "Apostolic See". In fact, the Vatican has had and even now has, one of [if not] the best intelligence gathering agencies in the world. Do I boast for "her"? "She" will boast enough on her own...]

Consider also and compare those [priests, etc] with the Pharisaical Jews in JESUS' day, that would not enter into the Palace of Pilate...yet they had no compunction about handing HIM over to Pilate to be tortured and crucified, and finally when Pilate refused to have HIM crucified [though not above still beating HIM and allowing HIM to suffer pains of punishment meant for the guilty, though Pilate again and again stated that JESUS was innocent], the Jews were given the ability to Crucify HIM themselves, were present at the Crucifixion and Cross, and were given soldiers to aide in it.]

"...torture...was first authorized by Innocent IV in his Bull "Ad exstirpanda" of 15 May, 1252, which was confirmed by Alexander IV on 30 November, 1259, and by Clement IV on 3 November, 1265. ..." [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; Inquisition] - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm​

Oh, what then does "extirpate" mean, according to Romanism? Let's see that, because remember, all the "power" and "right" of the "ancient discipline" against obstinate "heretics" are sill available to Romanism ...

 

"Ad Extirpanda …

... A Proclamation of the Laws and Regulations to be Followed by Magistrates and Secular Officials against Heretics and their Accomplices and Protectors …

... Innocent, the Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God, to his beloved sons, the heads of state or rulers, ministers and citizens established in the states and districts of Lombardy, Riviera di Romagnola, and Marchia Tervisina, salvation and an apostolic benediction. …

... To root up from the midst of Christian people the weed of heretical wickedness, which infests the healthy plants more than it formerly did, pouring out licentiousness through the offices of the enemy of mankind in this age the more eagerly (as we address ourselves to the sweated labor of the task assigned us) the more dangerously we overlook the manner in which this weed runs riot among the Catholic growth. Desiring, then, that the sons of the church, and fervent adherents of the orthodox faith, rise up and make their stand against the artificers of this kind of evildoing, we hereby bring forth to be followed by you as by the loyal defenders of the faith, with exact care, these regulations, contained serially in the following document, for the rooting-up of the plague of heresy. …

... In what we gave to your community in apostolical writings, amounting to regulations that we wrote for your legal codes, never at any time to be repealed, making war according to these regulations against all heresy, which rears its head above this holy church, you have gone forward without stint. However, I have sent a letter to my beloved sons, the Dominican priors, provincials and inquisitors into heretical wickedness in Lombardy, Marchia Tervisina and Riviera di Romagnola, commanding each of you that you compel recalcitrant individuals by your excommunication and countries by your interdict to submit (sc. to the new regulations) …

... We decree that the head of state, whatever his rank or title, in each dominion, whether he is so situated at present, or to be so in the future, in Lombardy, Riviera di Romagnola, or Marchia Tervisina must unequivocally and unhesitatingly swear that he will inviolably preserve, and during his entire term of office see to it that everybody, both in his diocese or administrative domain and the lands subject to his power, shall observe, both what is written herein, and other regulations and laws both ecclesiastical and civil, that are published against heretical wickedness. And the oaths concerning these precisely-observed regulations and laws are to be accepted by whoever succeeds to the monarchical or gubernatorial dignity. Whoever defaults in this regard shall lose the character of head of state or governor. Heads of state and rulers so acting will lose absolutely all guarantees of non-aggression from other governments. No one is obliged to offer fealty to such persons, or ought to do so, even if, afterwards, they submit by swearing the oath. If any head of state or ruler refuses to obey, each and all, these statutes, or neglects them, besides the stigma of forswearing, and the disaster of eternal infamy, he shall undergo the penalty of seeing his country lose its borders, which penalty shall be imposed on him irrecoverably; the country will be converted to common use, because, specifically, a man forsworn and infamous, and, in effect, a protector of heretics, his faith compromised, has usurped the dignity and honor of governmental power; nor shall another head of state or ruler from anywhere replace him, or in any way, by any means, take to himself the vacated dignity or public office. …

... At the commencement of his term of office, at the assembly of citizens convoked as is the custom, by the authority of the city or feudal domain, the head of state or ruler of the city or feudal domain shall accuse of criminal conduct all heretics of both sexes, no matter by what name they appear on the rolls of citizens. And he will confirm his right to the office inherited from his predecessor in this manner. And furthermore, that no heretical man or woman may dwell, sojourn, or maintain a bare subsistence in the country, or any kind of jurisdiction or district belonging to it, whoever shall find the heretical man or woman shall boldly seize, with impunity, all his or their goods, and freely carry them off, to belong to the remover with full right, unless this kind of removing is restricted to persons designated by law. ...

... to be continued ...

 

...Ad Extirpanda continued ...

... This head of state or ruler, by the third day of his term of office, must appoint twelve upright and Catholic men, and two notaries and two servants, or as many as may be needed, selected by the Diocesan bishop if there is one and he wishes to take part; and two Dominicans and two Franciscans selected for this work by their priors, if the region has religious houses of those orders. …

... Those who are thus appointed may and should seize the heretical men and women and carry off their possessions and cause these to be carried off by others, and take the heretics, or cause them to be taken, into the custody of the Diocesan bishop or his surrogates, and see to it that these things are fully accomplished as well in the diocese as in its entire jurisdiction and district. …

... The head of state, or whatever ruler stands foremost in the public esteem, must cause the heretics who have been arrested in this manner to be taken to whatever jurisdiction the Diocesan, or his surrogate, is in, or whatever district, or city, or place the Diocesan bishop wishes to take them to. …

... The utterances of the aforementioned officials are to be faithfully accepted in every matter that regards their office, specially in the aforementioned oath; arguments tending to the contrary are not allowed, where two, three, or more of those present are such officials. …

... Moreover, when these officials are chosen, they shall swear to execute faithfully all these laws, and to the best of their ability, to tell nothing but the truth, in all those commitments, which as they belong to their office, they fully carry out. ...

... And both the aforesaid twelve men and their aforesaid servants and notaries, whether acting as a group, or singly, shall, in all that belongs to their office, have full command, backed by the executive and punitive power of the state. …

... The head of state or ruler is obliged to treat as fixed and unrepealable all precepts which their office shall require them to utter, and to punish those who fail to conform to these precepts. …

... If the said officials shall at any time receive any damage either in their persons or their goods as a result of the performance of their duties, they shall be saved harmless by means of a full restitution. ...

... Neither these officials, nor their successors, are permitted at any time to reach an agreement about what they are doing, or of what their duties consist, unless this agreement is dictated by the aforesaid Diocesan and religious orders. …

... The term of office of these officials shall last only six months, which when they have completed, the head of state is obliged to substitute for them according to the prescribed form, an equal number of officials who shall serve the aforesaid term in the same form in the following six-month period. ...

... These officials shall receive out of the state treasury, or that of the district, when they leave them for the purpose of performing these duties, each of them 18 gold coins, which the head of state or ruler is obliged to give them or cause to be given them; if not then, before the third day after their return to the same city or district. …

... And beyond that they shall seize one-third of the heretics' property; one-third of the fines to which the heretics shall be sentenced shall go to the lesser officials who must content themselves with this pay. …

... But they shall not be, in any way, required to perform any other duty or work which interferes with, or might interfere with, this duty. ...

... No legislation, passed or yet to be passed, shall have force to interfere with any of these official functions. …

... And if one of these officials, through incompetence, sloth, preoccupation with another task, or exceeding of the limits of his authority, is removed from office by the aforesaid Diocesan bishop and religious orders, the head of state or ruler must remove him by their command or word and, according to the prescribed form, substitute another. ...

... If one of these officials, faithlessly and falsely, exceeds the limits of his authority to give aid and comfort to persons in custody on heresy charges, besides everlasting infamy, which, as a protector of heretics, he shall incur, he shall be punished by the head of state or ruler according to the sentence of the aforesaid Diocesan and monastic orders of the place. …

... When the Diocesan, or his surrogate, or the inquisitors commissioned by the Apostolic See, arrive on their missions, the head of state and his vassals and other assistants will lend aid and will faithfully perform their duty with them … will be bound to give the aforesaid officials and their assistants counsel and help when they are trying to arrest a male or female heretic, or seize such a person's belongings, or gather evidence; or enter a house, or a manor, or a hideaway to arrest heretics, on pain of paying 25 pounds in Imperials as a penalty or fine on their former loyalty changing, in whatever manner,to dereliction; the government of a city shall pay a hundred pounds, a manorial domain fifty imperials in coin. ...

... Whoever shall have the audacity to arrange the escape from custody of a male or female heretic, or shall try to prevent the arrest of such a person: or shall prevent the entry of an official into any house, or tower, or any place to hinder arrest, or prevent the gathering of evidence concerning such persons, shall have all his goods, according to the law at Padua when Frederick was emperor there, consigned to the state in perpetuity, and the house that was barred against the official shall be levelled with the ground and its rebuilding prohibited, and the belongings found therein shall be awarded to the officials making the arrest; and if the heretics are found as a result of this prohibition or special preventive measure, the borough shall forfeit to the state two hundred pounds; localities both of the boroughs and the state fifty Imperials, unless within three days the would-be liberator or liberators of the heretics are brought before the head of state for a personal interview. ...

... Above all, the head of state or ruler must hold all male and female heretics who shall be arrested from this date, in the custody of Catholic men appointed by the Diocesan if there is one, and the above mentioned monastic orders, in a safe and secure prison set aside for them, in which only they will be held, away from thieves and violators of the secular criminal code, till their cases are decided; expenses to be paid by the state or the administrative district. ...

... If at any time a non-heretical man or woman state that heretics in custody, who have already confessed, are no heretics; or if perhaps the non-heretics demand that the aforesaid fraudulent persons should be released from life imprisonment, though they are nevertheless convicted heretics and must be acknowledged such; the persons who create this snare, accordingly to the aforesaid law shall resign all their property to the state in perpetuity. ...

... The head of state and ruler of whatever kind are especially obliged to present all male and female heretics, under whatever name they are accused, within fifteen days after their arrest, to the Diocesan or his surrogate, or to the inquisitors of heresy, to perform the examination of themselves and their heresies. …

... Those convicted of heresy by the aforesaid Diocesan Bishop, surrogate or inquisitors, shall be taken in shackles to the head of state or ruler or his special representative, instantly, or at least within five days, and the latter shall apply the regulations promulgated against such persons. ...

... to be continued ...

 

Ad Extirpanda continued ...

... The head of state or ruler must force all the heretics whom he has in custody, provided he does so without killing them or breaking their arms or legs, as actual robbers and murderers of souls and thieves of the sacraments of God and Christian faith, to confess their errors and accuse other heretics whom they know, and specify their motives, and those whom they have seduced, and those who have lodged them and defended them, as thieves and robbers of material goods are made to accuse their accomplices and confess the crimes they have committed. ...

... And the house, in which a male or female heretic shall be discovered, shall be levelled with the ground, never to be rebuilt; unless it is the master of the house who shall have arranged the discovery of the heretics. And if the master of the house owns other houses in the same neighborhood, all of the other houses shall in like manner be destroyed, and the goods that shall be found in the house and the others related to it shall be dispersed to the populace, and shall belong to whoever carries them off, unless the removers shall be appointed by law. Above all, the master of the house, besides incurring eternal infamy, must pay the government or locality fifty pounds Imperial in coin; if unable to pay, he shall suffer life imprisonment. The borough where the heretics are arrested or discovered shall pay the government of the state a hundred pounds; and a manor shall pay fifty, and the regions adjoining manors and states, fifty. ...

... Whoever shall be caught giving any male or female heretic counsel, help, or favor, besides the other punishments mentioned duly in their logical places in other passages of this decree, shall become infamous by that same law, and shall be admitted neither to public office, nor public affairs, nor the election of persons to these, nor may he testify in a legal process; to that extent shall his incapacity to testify go, that he shall neither bequeath legacies to heirs nor inherit them himself. No one shall be compelled to respond to any business dealings initiated by him but he shall be so compelled by others. If he be by chance a judge, his sentence shall prove nothing, nor shall he hear any case. If he be an attorney, his defence in court will never be allowed to prevail. If he be a notary, the legal documents drawn up by him shall be utterly without validity. Those who give ear to the false doctrines of heretics shall be punished like heretics. …

... The head of state or ruler must cause the names of all men rendered infamous by heresy, or under a statute of outlawry for it, to be written in a consistent form and manner in four books, of which one shall go to the state or local government, another to the Diocesan bishop, the third to the Dominican friars, and the fourth to the Franciscans, and the names of these persons are to be read aloud three times a year in a solemn public ceremony. ...

... The head of state or ruler must carefully investigate the sons and grandsons of heretics and those who have lodged them, defended them, and given them aid, and in the future admit them to no public affairs or public office. …

... The head of state or ruler must send one of his aides, chosen by the Diocesan if there is one, with the aforesaid inquisitors obtained from the Apostolic See, as often as they shall wish, into the jurisdiction of the state and the district. This aide, as the aforesaid inquisitors shall have determined, will compel three men or more, reliable witnesses, or, if it seem good to them, the whole neighborhood, to testify to the aforesaid inquisitors if they have detected any heretics, or want to expose their motives, whether the heretics celebrate rites in secret gatherings, or scoff at the common life of the faithful, and their customs; or if the witnesses want to expose those the heretics have seduced, or their defenders, or those who lodge them, or those who give the heretics help. The head of state shall proceed against the accused according to the laws of the Emperor Frederick when he governed Padua. ...

... The head of state or ruler must, within ten days after the accusation, complete the following tasks: the destruction of the houses, the imposition of the fines, the consigning and dividing-up of the valuables that have been found or seized, all of which have already been described in this decree. He must obtain all fines in coin within three months, and divide them up in the manner to be set forth hereafter, and convict of crime those who cannot pay, and hold them in prison until they can. However, he shall be subject to investigation for all and each of these things, as it shall be described hereunder, and moreover he must designate one of the assistants, chosen by the Diocesan bishop or his surrogate and the aforesaid inquisitors, to carefully complete all these tasks; another assistant shall be substituted if they so decide. …

... None of these sentences or punishments imposed on account of heresy, shall,either by the motion of any public gathering, the advice of counselors, or any kind of popular outcry,or the innate humanity of those in authority, be in any way waived or pardoned. ...

... to be continued ...

 

Ad Extirpanda continued ...

... The head of state or ruler must divide up all the property of the heretics that is seized or discovered by the aforesaid officials, and the fines exacted from these heretics, in the form and manner following: one-third shall go to the government of the state or district. The second as a reward of the industry of the office shall go to the officials who handled this particular case. The third shall be deposited in some secure place to be kept by the aforesaid Diocesan bishop and inquisitors, and spent as they shall think fit to promote the faith and extirpate heretics, this policy prevailing in spite of any statute that has been or shall be enacted against this dividing-up of the heretics' property. ...

... If anyone tries to abolish, reduce or change any of these statutes, without particular authority from the Apostolic See, the head of state or ruler presiding at that time over the state or district, must, according to the prescribed form, render him infamous, as a public advocate and patron of heretics, and fine him fifty Imperials in coin, which if the head of state is unable to collect, he shall declare him an outlaw, a brand not to be removed till twice the sum is paid over. …

... The head of state, or ruler, during the first ten days of his term of office, by employing three faithful Catholic men, chosen for this purpose by the Diocesan bishop, if there is one, and the Dominican and Franciscan friars, must investigate the most recent occupant of his post, and the latter's aides, concerning everything that is written in these statutes or regulations and laws against heretics and their accomplices, and punish those who have overstepped the bounds of their authority for each and every particular they have neglected to perform, and compel the present government to restore the lost function; nor shall any departure from the regular procedure cause anyone in the government to be exempted from the investigation. …

... The aforesaid three men shall swear that they have acted in good faith in investigating the previous government concerning everything in these laws and regulations. ...

... In addition,the head of state or ruler of any city or district must delete or erase completely whatever, in any statute or legal code, is found to contradict or hinder, in any way, these regulations, statutes, or laws; and in the beginning and the middle of his term of office, he shall cause these statutes, regulations, and laws to be solemnly read aloud in a public assembly; and even in places outside his jurisdiction or district, they shall be set forth if it seem good to the aforesaid Diocesan, or inquisitors and friars aforementioned. …

... Finally, all these statutes, regulations, and laws, and whatever shall be enacted at any time by the Apostolic See against heretics and their accomplices, must be written in a consistent format in four books, of which the first shall be deposited in the legal archives of the state, the second with the Diocesan bishop, the third with the Dominicans, the fourth with the Franciscans, all kept with the greatest care, that they may in no way be violated by forgers. ...

... Given at Perusio, 15 May, in the ninth year of our pontificate." [Ad Extirpanda; translated into English; Pope Innocent IV; for further notation and Latin text, please follow the Link provided] - http://www.scribd.com/doc/23292309/Ad-Extirpanda-Pope-Innocent-IV-1252

So what was that Roman "Law" that was to be carried out by "Emperor Frederick" at "Padua" against obstinate Heretics? Now we are getting somewhere on the "ancient severity" of a "just penalty" ...

 

Was "Ad Extripanda" new?

"... This, however, was also no innovation, for in 1205 Innocent III, by the Bull "Si adversus vos" forbade any legal help for heretics: "We strictly prohibit you, lawyers and notaries, from assisting in any way, by council or support, all heretics and such as believe in them, adhere to them, render them any assistance or defend them in any way." But this severity soon relaxed, and even in Eymeric's day it seems to have been the universal custom to grant heretics a legal adviser, who, however, had to be in every way beyond suspicion, "upright, of undoubted loyalty, skilled in civil and canon law, and zealous for the faith." ..." [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; Inquisition] - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm​

"... This, however, was also no innovation, for in 1205 Innocent III, by the Bull "Si adversus vos" forbade any legal help for heretics: "We strictly prohibit you, lawyers and notaries, from assisting in any way, by council or support, all heretics and such as believe in them, adhere to them, render them any assistance or defend them in any way." But this severity soon relaxed, and even in Eymeric's day it seems to have been the universal custom to grant heretics a legal adviser, who, however, had to be in every way beyond suspicion, "upright, of undoubted loyalty, skilled in civil and canon law, and zealous for the faith." ..." [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; Inquisition] - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm

Indeed, the aforementioned words reveal that the person/s accused as a "heretic" may have had "legal" help, and it is supposed to sound beneficial to the person/s accused, but this so-called "defender" [rather not of the person accused, but of the very Roman Catholic faith, sworn to the Papal See to uproot any and all "heretics"] had to be one from the Roman Catholic's own sworn ranks, a person who was of undying loyalty to the Roman Catholic faith alone, as is stated plainly, "upright, of undoubted loyalty, skilled in civil and canon law, and zealous for the faith." What benefit was such to the person/s who was/were already denounced with "infamy" and branded as a "heretic" or "harborer" even before sentencing? Notice in the beginning of "Ad Extirpanda", that Pope Innocent IV, already alludes to that which had already been given in regards to the punishment of "heretics", and such were "never to be repealed". Many will proclaim that this document does not directly say to "burn", "stake", etc. a "heretic", but this is because it is more subtly given already and previously. The accused guilty are condemned guilty, and "heresy" is then whatever they deem it to be, and as such can be anything they define, and so a "heretic" can be anyone they decide one to be. One will also notice in "Ad Extirpanda" that Pope Innocent IV in several occasions mentions Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II [see Constitution of 1224], and this being most important to consider on the punishment of what the Roman Catholic Church deems "heretics". We should also consider other councils [Lateran Council, 1215; ] and papal [Alexander IV (1254 - 1292), Clement IV (1265 - 1268), Nicholas IV (1288 - 1292), Boniface VIII (1294 – 1303); Urban IV; Gregory IX] decrees [ie Innocent III – Bull "Si Adversus Vos"]. I will recommend anyone to read the translators notes and introduction to "Ad Extirpanda", again found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/23292309/Ad-Extirpanda-Pope-Innocent-IV-1252

"... Innocent III endeavored, at the Lateran Council of 1215, to secure uniformity by a series of severe regulations defining the attitude of the Church to heretics, and the duties which the secular power owed to exterminate them under pain of forfeiture, and this became a recognized part of canon law; but in the absence of active secular cooperation its provisions for a while remained practically a dead letter. It was reserved for the arch-enemy of the Church, Frederic II, to break down, throughout the greater part of Europe, the particularism of local statutes, and place the population at the mercy of such emissaries as the popes might send to represent them. It was requisite for him to acquire the favor of Honorius III to secure his coronation in 1220; and when the inevitable rupture took place, it was still necessary for him to meet the charge of heresy so freely brought against him by manifesting special zeal in the persecution of heretics, though doubtless, if left to himself, philosophic indifference would have led him to tolerate any form of belief that did not threaten disobedience to the ruler."

"In a series of edicts dating from 1220 to 1239 he thus enacted a complete and pitiless code of persecution, based upon the Lateran canons. Those who were merely suspected of heresy were required to purge themselves at command of the Church, under penalty of being deprived of civil rights and placed under the imperial ban; while, if they remained in this condition for a year, they were to be condemed as heretics. Heretics of all sects were outlawed; and when condemned as such by the Church they were to be delivered to the secular arm to be burned. If, through fear of death, they recanted, they were to be thrust in prison for life, there to perform penance. If they relapsed into error, thus showing that their conversion had been fictitious, they were to be put to death. All the property of the heretic was confiscated and his heirs disinherited. His children, to the second generation, were declared ineligible to any positions of emolument or dignity, unless they should win mercy by betraying their father or some other heretic. All "credentes", fautors, defenders, receivers, or advocates of heretics were banished forever, their property confiscated, and their descendants subjected to the same disabilities as those of heretics. Those who defended the errors of heretics were to be treated as heretics unless, on admonition, they mended their ways. The houses of heretics and their receivers were to be destroyed, never to be rebuilt. Although the evidence of a heretic was not receivable in court, yet an exception was made in favor of the faith, and it was to be held good against another heretic. All rulers and magistrates, present or future, were required to swear to exterminate with their utmost ability all whom the Church might designate as heretics, under pain of forfeiture of office. The lands of any temporal lord who neglected, for a year after summons by the Church, to clear them of heresy, were exposed to the occupancy of any Catholics who, after extirpating the heretics, were to possess them in peace without prejudice to the rights of the suzerain, provided he had offered no opposition. When the papal Inquisition was commenced, Frederic hastened, in 1232, to place the whole machinery of the State at the command of the inquisitors, who were authorized to call upon any official to capture whomsoever they might designate as a heretic, and hold him in prison until the Church should condemn him, when he was to be put to death."
​

... to be continued ...

 

... continued ...

"This fiendish legislation was hailed by the Church with acclamation, and was not allowed to remain, like its predecessors, a dead letter. The coronation-edict of 1220 was sent by Honorius to the University of Bologna to be read and taught as a part of practical law. It was consequently embodied in the authoritative compilation of the feudal customs, and its most stringent enactments were incorporated in the Civil Code. The whole series of edicts was subsequently promulgated by successive popes in repeated bulls, commanding all states and cities to inscribe these laws irrevocably in their local statute-books. It became the duty of the inquisitors to see that this was done, to swear all magistrates and officials to enforce them, and to compel their obedience by the free use of excommunication. In 1222, when the magistrates of Rieti adopted laws conflicting with them, Honorius at once ordered the offenders removed from office; in 1227 the people of Rimini resisted, but were coerced to submission; in 1253, when some of the Lombard cities demurred. Innocent IV promptly ordered the inquisitors to subdue them; in 1254 Asti peacefully accepted them as part of its local laws; Como followed the example, September 10, 1255; and in the recension of the laws of Florence made as late as 1355, they still appear as an integral part. Finally, they were incorporated in the latest additions to the Corpus Juris as part of the canon law itself, and, technically speaking, they may be regarded as in force to the present day."

"This virtually provided for a very large portion of Europe, extending from Sicily to the North Sea. The western regions made haste to follow the pious example. Coincident with the Treaty of Paris, in 1229, was an ordonnance issued in the name of the boy-king, Louis IX, giving efficient assistance by the royal officials to the Church in its efforts to purge the land of heresy. In the territories which remained to Count Raymond his vacillating course gave rise to much dissatisfaction, until, in 1234, he was compelled to enact, with the consent of his prelates and barons, a statute drawn up by the fanatic Raymond du Fauga of Toulouse, which embodied all the practical points of Frederic's legislation, and decreed confiscation against every one who failed, when called upon, to aid the Church in the capture and detention of heretics. In the compilations and law books of the latter half of the century we see the system thoroughly established as the law of the whole land, and in 1315 Louis le Hutin formally adopted the edicts of Frederic and made them valid throughout France."

"In Aragon Don Jayme I, in 1226, issued an edict prohibiting all heretics from entering his dominions, probably on account of the fugitives driven out of Languedoc by the crusade of Louis VIII. In 1231, in conjunction with his prelates, he drew up a series of laws instituting an episcopal Inquisition of the severest character, to be supported by the royal officials; in this appears for the first time a secular prohibition of the Bible in the vernacular. All possessing any books of the Old or New Testament, ''in Romancio'', are summoned to deliver them within eight days to their bishops to be burned, under pain of being held suspect of heresy. Thus, with the exception of farther Spain and the Northern nations, where heresy had never taken root, throughout Christendom the State was rendered completely subservient to the Church in the great task of exterminating heresy. And, when the Inquisition had been established, the enforcing of this legislation was the peculiar privilege of the inquisitors, whose ceaseless vigilance and unlimited powers gave full assurance that it would be relentlessly carried into effect. ..." [THE INQUISITION OF THE MIDDLE AGES; BOOK 1 - ORIGIN AND ORGANIZATION OF THE INQUISITION; CHAPTER VII.; 6; SECULAR LEGISLATION OF FREDERIC II; Henry Charles Lea. V.1 Chapter VII; pp 305-368; pp 320-324 quoted from] - http://www.historyofthepopes.com/Inquisition-in-the-Middle-Ages/7/6-SECULAR-LEGISLATION.html [see also: "A history of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages"; Henry Charles Lea. V.1 Chapter V, “Persecution” pp 209-242; pp 221 for "Frederick" and "death by fire": http://ia600204.us.archive.org/11/items/historyi01leahuoft/historyi01leahuoft.pdf or here: http://collections.stanford.edu/publicdomain/bin/search/advanced/process;jsessionid=A306DF7BF3973469EFA5268CA885E5D4?sort=title&browse=1&clauseMapped%28creatorBrowse%29=Lea%2C+Henry+Charles%2C+1825-1909. ]​

Now, we begin to understand this "ancient severity" to those latae sententiae "guilty" [non "innocent"] obstinate "heretics", having "gravely" errored "in faith and morals", spreading their 'malicious' doctrines and ideologies as a "plague", who may be freely hunted, persecuted and killed [because this is not "murder", but a "just penalty", a "just war", a "just defense" for the "common good"] ...

 

The Roman Catholic Church also claims the erroneous doctrine of the "two swords" and that "she" wields the "temporal sword" in "her" hand [being but an extension of "her" authority], and that "she" is in masterful control and command of where it may and should swing:

"...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. ..." [Roman Catholic Online Library, Church Documents; Unam Sanctam; His Holiness Pope Boniface VIII; November 18, 1302] - http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_bo08us.htm​

And:

"...Then follow some principles and conclusions concerning the spiritual and the secular power:

Under the control of the Church are two swords, that is two powers, the expression referring to the medieval theory of the two swords, the spiritual and the secular. This is substantiated by the customary reference to the swords of the Apostles at the arrest of Christ (Luke 22:38; Matthew 26:52).

Both swords are in the power of the Church; the spiritual is wielded in the Church by the hand of the clergy; the secular is to be employed for the Church by the hand of the civil authority, but under the direction of the spiritual power.

The one sword must be subordinate to the other: the earthly power must submit to the spiritual authority, as this has precedence of the secular on account of its greatness and sublimity; for the spiritual power has the right to establish and guide the secular power, and also to judge it when it does not act rightly. When, however, the earthly power goes astray, it is judged by the spiritual power; a lower spiritual power is judged by a higher, the highest spiritual power is judged by God.

This authority, although granted to man, and exercised by man, is not a human authority, but rather a Divine one, granted to Peter by Divine commission and confirmed in him and his successors. Consequently, whoever opposes this power ordained of God opposes the law of God and seems, like a Manichaean, to accept two principles.

"Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff" (Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis).

The Bull is universal in character. … In the registers, on the margin of the text of the record, the last sentence is noted as its real definition: "Declaratio quod subesse Romano Pontifici est omni humanae creaturae de necessitate salutis" (It is here stated that for salvation it is necessary that every human creature be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff). ..." [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; section on Unam Sanctam] - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15126a.htm​

 

Two Swords:

"...Its chief concepts are as follows (Hergenröther-Kirsch, 4th ed., II, 593): (1) There is but one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation; but one body of Christ with one head and not two. (2) That head is Christ and His representative, the Roman pope; whoever refuses the pastoral care of Peter belongs not to the flock of Christ. (3) There are two swords (i.e., powers), the spiritual and the temporal; the first borne by the Church, the second for the Church; the first by the hand of the priest, the second by that of the king, but under the direction of the priest (ad nutum et patientiam sacerdotis). (4) Since there must be a co- ordination of members from the lowest to the highest, it follows that the spiritual power is above the temporal and has the right to instruct (or establish--instituere) the latter regarding its highest end and to judge it when it does evil; whoever resists the highest power ordained of God resists God Himself. (5) It is necessary for salvation that all men should be subject to the Roman Pontiff--"Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanæ creaturæ declaramus, dicimus, definimus et pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis". ..." [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; Pope Boniface VIII; (BENEDETTO GAETANO)] - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02662a.htm​

Also seen in "Contra Faustum" [Augustine]; Point 77, Two Swords...

"... And we find in the passage that we have quoted from the Gospel, that the words spoken by the Lord were carried into effect by His disciples. For, besides going at first without scrip or purse, and yet lacking nothing, as from the Lord's question and their answer it is plain they did, now that He speaks of buying a sword, they say, "Lo, here are two swords;" and He replied, "It is enough." Hence we find Peter with a weapon when he cut off the assailant's ear, on which occasion his spontaneous boldness was checked, because, although he had been told to take a sword, he had not been told to use it. Doubtless, it was mysterious that the Lord should require them to carry weapons, and forbid the use of them. But it was His part to give the suitable precepts, and it was their part to obey without reserve. ..." [Roman Catholic Online Fathers of the Church; Contra Faustum (Augustine); Book XXII] - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/140622.htm​

The Roman Catholic Church openly says that "she" may use deadly force:

"... The Catholic Church is a respecter of conscience and of liberty... she believes and professes that “faith is a work of persuasion, not of force, fides suandenda est, non imponenda.” She has, and she loudly proclaims that she has, a “horror of blood”. Nevertheless when confronted by heresy she does not content herself with persuasion; arguments of an intellectual and moral order appear to her insufficient and she has recourse to force, to corporal punishment, to torture. She creates [p. 182 → p. 183] tribunals like those of the Inquisition, she calls the laws of State to her aid, if necessary she encourages a crusade, or a religious war and all her “horror of blood” practically culminates into urging the secular power to shed it, which proceeding is almost more odious – for it is less frank – than shedding it herself. Especially did she act thus in the sixteenth century with regard to Protestants. Not content to reform morally, to preach by example, to convert people by eloquent and holy missionaries, she lit in Italy, in the Low Countries, and above all in Spain the funeral piles of the Inquisition. In France under Francis I. And Henry II., in England under Mary Tudor, she tortured the heretics, whilst both in France and Germany during the second half of the sixteenth and the first half of the seventeenth century is she did not actually begin, at anyrate she encouraged and actively sided the religious wars. No one will deny that we have here a great scandal to our contemporaries excepting to a certain class still having few adherents which theoretically – but theory often gives way before facts – affects a certain taste for violence and bloodshed." [The Renaissance and Protestantism; Lectures given at the Catholic Institute of Paris January to March 1904; By Alfred Baudrillart; Rector of the Catholic Institute of Paris; With a prefatory letter from H. E. Cardinal Perraud of the French Academy; Authorised Translation By Mrs. Philip Gibbs; Chapter VII [7]; On the use of force by the Catholic Church against Protestants – The Inquisition in Italy and in Spain – Religious wars – Protestant intolerance.] – http://ia600204.us.archive.org/3/items/catholicchurchre00bauduoft/catholicchurchre00bauduoft.pdf [The International Catholic Library – Edited by Rev. J. Wilhelm, D.D., Ph.D. Joint Author of the Manual of Catholic Theology.

IV [4] . The Catholic Church. The Renaissance. Protestantism. By Alfred Baudrillart, Rector of the Catholic Institute of Paris. Translated by Mrs Philip Gibbs. Price 7s. 6d.

London; Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd. Dryden House, Gerrard Street, W. 1907
Nihil Obstat
J. Wilhelm, S.T.D.
Censor deputatus
Imprimi potest
[Maltese Cross] Gulielmus
Episcopus Arindelensis
Vicarius Generalis
Westmonasterii
die 11 Martii 1907
http://www.archive.org/details/catholicchurchre00bauduoft ]
​

What does Rome say:

"... That the Church of Rome has shed more innocent blood than any other institution that has ever existed among mankind, will be questioned by no Protestant who has a competent knowledge of history. The memorials, indeed, of many of her persecutions are now so scanty, that it is impossible to form a complete conception of the multitude of her victims, and it is quite certain that no powers of imagination can adequately realise their sufferings. Llorente, who had free access to the archives of the Spanish Inquisition, assures us that by that tribunal alone more than 31,000 persons were burnt, and more than 290,000 condemned to punishments less severe than death. [1.] ..." [History of the Rise and Influence of the spirit of Rationalism in Europe Vol . II [2]; By W.E.H. Lecky, M.A. Revised Edition. In Two Volumes. New York and London; D. Appleton and Company 1919. pp 40; [1.] Llorente, Hist. De l'Inquisition, tom. iv. [4] pp 271,272. "...Llorente having been himself at one time secretary in the Inquisition, and having during the occupation by the French had access to all the secret papers of the tribunal, will always be the highest authority. ..."] - http://files.libertyfund.org/files/1667/Lecky_1341.02.pdf​

 

Ignoring the fact you support abortion is not going to go away no matter how much you spam false accusations.


Catholic teaching is what it is, There is no Catholic teaching that says kill anyone, period.

This is why we have a catechism. I can quote a bishop or obscure book to justify absolutely any evil you want.

Catholic teaching remains you may not kill anyone.



But see SDA allow abortion. Notice "ONE BAPTISM" does not deny it.

Their Hospitals which are in direct control still perform them.

Their denomination is a CORPORATION


Here is the official SDA website: here is link to their PRO-abortion stance:

https://www.adventist.org/en/information/official-statements/guidelines/article/go/-/abortion/

https://www.adventist.org/en/information/official-statements/guidelines/article/go/-/abortion/



Getting SDA to admit abortion is wrong like trying to squeeze blood from a turnip.