Judge Not

[faithcontender]

Hi Mark,

To say that i'm saved, i'm born again etc. is not an act of self-righteouensess but rather a demonstration of one's faith in the word of God. A truly saved person will not boast of his righteousness but of the righteousness of Christ imputed to Him.

We can also receive the testimony of man according to the Scriptures if He is saved or not based on his belief. " He that believeth in the Son hath everlasting life and He that believeth not the Son hath not life but the wrath of God abideth on Him" Jn. 3:36

Now i don't know if he really believe or not but if He testify that He is saved according to the Scriptures then i don't have right to judge Him. Only God really know the secret of every man's heart. I can only know what is in my heart and therefore really know if i'm really saved or not based on the testimony of the Scriptures and witness of the Holy Spirit.

On the other hand, we can know from the Scriptures who is a false teacher and a false prophet. Their teaching, prophecy and lifestyle are contradicting the Holy Scriptures. As the Lrd Jesus says : " By their fruits we shall know them wether they are my disciples or not ".

God prove every claim. Man's profession of faith and practice must pass the test of Scriptures.

4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

 

[dumbox1]

Hi Faithcontender,

Obviously, I was misreading your previous answer. What would be an example of a statement (or, if a verbal statement is not required, a thought) about another person that would violate the "Judge not..." prohibition?

I hope you realize I'm not trying to argue -- I'm really interested in understanding how you view it.

Thanks,

Mark

 

[faithcontender]

Hi Mark,

Example of judging others.

Luke
18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

18:12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

 

[Lorelei]

Mark,

I think faithcontender did a good job explaining some of it, so I will try not to repeat any of that. (mostly for the sake of time)

Let us look at the passage in context. Context is so important.

Matt 7:1-5
7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
(NIV)

First, we are told not to judge OR we will be judged. This means that if we feel we are in a position to be able to look upon the actions, sins, or beliefs of another person and "judge" them accordingly, then we too, will be held accountable and will be open to being "judged" in the same manner by others ("with the same measure you use").

You can see the reality of this statement in society as well as in the church. Look at politics. Once a politician begins to "stand" for or against something, he is suddenly scrutinized in all areas of his life and is "judged" in the same manner his position judges others. This is a statement of fact, not a statement of God's judgement and denouncement upon anyone who dares to judge someone. As DHK pointed out, there are scriptures that say we should judge others. Context is everything!

If we keep reading we see that before we "judge" there is something we should do FIRST. To do this "first" is significant, because that means that judging is allowable AFTER this thing in which we do first. This does not say that "instead" of juding we should do this, but it says that FIRST we must do this thing.

What is this thing we must do first? We must "judge" ourselves and remove anything that is keeping us from judging effectively. THEN we can judge our brother and in doing so, gently help them remove the speck, sin, problem, whatever the symptom of judgement was from his own life.

The passage is clearly giving us "instructions" on how to judge, not disallowing us from "judging" others. The warning in the first verse should be heeded. I expected people to "judge" me based upon my statements made here, that did not surprise me, in fact, those very statements confirm that Jesus was right in saying that I too would be judged!

~Lorelei

 

[WPutnam]

Lorelei replied, where I last said (given in italics):

Furthermore, not to judge is a good idea since only God can judge, do you agree?

I agree that only God can judge our hearts. For instance, I have been accused of having a "hatred that won't be satisified." The person who said that has no way of knowing what is in my heart. I, of course, hold no hatred and do not admit to harboring any hatred towards any Catholic. This person can think what they want, as you stated, only God knows the heart.

Good!

And I hope you have read enough of my messages to know that I accuse no one either!

Something about that "big beam" in my own eye!

However, we can judge a person based upon the doctrine that person admits to profess. I admit that I don't believe that baptism saves you and your church declares me anathema. Your church professes that there is no salvation outside of the catholic church, especially for those who refuse to enter it or remain in it.

First of all, please know that the Church has not declared you to be "anathema"!

That application of that declaration was aimed at the individuals who initially began a heresy or otherwise bolted from the Church, with the novel ideas of doctrine the Church denies is true. And as to the "ex eclesia nullus salus" (Outside of the Church there is no salvation) I think I have covered already.

I will therefore refer you to the following link:

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/necessit.htm

I last posted the following from The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

This, however isn't the judgement of my "heart" that is a secret to the world. This is based upon what I profess and acknowledge to believe.

Only you know why you do not enter it (The Church) since you are not convinced of the truth of the Catholic Church! God knows why too, therefore in His judgment of you before Him, the honesty in your heart in what you believe, we believe, is certainly taken into account. You believe, from the sincerity of your heart, that what you believe is true.

Now, I might suspect that you are not honest in what you believe from outside appearances, but "suspect" is all I can do; I certainly cannot condemn you (as an individual; the Church could formally excommunicate if the problem is a serious scandal that would warrant it). I can only state what I believe where you are in error and go on about my business. Only one time, in my 20 years of Catholic apologetics, have I had a person send me a private note that they are seriously considering converting to Catholicism (and the person included others besides myself as being convincing in our arguments.)

I, also, have the same right, to look at your doctrine and when compared to the Word of God I find that it is contradictory. If you or anyone in your church believes that works are necessary for salvation, then I declare that there is no salvation for them (unless of course they repent of that belief before they die).

Of course you have that right, Lorelei, and in fact, I welcome that you look upon Catholic teachings and doctrine will a well-jaundiced eye!

But your last statement has a lot of "devil in the details" which gets us involved with the "works" that Paul speaks of, addressing the Jews who had the tendency to revert back to the old law, against James who spoke of a "Faith, without works, is dead." So, we are speaking of two different kinds of "works" here.

Therefore I must disagree that you might just think I will have no salvation because I believe "works are necessary for salvation."

Works of the old law? NO

Works that perpetuate, nourish and continue ones march down the path to salvation, YES!

I am merely doing what your church has already done. Stating the facts according to what we believe. I am not judging the secrets of your hearts. I am basing my judgement upon what you admit and profess to believe.

Good for you, Lorelei! I would not require anything else from you but what you say here.

So the verse "judge not" does not apply in this instance, in either situation. Your church has a right to judge according to their doctrine and we have the same rights to judge them according to ours.

So long as you and I insist upon judging the issues, the doctrines and the beliefs we both hold so long as we do not question the contents of the heart, I again agree with you.

Please note that I am in a conference that tends to speak about Catholicism that I consider to be untrue and a distortion of what Catholicism teaches. And for the most part, I only speak up when I read of these distortions.

Otherwise, a discussion between a Baptist and a Methodist, for example, heated as it may be, will usually be ignored by me except and unless Catholicism is brought into the discussion.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christ has no body now but yours;
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
Compassion on this world.
Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good.
Yours are the hands with which
he blesses all the world.
Christ has no body now on earth but yours.

- St. Therese of Avila -

 

[massdak]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
In another thread we were accused of "judging" the salvation of the pope based upon what the pope doctrinally believes. A few catholics piped in and said "judge not lest ye be judged" or at least asserted that we should not be "judging" their salvation.

I pointed out that the official documents of the catholic church have already judged me based upon what I believe.

I am considered "anathema" for not believing that baptism, the mass, indulgences and other such things are necessary for salvation. They state that there is no savlation outside of the catholic church, and I refuse to become a part of their originization and would die before aligning myself with her.

Therefore, according to them, I am not going to enter heaven. Yet, when based upon their doctrines, I determine that they are not going to heaven, I am accused of "judging" them and am told that I have no way to know their hearts, yet they seem to think they can know mine.

So, does the catholic church teach that we can NOT judge a person based upon their doctrine? If so, did they not violate that teaching in judging us based upon what we believe?

If they do not teach that, then let us remember not to use it against other denominations who are merely practicing the same principal as the RCC.

What is the official stance of the RCC concerning "judging others"?

~Lorelei

good post lorelei

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by WPutnam:

Please note that I am in a conference that tends to speak about Catholicism that I consider to be untrue and a distortion of what Catholicism teaches. And for the most part, I only speak up when I read of these distortions.

Otherwise, a discussion between a Baptist and a Methodist, for example, heated as it may be, will usually be ignored by me except and unless Catholicism is brought into the discussion.

I'd be interested in the outcome. I had an interesting experience Wednesday at our mid-week Bible Study and prayer service. We had a young man who came (by invitation), who is studying for the priesthood. Afterward his first comment was that he found the service "enlightening." (whether just to be polite or not I'm not sure). Then our Pastor engaged him in a discussion on the New Birth. During the discussion I thought of my friends here who post on BB, for his "Catholic Theology" is very much different from what you believe, and I told him bluntly that what he believes is not what the Catholic Church teaches. He replied that he was a liberal Catholic intending to reform the Catholic Church from within. He believes that all religions serve the same God, but just by a different name. They all have a different path to Heaven. (This is akin to Hinduism). I replied that by taking such a stand you call Jesus Christ a liar for He said that He is the only Way to Heaven. There is no other way (John 14:6). He tried to argue the point. We discussed many other things. But that is enough to give you an idea of the type of individual that is entering the Catholic priesthood. What is your opinion?
DHK

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by WPutnam:
First of all, please know that the Church has not declared you to be "anathema"!

COUNCIL OF TRENT: SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION CANON XXIV
If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

emphasis mine

Is there a document somewhere that explains why the words "any one" here does not mean "any one?"

I say and emphatically believe that that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof.

I said it, but you tell me this doesn't apply to me? Why does this not mean what it says?

~Lorelei

 

[BobRyan]

If we let the Catholic list of "Forbidden books" speak for itself.

If we let the "extermination policy" of Lateran IV speak for itself.

If we let Dr Carroll's statement that Bill Graham would absolutely be burned at the stake for preaching in the dark ages - what he preached in his life time -- speak for itself.

Then "the Catholic concept of judging others" was by all accounts not just "personnal" it was "leathal".

And this fact - we find admitted to by the Pope's own blue ribbon panel of scholars in 1999 as pointed out on another thread here.

Thank God they do not still make a practice of that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by WPutnam:

Please note that I am in a conference that tends to speak about Catholicism that I consider to be untrue and a distortion of what Catholicism teaches. And for the most part, I only speak up when I read of these distortions.

Otherwise, a discussion between a Baptist and a Methodist, for example, heated as it may be, will usually be ignored by me except and unless Catholicism is brought into the discussion.

I'd be interested in the outcome. I had an interesting experience Wednesday at our mid-week Bible Study and prayer service. We had a young man who came (by invitation), who is studying for the priesthood. Afterward his first comment was that he found the service "enlightening." (whether just to be polite or not I'm not sure). Then our Pastor engaged him in a discussion on the New Birth. During the discussion I thought of my friends here who post on BB, for his "Catholic Theology" is very much different from what you believe, and I told him bluntly that what he believes is not what the Catholic Church teaches.</font>[/QUOTE]And he is a Catholic seminarian? Perhaps you could provide some of his "theology" that I might study and consider it.

Now, I am not an expert on theology, but I do the best I can from my experience in Catholicism, but I would be interested is hearing about what he is being taught in this seminary.

He replied that he was a liberal Catholic intending to reform the Catholic Church from within. He believes that all religions serve the same God, but just by a different name. They all have a different path to Heaven. (This is akin to Hinduism). I replied that by taking such a stand you call Jesus Christ a liar for He said that He is the only Way to Heaven.

Hummm, I would have to hear what he said, in his words, as it Almost sounds like "universalism" to me.

Christ established His gospel message and His church as the "greased way" to heaven and even while others may not be members of that church, even in paganism, they may be "imperfect members" by their conduct in the natural law and the contents of their hearts.

Christ died for ALL of mankind, including those who have never heard of Him. and again, the odds are against them who are not in the fullness of his gospel message. And of course, the need is urgent that they be evangelized. Nevertheless, God is the ultimate judge of the heart - that is the bottom line.

There is no other way (John 14:6). He tried to argue the point. We discussed many other things. But that is enough to give you an idea of the type of individual that is entering the Catholic priesthood. What is your opinion?
DHK

What year is he in at the seminary he attends?

As for an opinion, I would have to hear more of what he says, preferebly from him directly. If you see him again, give him my E-mail address (See my profile) and I will find out quickly if he is willing to converse.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by WPutnam:
First of all, please know that the Church has not declared you to be "anathema"!

COUNCIL OF TRENT: SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION CANON XXIV
If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

emphasis mine

Is there a document somewhere that explains why the words "any one" here does not mean "any one?"

I say and emphatically believe that that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof.

I said it, but you tell me this doesn't apply to me? Why does this not mean what it says?</font>[/QUOTE]Do you publically profess what the Council of Trent is saying here, Lorelei, as a practicing Catholic who is defying the teachings of the Catholic Church?

If not, you are not included in the anathama, as you are removed by several generations from the author of the "heresy" you believe in from your early youthful training (presumably).

Church decrees such as you read here are directed to the authors of heresies that is under contention by the Church.

To be anathmatized, one must first be a Catholic to be anathmatized from!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Not riches, but God.
Not honors, but God.
Not distinction, but God.
Not dignities, but God.
Not advancement, but God.
God always and in everything.

- St. Vincent Pallotti -

 

[BobRyan]

Bill said -- Do you publically profess what the Council of Trent is saying here, Lorelei, as a practicing Catholic who is defying the teachings of the Catholic Church?

If not, you are not included in the anathama, as you are removed by several generations from the author of the "heresy" you believe in from your early youthful training (presumably).


In the exterminations of heretics practiced by the RCC in the dark ages - do you find this rule applied?

Dr Carroll states that Billy Graham WOULD be burned at the stake by the RCC for teaching what he taught in his lifetime. How does that assertion square with the spin that Bill is placing on the statements above?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The same question as listed on the opening post is contained in the tread on idolatry in the mass.

Now Bumped up to join this thread.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Bill said -- Do you publically profess what the Council of Trent is saying here, Lorelei, as a practicing Catholic who is defying the teachings of the Catholic Church?

If not, you are not included in the anathama, as you are removed by several generations from the author of the "heresy" you believe in from your early youthful training (presumably).

In the exterminations of heretics practiced by the RCC in the dark ages - do you find this rule applied?</font>[/QUOTE]False premise trap I will not fall into, since you want me to agree that the Church exterminated heretics.

In any case, the anathama rule would still only apply to the perpeterators of the heresy. Anyone in the family of the heretic who do not realize the error of heresy, including future generations who continue in the heresy, may be sublimely innocent.

Dr Carroll states that Billy Graham WOULD be burned at the stake by the RCC for teaching what he taught in his lifetime. How does that assertion square with the spin that Bill is placing on the statements above?

Who is Dr. Carroll? In any case, he does not understand Catholicism very well, as obviously, Billy Graham was not a perpetuator of any heresy and therefore, would not be burned at the stake, something the state usually does, not the Church.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

[BobRyan]

EWTN's Dr Carroll has been authorotatively providing Catholic Answers on the subject of the History and practice of the Catholic church for a number of years.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

As for the RCC's own statements on "extermination" --

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Catholic apologists often argue that the RCC isn't accountable for the Inquisition, since the state carried out the torturing and the executions. It was the RCC who defined these people as "heretics", however, and the RCC handed them over to the state (John 19:11).

We know from the decrees of Popes and councils that the RCC viewed itself as having authority over the state.

For example, the Fourth Lateran Council, the ecumenical council that dogmatized transubstantiation, declared the following about exterminare;

(http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/lat4-c3.html):

”Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that
whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath. But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the
supreme pontiff [the Pope], that he may declare the ruler's vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action. The same law is to be observed in regard to those
who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land.

(
Other councils, such as Vienna, issued anti-Semitic decrees that ordered the persecution of Jews. The persecution of other groups, such as the Waldensians, was also ordered by the RCC.
For example, Pope Innocent VIII issued a bull in 1487 ordering that people "rise up in arms against" and "tread under foot" the Waldensians. )

Roman Catholic and former Jesuit Peter de Rosa writes in Vicars of Christ (Crown Publishers, 1988),
"Of eighty popes
in a line from the thirteenth century on not one of them disapproved of the theology and apparatus of the Inquisition. On the contrary, one after another added his own cruel touches to the workings of this deadly machine."
The Catholic historian von Dollinger writes in The Pope and the Council,
"From 1200 to 1500 the long series of Papal ordinances on the Inquisition, ever increasing in severity and cruelty, and their whole policy towards
heresy, runs on without a break. It is a rigidly consistent system of legislation; every Pope confirms and improves upon the devices of his predecessor....It was only the absolute dictation of the Popes, and the notion of their infallibility in all questions of Evangelical morality, that made the Christian world...[accept] the Inquisition, which contradicted the simplest principles of Christian justice and love to our neighbor, and would have been
rejected with universal horror in the ancient Church."

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

But of course - Bill may be asking what modern Catholic leaders say about that history...

Thought you would never ask.

With such well documented examples of the RC policy of exterminare "extermination" in its "dark ages" how can "informed Catholics" continue to pursue a practice of "denial and equivocation" as "if" there ever existed an equivalent Christian denomination holding such absolute control over all of Europe for centuries - that also pursued such an explicit and blatant policy of "extermination".

The "answer" seems to be that there are credible Catholics who maintain integrity by admitting to the obvious history of the past and deal with the issue head-on instead of dodging it. (Or at least we find evidence that there are).

Consider the following news stories from Vatican City.

Vatican Hosts Inquisition Symposium

By CANDICE HUGHES

.c The Associated Press

VATICAN CITY (AP) – The Vatican assembled a blue-ribbon panel of scholars Thursday to examine the Inquisition and declared its readiness to submit the church's darkest institution to the judgment of history.

The three-day symposium is part of the Roman Catholic Church's countdown to 2000. Pope John Paul II wants the church to begin the new millennium with a clear conscience, which means facing up to past sins.

For many people, the Inquisition is one of the church's worst transgressions. For centuries, ecclesiastical ``thought police'' tried, tortured and burned people at the stake for heresy and other crimes.

``The church cannot cross the threshold of the new millennium without pressing its children to purify themselves in repentance for their errors, infidelity, incoherence,'' Cardinal Roger Etchegaray said, opening the conference.

The inquisitors went after Protestants, Jews, Muslims and presumed heretics. They persecuted scientists like Galileo. They banned the Bible in anything but Latin, which few ordinary people could read.

The Inquisition began in the 13th century and lasted into the 19th. An index of banned books endured even longer, until 1966. And it was 1992 before the church rehabilitated Galileo, condemned for saying the Earth wasn't the center of the universe.

The symposium, which gathers experts from inside and outside the church, is the Vatican's first critical look at the church's record of repression.

Among other things, it will give scholars a chance to compare notes on what they've found in the secret Vatican archives on the Inquisition, which the Holy See only recently opened.

``The church is not afraid to submit its past to the judgment of history,'' said Etchegaray, a Frenchman who leads the Vatican's Commission on the Grand Jubilee.

Closed to the public and press, the symposium is not expected to produce any definitive statement from the Vatican on the Inquisition. That is expected in 2000 as part of the grand ``mea culpa'' at the start of Christianity's third millennium.

The great question is whether the pontiff will ask forgiveness for the sins of the church's members, as it did with the Holocaust, or for the sins of the church itself. Unlike the Holocaust, the Inquisition was a church initiative authorized by the popes themselves.

Etchegaray on Thursday swept aside the idea that it can be seen a series of local campaigns whose excesses might be blamed on secular authorities. There was only one Inquisition, he said, and it was undeniably an ecclesiastical institution.

The pontiff may give a hint as to his thinking on Saturday, when he meets with participants in the conference.

About 50 scholars from Europe, the United States and Latin America are taking part.

AP-NY-10-29-98 1403EST



Catholic Church says must own up for Inquisition

By Alessandra Galloni

VATICAN CITY, Oct 29 (Reuters) - The Vatican on Thursday said it had to take responsibility for one of the darkest eras in Roman Catholic church history and not lay blame for the Inquisition on civil prosecutors.

Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, head of the Vatican's main committee for the year 2000, opened a three-day symposium on the Inquisition saying it was time to re-examine the work of the special court the church set up in 1233 to curb heresy

Etchegaray said some scholars claimed there were several inquisitions: one in Rome, which worked directly under the Holy See's control, and others in Spain and in Portugal which were often aided by the local civil courts.

``We cannot ignore the fact that this (attempt to distinguish between inquisitions) has allowed some to make apologetic arguments and lay responsibility for what Iberian tribunals did onto civil authorities,'' he said.

``The fact that the Spanish and Portuguese crowns...had powers of intervention...on inquisitory tribunals does not change the ecclesiastical character of the institution,'' he said.

Pope Gregory IX created the Inquisition to help curb heresy, but church officials soon began to count on civil authorities to fine, imprison and even torture heretics.

One of the Inquisition's best known victims was the astronomer Galileo, condemned for claiming the earth revolved around the sun.

The Inquisition reached its height in the 16th century to counter the Reformation. The department later became the Holy Office and its successor now is called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which controls the orthodoxy of Catholic teaching.

Some of the conclusions of the international symposium, which ends on Saturday, could be included in a major document in which the church is expected to ask forgiveness for its past errors as part of celebrations for the year 2000.

The church ``cannot pass into the new millennium without urging its sons to purify themselves, through penitence, of its errors, its infidelities and its incoherences...,'' Father Georges Cottier, a top Vatican theologian and head of the theological commission for the year 2000, told the symposium.

Etchegaray said the conference could also draw on examples that scholars had been able to examine since January, when the Vatican opened secret files.

The archives also opened the infamous Index of Forbidden Books which Roman Catholics were not allowed to read or possess on pain of excommunication. Even the bible was on the blacklist.

Pope John Paul has said in several documents and speeches that the Church needs to assume responsibility for the Inquisition, which was responsible for the forced conversion of Jews as well as the torture and killing of heretics.

While there may have been mitigating historical factors for the behaviour of some Catholics, the Pope has said this did not prevent the church from expressing regret for the wrongs of its members in some periods of history.

He initiated the procedure that led to the rehabilitation of Galileo, completed in 1992.

19:01 10-29-98

Notice "no equivocation".

Notice - refernce to the policy of torture and extermination listed previously.

How refreshing that there are some Catholics today willing to place the atrocities in a more "Christian light" rather than tyring to defend or minimalize monsterous acts of atrocity - or worse - continuing to demonize the victims in "true dark ages" spirit.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
EWTN's Dr Carroll has been authorotatively providing Catholic Answers on the subject of the History and practice of the Catholic church for a number of years.

In Christ,

Bob

I will have to look him up, but in any case, I think he is wrong, else you have taken him out of context, which I will determine if I can see the full text.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

[GraceSaves]

Bob, unfortunately, seems to have a one-track mind, as all of his posts on all his threads are simply repeats of the same statements.

Here is what Dr. Carroll actually said, since Bob will not provide the quote for you:

"In a recent post I tried to clarify my position on this issue. I certainly do not advocate the restoration of the butning of heretics, because in the present climate of opinion it would hurt the Church, and I do not think it should have been done in the past, because we should not deliberately inflict such great pain, nor deprive the heretic of the oppotunity to repent. But I do understand why it was done in the past, for the reasons that several posters have stated. Billy Graham would have been seen as a heretic in the past, and he is in fact a heretic now, though he does love Christ and has done much good. - Dr. Carroll"

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
As for the RCC's own statements on "extermination" --

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Catholic apologists often argue that the RCC isn't accountable for the Inquisition, since the state carried out the torturing and the executions. It was the RCC who defined these people as "heretics", however, and the RCC handed them over to the state (John 19:11).

I have yet to see the Catholic apologist absolve the Catholic Church from what ever wrong doing may have been perpetuated from that body. And neither have I done such a thing. Indeed, we own up to the abuses that have been perpetuated, exaggerated as they may be.

Let me give you this link one more time:

http://www.catholicleague.org/research/inquisition.html

And while those early times were harsh times, where condemnation to death was common, whereas the Church teaches that it should not be avoided, we also find the Protestants equally guilty if not more so, for much of the bad things that have happened.

We know from the decrees of Popes and councils that the RCC viewed itself as having authority over the state. For example, the Fourth Lateran Council, the ecumenical council that dogmatized transubstantiation, declared the following about exterminare;

(http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/lat4-c3.html):

Be very careful with the words "exterminate" and other hyperbolas, that does not point to actual murdering and killing of others, but otherwise to "uproot" or "wipeout" a heresy, especially in those cases where the heresy is virulent itself against Catholic Christians. Most often, it was done by the state, not the Church, but alas and unfortunate, as often urged by the Catholic clergy.

Other councils, such as Vienna, issued anti-Semitic decrees that ordered the persecution of Jews. The persecution of other groups, such as the Waldensians, was also ordered by the RCC.
For example, Pope Innocent VIII issued a bull in 1487 ordering that people "rise up in arms against" and "tread under foot" the Waldensians.

The following link gives a little more detail in the Waldensians:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15527b.htm

And indeed, Innocent VIII did issue a crusade against them, but most often, it was individual civil states that did this in to keep order and to eliminate strife between such factions.

Here is some more reading concerning the Crusades:

http://www.catholicleague.org/research/battle_over_the_crusades.htm

Roman Catholic and former Jesuit Peter de Rosa writes in Vicars of Christ (Crown Publishers, 1988),
"Of eighty popes in a line from the thirteenth century on not one of them disapproved of the theology and apparatus of the Inquisition. On the contrary, one after another added his own cruel touches to the workings of this deadly machine."
The Catholic historian von Dollinger writes in The Pope and the Council,
"From 1200 to 1500 the long series of Papal ordinances on the Inquisition, ever increasing in severity and cruelty, and their whole policy towards heresy, runs on without a break. It is a rigidly consistent system of legislation; every Pope confirms and improves upon the devices of his predecessor....It was only the absolute dictation of the Popes, and the notion of their infallibility in all questions of Evangelical morality, that made the Christian world...[accept] the Inquisition, which contradicted the simplest principles of Christian justice and love to our neighbor, and would have been rejected with universal horror in the ancient Church."

Sounds to me like these authors have considerable "axes to grind" and they don jibe with what I have been reading, especially in the links I have provided.

Bob, I am not denying that bad things got promulgated in the medieval Church. They certainly did, and they remain as "skeletons in our closets" even while their severity is too often exaggerated beyond recognition.

I am in several conferences, so was this conference the one that brought up the "10's of millions of people murdered" in the Inquisitions? (I forget the number.) a figure that would seemingly exceed the population of Europe at the time, and likewise a figure far greater then the plagues that did indeed, nearly wipe out human population!

Something is wrong with these figures!

Were people murdered and tortured under the smiling and sinister administration of a cleric or two? Sadly, probably yes. Was a pope or two vindictive in his decrees against heretics? Probably.

But remember, those were the norms of the times. Stealing was punished by cutting off of the offending hand, for example, and death penalty was a frequent punishment for infractions not much worse.

Today, we are horrified by these things! In my youth, the death penalty was universally accepted by all of the Churches as fitting the crime of premeditated murder. Today, most Churches, including the Catholic Church, speak up against it.

Not too long ago, blacks were slaves in Baptist homes (and a Catholic home or two, I suspect) but today, slavery is condemned. So please, when you study the awful things about the Inquisition and the Crusades, be mindful that the Protestant mindset was similarly disposed.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Lord, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things that I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
Living one day at a time,
enjoying one moment at a time;
accepting hardship as a pathway to peace;
taking, as Jesus did, this sinful world as it is,
not as I would have it;
trusting that you will make all things right
if I surrender to Your will;
so that I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with You forever in the next.
Amen.