Judge Not

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by 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"

Thank you for that clarification, GraceSaves, but I would still disagree with the situation, had Rev. Billy Graham lived in those times.

Actually, it is an anchronism, as Billy Graham represents a denomination (Baptist) that is far removed from it's original founders or those who bolted from the bosom of the Catholic Church.

In contrast, in those early times, the heresies was not usually old enough to have many generations of believers that would fall under the category of being "sublimely innocent" of the heresy.


To say it in another way, Rev. Billy Graham was not the original "bolter" form the Catholic Church, as was Luther. Therefore, Luther was excommunicated, whereas, Billy Graham would not be.

Maybe it is too fine of a point I am making here...but anyway, that is my thoughts...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

[BobRyan]

I never claimed that Dr. Carroll HIMSELF wanted Billy Graham to burn at the stake - RATHER I have pointed out that he admitted that it was the practice of the RCC and was so dependable that we can say with some degree of certainty that even Billy Graham would have been burned. (as much as those today want to say that such is not true of the RCC in the dark ages)

--- here is what I asked Dr. Carroll

My question to Dr. Carroll dated 5/20/2002

"you did not respond to the Specific question asked about Billy Graham's teaching. being a good example of heresy. AND whether the teaching that he holds today WOULD in fact qualify him for "burning" if only he had lived a few hundred years ago. It "sort" of appears from your answer that you AGREE that HE WOULD qualify for turture and death under the established practices of the church that have been so well defined on that thread.

DO you agree that his rejection of the immaculate conception, communion of the saints, the body of Christ in the mass, the authority of the Poe and the Catholic Church-etc WOULD qualify him even MORE than many of those protestants burned at the stake historically?

Dr. Carroll actually replied as follows

"YES, Billy Graham WOULD have qualified as a heretic by the standards of Christian civilization in the past. Heresy DOES exist, and can be very distructive in a Christian society, but I am NOT advocating the RESTORATION of burning at the stake, and have never done so. Dr. Carroll"

This response was also dated 5/20/2002.

In Christ,

Bob

[ October 05, 2003, 01:00 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[BobRyan]

Bill Putman said --
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.

As in some of our other debates -- this time you ignored the "details" in what was provided.

The quote shows that this practice continued for centuries and was at one point the focused response by the RCC to the reformation.

You have not provided any proof that the entire continent of europe did not have millions of people living on it over a period of centuries.

HOWEVER population stastics DO show that we reached our First BILLION on the planet at the end of the 1700's. Your statement that millions of people were not living in Europe during the zenith of RCC's persecution of Christians (the Vatican study group shows this to be in the 1600's) is simply not believable. By the end of the 1800's we reached our second Billion. This means that between the 1500's and the end of the 1700's another HALF BILLION were added.

The quotes also "showed" this to be the policy and practice of the church itself NOT some lone civil authority. ALSO the quote from Lateran IV shows this - applied to ALL territories ALL rulers ALL religious authorities.

There is no escaping it.

Dr. Carroll is quite correct and the historic documents support his view.

Furthermore - the study group / seminar was listed in the article above - just read through it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[John Gilmore]

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

Thank you for that clarification, GraceSaves, but I would still disagree with the situation, had Rev. Billy Graham lived in those times.

Actually, it is an anchronism, as Billy Graham represents a denomination (Baptist) that is far removed from it's original founders or those who bolted from the bosom of the Catholic Church.

In contrast, in those early times, the heresies was not usually old enough to have many generations of believers that would fall under the category of being "sublimely innocent" of the heresy.


To say it in another way, Rev. Billy Graham was not the original "bolter" form the Catholic Church, as was Luther. Therefore, Luther was excommunicated, whereas, Billy Graham would not be.
</font>[/QUOTE]One the reasons that Luther was excommunicated was that he taught that heretics should not be burned. See (http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/L10EXDOM.HTM). Are Luther and Dr. Carroll false teachers or is Pope Leo X? And, if Luther's excommunication contains a false statement, how can it be considered valid?

 

[WPutnam]

Bob replied, where I last said (in italics):

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.

As in some of our other debates -- this time you ignored the "details" in what was provided.

Oh well, I guess it was my way of keeping my responses from being too long, as you also note in "some of our other debates."

The quote shows that this practice continued for centuries and was at one point the focused response by the RCC to the reformation.

Yes, that is probably so, just like Calvin who had a dissident burned at the stake as well for not agreeing with his doctrines and teachings, and why we probably had some of the worse atrocities against Christians, both Protestant but notably Catholic, in England as well.

You have not provided any proof that the entire continent of europe did not have millions of people living on it over a period of centuries.

Huh? Are you saying that I should provide a census of Europe in medieval times? I have not the slightest idea what it was, Bob, and I am not going to waste my time finding out what the figures were.

All I understand is, the figures of those executed during the inquisitions seem to be grossly over exaggerated, per the links I have provided. I will repeat one of them:

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

Here is a paste-in concerning the Spanish Inquisition from that same link:

Quote…

(The Claim)It was primarily aimed at the early Protestant reformers of the 16th century and the Spanish Inquisition alone killed and tortured hundreds of thousands of Protestant reformers.

(The reality) The Spanish Inquisition was aimed primarily at Catholics of Jewish ancestry. In total, it is unlikely that even a thousand, let alone hundreds of thousands, Protestants suffered at the hands of the Spanish Inquisition. While those alleged to be Protestants were inquisitorial victims in England and Europe, there numbers were small and most were protected by Protestant or sympathetic rulers. Much of the focus of the various inquisitions were clerical abuses and what was considered scandalous behavior. Most cases in the inquisitions involved adultery, drunkenness, failure to attend to religious devotions, sacrilege, verbal abuse of clergy, etc.

Unquote…

HOWEVER population stastics DO show that we reached our First BILLION on the planet at the end of the 1700's. Your statement that millions of people were not living in Europe during the zenith of RCC's persecution of Christians (the Vatican study group shows this to be in the 1600's) is simply not believable. By the end of the 1800's we reached our second Billion. This means that between the 1500's and the end of the 1700's another HALF BILLION were added.

Bob, wait a minute! I am not claiming these figures, only attempting to recall what was claimed as being killed during the inquisitions! All I am saying is, the figures quoted as being killed in the inquisitions are preposterous, compared to those who died in the terrible plagues, as I understand it.

How many people do you believe were executed in the inquisitions, Bob? How do you go to prove that figure? What I show is, the figure is much exaggerated by authors who seem to be very well documented.

Can you show similar good documentation in your claims, Bob?

The quotes also "showed" this to be the policy and practice of the church itself NOT some lone civil authority. ALSO the quote from Lateran IV shows this - applied to ALL territories ALL rulers ALL religious authorities.

There is no escaping it.

Bob, the policies and practices of the Church were often no different then the general norm of the times! And indeed, there is "no escaping it" since it is stark history that no one will deny, including knowledgeable Catholics (that I hope to achieve, someday).

Dr. Carroll is quite correct and the historic documents support his view.

I have already expressed a disagreement with his assertion, not being able to talk to him directly. I think he used Rev. Billy Graham in hyperbola more then anything, since it would be a serious anachronism to have him juxtaposed in that time period, representing a denomination that was, in the present day, approximately 500 years old.

For your reading enjoyment, I will paste-in what it says in my 1967 Catholic Encyclopedia on the inquisitions. I have a personal copy of this fine encyclopedia, and what you are about to read was personally transcribed by scanning/correcting the text for errors of transcription. Anyway, here it is:

Paste-in here:

THE INQUISITION

Initially a Church court of the Middle Ages, and inquisition
was established either by diocesan bishops or by the pope to
suppress heresies which threatened the doctrinal orthodoxy of
the Catholic faith. Its objective was to detect and identify
heretics, to secure if possible their return to the Catholic
Church, and finally to punish those who refused to abandon
their errors.

Because its procedures often denied elementary justice to the
defendant, because it showed hostility to the spirit of
scientific inquiry (as in the case of the astronomer Galileo),
and finally because it permitted torture and infliction of the
death penalty, the Inquisition has come to stand in the judge-
ment of many historians as a symbol of cruelty, intellectual
terrorism, and religious intolerance. The attempts of certain
Catholic apologists to exonerate the medieval Church and
Inquisition of those charges have been futile. Historical
evidence forces us to admit that on occasion inquisitors such
as the thirteenth-century Conrad of Marburg and Robert Le
Bougre (whom the Pope subsequently condemned to life imprison-
ment) committed grave crimes against justice, charity, and the
human person by summarily condemning large numbers of heretics
to death. The inquisition not only offends modern ideals of
justice and spiritual freedom, it also contradicts the teaching
of the fathers and doctors of the Church such as St. Bernard,
who said that faith must be "the result of conviction and
should not be imposed by force." Hence the Inquisition must
be seen in the special context of medieval society, culture,
and tradition, not in an effort to excuse it but rather in the
attempt to understand what forces brought it into being and
sustained it.

The origins of the Inquisition:

In accord with the teaching of St. Paul (1 Timothy 1:20;
Titus 3:10, 11), theologians and Church fathers of the early
Christian Era, such as Tertullian, Origen, and Lactantius,
and Sts. Hilary, Cyprian, and John Chrysostom, declared that
the Church could only excommunicate heretics. They rejected
the use of physical punishment and the imposition of the death
penalty as inconsistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

At first, St. Augustine (354 - 430) shared this sentiment,
remembering the spiritual anguish his own conversion from
the Manichaean heresy to Catholicism had cost him. But when
fanatic Donatist heretics began to terrorize the Catholics
of North Africa, he advocated punishments against them such
as fines and whipping, in hope of bring them, like errant
children, to their senses. He also approve the imperial
government's decree compelling the Donatists to renounce
their schism and return to the Church.

Prior to the Edict of Milan (313), with which the Emperor
Constantine legalized the practice of Christianity, Roman
law had invoked severe penalties against groups such as
Christians and Manichaeans, whose doctrines would not allow
them to acknowledge the divinity of the Emperor. Such
convictions were seen as an attack on the foundations of
social order. Indeed, after the Roman emperors embraced
Christianity in the fourth century, the repressed all public
manifestations of the arian and other heresies.

The prestige of St. Augustine in the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries gave weight to his revised opinion concerning the
attitude towards heresy. Moreover, a revival of interest
in the study of Roman law, together with examples of the
harsh treatment accorded the unorthodox and the guilty by
the Mosaic code of the Old Testament, tended to stiffen the
tolerant position that had been characteristic of the early
Church. There were also the radical changes that had over-
taken European society between the time of the Church fathers
and the High Middle Ages. The Catholic faith was universally
professed, and only its members could be citizens of Christen-
dom. Jews and aliens, though tolerated, were outside the
political and social structure.

(Continued in next post)

 

[WPutnam]

(Continued from previous post)

Christian kings and rulers also considered it part of their
duty to protect and promote the Church is interests, since in
a very real the good of civil society at that time depended
on the stability of the Catholic faith. Heresy, Albigensianism
in particular, was everywhere popularly regarded as treason to
God and the state. It was, moreover, thought impossible that
the human conscience, however misguided or ill-informed, could
in good faith reject the teachings of the Church it had once
accepted. All such rejection was seen, therefore, as a
deliberate offense against the truth -- the greatest sin, indeed,
one could commit. In addition, heretics must not be permitted
to corrupt the souls of other Catholics and endanger their
salvation. Consequently, if the heretic refused to abandon his
errors after they had been demonstrated to him, he deserved to
be excommunicated by the Church. To insure its own protection,
society was thought even to have the right to imprison him, or to
hand him over to the civil authority (in medieval terminology,
"the secular arm") for punishment.

The Albigenses Appear:

In about the year 1000, adherents of a Neo-Manichaean heresy
calling themselves Catheri, or, in southern France, Albisgenses,
began to appear throughout Europe. Originating in Bulgaria,
they were, by the close of the twelfth century, deeply entrenched
in the Provencal region of France and northern Italy. Like the
Manichaeans, whose spiritual descendants they were, the Cathari,
or Albigenses, professed belief in the inherent corruption of
human nature and in Satan as the lord of all things temporal.
Rejecting the sacraments and the cross, they refused to take oaths,
approved suicide, and sometimes held that the spirits of the dead
might inhabit the forms of animals.

Like the Waldenses sect, which shared some of their doctrines,
the Albigenses opposed the centralized organization of the
medieval Church and formed secret societies with their own
priesthood. Often rich and powerful, they could be as cruel
as those who persecuted them so savagely in the Albigensian
Crusade of 1209 - 1229. Their practice and dogma attacked the
very roots of the social order the Christian Church was trying
to introduce into a still semi-barbarian Europe; indeed, they
first provoked the violent popular antagonism not of ecclesiastical
officials but of the civil power.

In 1022, for example, the Catholics of Orleans, in France,
seized and burned 13 of the Albigenses with the approval of the
King, Robert II. In 1051 and 1052, Holy Roman Emperor
Henry III hanged a large number of heretics in the presence
of his court at Goslar, in germany. In most, though not all,
such instances of mob fury, the bishops and clergy strove to
protect heretics. Eleventh- and twelfth-century clerics such
as Bishop Wazo of Liege, Peter Cantor, Gerhoh of Reichersburg,
and St. Bernard of Clairvaux deplored physical violence against
heretics. However, they justified imprisonment, usually in
monasteries, to prevent the spread of error and to put the
heretic in an atmosphere more favorable to penitential changes
of spirit and conscience.

In response to the challenge of the heretics, who were growing
so powerful that they could defy excommunication with impunity,
various Church Councils began gradually to retreat from reliance
on spiritual penalties only. They proposed laws subjecting
those guilty of heresy to punishments such as imprisonment,
fines, banishment, and the confiscation of property. In France
and Germany the civil government, by its own authority, began
to put heretics to death. Count Raymond V of Toulouse, in whose
domains Albigensianism was especially prevalent, decreed con-
fiscation and death as the punishment for heresy. His laws
were ruthlessly applied by Simon de Montfort, leader of the
crusade against the Albigenses, who burned many hundreds of
that defiant sect. In 1197, King Pedro II of Aragon ordered all
heretics to leave his realms by Passion Sunday of the following
year or suffer confiscation and death. At the council of Verona,
in 1184, the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa and Pope Lucius III
threatened those holding heretical opinions not only with
excommunication but with "the punishment they deserved."
Implied in that phrase were banishment, confiscation, and the
public infamy which deprived convicted heretics of the right to
hold public office. By the thirteenth century its meaning had
been extended to include the penalty of death.

Pope Innocent III (1198 - 1216) enacted no new legislation against
heresy but urged strict application of the existing laws, especially
those drawn up under Pope Lucius III. Later by decrees of the
Fourth Laterean Council (1215), he established the procedure which
was to be followed in the prosecution of heretics. Their trial was
put in the hands of the bishop, and execution of the sentence was
assigned to the secular authority. No position was taken concerning
the death penalty, although in 1210 Pope Innocent III had admitted
the right of the state to inflict capital punishment in cases of heresy.

Influenced strongly by the revival of Roman legal theory, Emperor
Frederick II (reigned 1215 - 1250) instituted legislation between
1220 and 1231 which equated heresy with treason and, for the first
time, ordered unrepentant heretics to be burned at the stake.
In 1231, Pope Gregory IX admitted the principle of Frederick's
imperial decrees and applied them at Rome, where heresy had made
strong inroads. He declared it to be the Church's right to determine
what constituted heresy, but he insisted that it was not her office to
pronounce sentence of death on those found guilty.

Pope Gregory IX and the Inquisition:

Since Bishops are the just and natural guardians of the faith
in their dioceses, Popes Innocent III, Honorius III, and Gregory IX
sought to promote the establishment of diocesan inquisitions.
Episcopal response was lukewarm, either because many bishops feared
the power of the heretics (often supported by great noble families),
or because they themselves inclined favorably toward heresy. Even
when a bishop honestly desired to rid his diocese of the heresies in its
midst, his other duties often made it difficult to conduct a searching
campaign of investigation. When attempts at episcopal inquisition
proved inadequate to root out heresy, Pope gregory IX established the
Papal Inquisition through decrees issued first at the Council of
Toulouse, held in 1229.

The main features of the Inquisition:

As created by Pope Gregory IX, the inquisition was a tribunal directly
responsible to the papacy. Its members were judges appointed
permanently and charged with the duty of pursuing, examining, and
passing judgment on cases of heresy. Dominican friars were usually
chosen to conduct the procedures of the inquisition because of their
superior education in theology and canon law; however, Franciscans
and other mendicant friars also exercised the office. The custom of
episcopal courts was retained, and the inquisitors were supposed to
cooperate with the local bishops.

Gregory also confirmed the various disabilities, fines, and
punishments to which the condemned and their sympathizers were
now subject. Impenitent heretics were abandoned to the secular arm,
a judgment which almost invariably sent the victim to his death at the
stake. Individuals suspected of heretical opinions who failed to clear
themselves of that suspicion within a year became liable to the same
penalties as acknowledged heretics.

Laymen were forbidden to engage in private or public discussion of
heretical doctrine. The condemned were denied Christian burial, and
the corpses of those denounced after death were exhumed and burned.
A heretic who recanted after the death sentence had been pronounced
found himself subject to life imprisonment in solitary confinement.

Penances for Recanters:

The inquisition imposed various degrees and forms of penance on
heretics who returned to the Catholic faith. The penalties were usually
related to the notoriety of the heresy. Often the repentant heretic was
ordered to wear, for definite periods of time, a number of visible yellow
crosses sewn on his clothes. These badges exposed him to serious
economic and social hardship, as Catholics shunned him out of mistrust,
and professing or secret heretics hated him as a traitor. An inquisitional
judge could impose penitential pilgrimages, some involving a brief
journey to certain famous European shrines such as that of St. James of
Compostella in Spain, while others others might require the long
journey to the Holy Land. Many of these punishments could be remitted
by paying a fine, but in more serious cases, particularly those concerning
members of religious orders, judges had the power to confine in
ecclesiastical prisons condemned but repentant heretics.

Records that survive of the various inquisitions clearly show, however,
that considerable discretion might be exercised in application of the
penalties. Quite often, indeed, they were mitigated and even suspended.
Obstinate or relapsed heretics, however, were allowed no clemency.
Evidence indicates that sentences abandoning heretics to the secular arm,
and hence to death, were relatively few compared to the total number of
other civil and ecclesiastical penalties inflicted.

(Continued in next post)

 

[WPutnam]

(Continued from previous post)

For example, at the Inquisition of Pamiers, in southern France, which
took place between 1318 and 1324, of a total of 64 persons sentenced,
5 were given over to the civil power for execution. In the examinations
the relentless Bernard Gui conducted as Inquisitor at Toulouse between
1308 and 1331, he passed judgment on 930 persons, abandoning 42 of
these to the secular arm. The document listing sentences decreed at
Toulouse under Bernard of Caux at Toulouse between 1244 and 1246
does not record a single case in which the death penalty was permitted,
even for a relapsed heretic. However deplorable the number of deaths
for which the Inquisition must stand responsible, it nowhere approaches
the exaggerated figures which some historians have proposed.

Procedure of the Inquisition:

In his letter of October 11, 1231, to Conrad of Marburg, Pope
Gregory IX outlined the procedures which the Inquisition must observe:

"When you arrive in a city, summon the bishop, clergy, and people
and preach a sermon on the Faith. Then select certain men of good
reputation to help you in trying the heretics and suspects denounced
before your tribunal. All who on examination are found guilty or
suspected of heresy must promise to obey completely the commands
of the Church. If they refuse, you must prosecute them according to
the statutes which we have recently promulgated."

It was customary for the Inquisitor arriving in an area where heresy
was active os suspected to proclaim a "time of grace." During that
period, all heretics who renounced their error voluntarily received
small and private sentences, if they had practiced in secret. Even if
their heresy was notorious or a matter of public knowledge, a short
pilgrimage or a mild penalty would be imposed.

After the lapse of this time of grace, the Inquisitor allowed reputable
evidence to be offered against those suspected or known to be guilty
of heretical opinion or practice. The testimony of two witnesses was
necessary to indict a heretic. Brought before the ecclesiastical
tribunal, he was asked to list his mortal enemies. Should they appear
among his accusers, their testimony was invalidated, and unless the
charge was supported by other witnesses, the suspect was released.
In areas where heresy was deeply entrenched, the names of those
who had borne witness against him were not revealed to the accused,
for fear of the reprisals his family or followers might take against
those who brought the charge. Where such danger was absent, Pope
Boniface VIII decreed that the indicted heretic should be informed of
the identity of those giving testimony against him.

In accord with judicial procedure of the time, which assumed that
anyone defending a heretic must himself be implicated in that guilt,
neither legal counsel nor supporting witnesses were allowed to the
accused. When lawyers were occasionally permitted, it was only to
urge their clients to confess, and as a result, the accused heretic had
usually to defend himself as best he could. If he openly refused to
abandon his heresy or failed satisfactorily to answer the indictment
against him -- perhaps by taking some oath or performing some act
forbidden to the heretical sects -- he became liable to condemnation
and punishment.

Besides the Judge-Inquisitor, the court frequently comprised a select
panel of "wise men," often lawyers. This primitive jury observed the
proceedings to vouch for their justice; in doubtful cases, their opinion
was sometimes asked. When not actually present at a trial, they
received documents of the proceedings, and their advice was taken
into account by the Judge-Inquisitor before rendering his decision.
The chief defect of this last method lay in the gulf which separates the
urgent psychological situation of the courtroom atmosphere from a
cold and abstract recital of judicial procedure.

The Inquisitor's objective was to extract an admission of confession of
guilt from the accused. To obtain it, the latter was often imprisoned,
sometimes barbarously and for years. The use of torture, which was
an accepted feature of medieval criminal law, increased when it was
formally approved by Pope Innocent IV in 1252. If the victim yielded
under pressure, he was compelled to sign a declaration that he had
confessed of his own free will.

The Auto-da-fe:

On a particular Sunday, all condemned heretics appeared before the
Inquisition for formal sentence. Because a sermon was preached in
their presence and before the assembled clergy and people, this
solemn ceremony came to be called officially the sermo (Latin,
"discourse") or by its later and more famous Portuguese name,
auto-de-fe ("act of faith")

The late middle ages:

During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the papacy gradually lost
effective control over the Inquisition, especially in France, where it
had been most vigorously conducted with the cooperation of the
French kings, for example, St. Louis IX (1226 - 1270). The testimony
of disreputable persons began to be admitted, and the power which the
civil authority enjoyed of confiscating the property of heretics gave rise
to persecutions motivated largely by greed. Beginning with the reign of
the French King Philip IV (1285 - 1314), the Inquisition fell increasingly
under the dominance of men, both clerical and lay, who utilized it
cynically to foster the growing royal ambitions. Philip IV, in particular,
proceeded savagely against the Knights Templars to bring about their
extermination and consequently enrich his treasuries with their reputed
wealth. In that tragic affair, subservient Inquisitors, with the sanction of
a pope (Clement V), inhumanly tortured many great Knights of the Order
in the attempt to extract from them confessions of an absurd and
impossible blasphemy and immorality. In 1430 and 1431, during the
Hundred Years' War between France and England, the English power in
France, the Duke of bedford, exploited the pliant Inquisition to
condemn Joan of Arc as a heretic and a witch and thus discredit her
mission.

Secular control of the Inquisition reached its high-water mark in
sixteenth century Spain. At the request of Ferdinand and Isabella,
Pope Sixtus IV established the tribunal there in 1480. Its goal was to
expose and punish those numerous Jews and Moors who had externally
adopted christian practice but retained in secret their former beliefs and
worship. Though ostensibly still occupied with religious orthodoxy,
from the outset its political character and ambition were hardly to be
denied.

[Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967]

End of paste-in…

Now, in conclusion, we Catholics acknowledge the unfortunate bad things that occurred in the inquisitions by priests, bishops and even popes. What we object to is the excessive exaggeration that has taken place in a strident screed with Catholicism by her enemies.

Early in her history, the United States of America did some rather unfortunate and bad things against the Native Americans. And even in more recent history we see us doing bad things by the internment of Japanese-American citizens in internment camps during World War II.

I hope you are ashamed of those things as I am about our country, Bob. But I think we would both acknowledge the great goodness that exists in the best nation in the world, would you not agree?

Keep that in mind as you continue to rail against the Holy Catholic Church, Bob…

Oh, and one more thing: You have not claimed this, but others have, that if given the chance, the Catholic Church would do the same things again! In that vane, would you also agree that "given the chance" our country would revert back to the bad things it has done?

No, this is not for you, Bob, as again, you have not made such a statement, but it is for those who harbor this thought in their minds.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Forgive us Lord,
when in longing to defend what is right,
when in trying to support the truth
we do what is hurtful and mean,
forgetting to take out
whatever logs are in our own eyes
to take the speck out of the eye of our fellows,
forgetting to work all things in love.

Lord, forgive us
when hurt by our fellow man,
we complain, and strike back.

Heal us Lord,
and give us strength to offer you
our hurts and sadnesses,
to offer you the pain of being corrected,
rather rightly or not.

If it is our job to correct,
help us learn to do it in ways that heal,
not hurt,

And whatever we do in your name,
may we always do it for your glory,
without hate, anger,or the taint of self-righteousness.

May we learn to be quiet
in our longing and respect for you,
rather than speak words
that would drive any away from you,
or harm those who love you.

And when we speak,
may it always be guided by the Holy Spirit.

Amen.

 

[WPutnam]

(Continued from previous post)

For example, at the Inquisition of Pamiers, in southern France, which
took place between 1318 and 1324, of a total of 64 persons sentenced,
5 were given over to the civil power for execution. In the examinations
the relentless Bernard Gui conducted as Inquisitor at Toulouse between
1308 and 1331, he passed judgment on 930 persons, abandoning 42 of
these to the secular arm. The document listing sentences decreed at
Toulouse under Bernard of Caux at Toulouse between 1244 and 1246
does not record a single case in which the death penalty was permitted,
even for a relapsed heretic. However deplorable the number of deaths
for which the Inquisition must stand responsible, it nowhere approaches
the exaggerated figures which some historians have proposed.

Procedure of the Inquisition:

In his letter of October 11, 1231, to Conrad of Marburg, Pope
Gregory IX outlined the procedures which the Inquisition must observe:

"When you arrive in a city, summon the bishop, clergy, and people
and preach a sermon on the Faith. Then select certain men of good
reputation to help you in trying the heretics and suspects denounced
before your tribunal. All who on examination are found guilty or
suspected of heresy must promise to obey completely the commands
of the Church. If they refuse, you must prosecute them according to
the statutes which we have recently promulgated."

It was customary for the Inquisitor arriving in an area where heresy
was active os suspected to proclaim a "time of grace." During that
period, all heretics who renounced their error voluntarily received
small and private sentences, if they had practiced in secret. Even if
their heresy was notorious or a matter of public knowledge, a short
pilgrimage or a mild penalty would be imposed.

After the lapse of this time of grace, the Inquisitor allowed reputable
evidence to be offered against those suspected or known to be guilty
of heretical opinion or practice. The testimony of two witnesses was
necessary to indict a heretic. Brought before the ecclesiastical
tribunal, he was asked to list his mortal enemies. Should they appear
among his accusers, their testimony was invalidated, and unless the
charge was supported by other witnesses, the suspect was released.
In areas where heresy was deeply entrenched, the names of those
who had borne witness against him were not revealed to the accused,
for fear of the reprisals his family or followers might take against
those who brought the charge. Where such danger was absent, Pope
Boniface VIII decreed that the indicted heretic should be informed of
the identity of those giving testimony against him.

In accord with judicial procedure of the time, which assumed that
anyone defending a heretic must himself be implicated in that guilt,
neither legal counsel nor supporting witnesses were allowed to the
accused. When lawyers were occasionally permitted, it was only to
urge their clients to confess, and as a result, the accused heretic had
usually to defend himself as best he could. If he openly refused to
abandon his heresy or failed satisfactorily to answer the indictment
against him -- perhaps by taking some oath or performing some act
forbidden to the heretical sects -- he became liable to condemnation
and punishment.

Besides the Judge-Inquisitor, the court frequently comprised a select
panel of "wise men," often lawyers. This primitive jury observed the
proceedings to vouch for their justice; in doubtful cases, their opinion
was sometimes asked. When not actually present at a trial, they
received documents of the proceedings, and their advice was taken
into account by the Judge-Inquisitor before rendering his decision.
The chief defect of this last method lay in the gulf which separates the
urgent psychological situation of the courtroom atmosphere from a
cold and abstract recital of judicial procedure.

The Inquisitor's objective was to extract an admission of confession of
guilt from the accused. To obtain it, the latter was often imprisoned,
sometimes barbarously and for years. The use of torture, which was
an accepted feature of medieval criminal law, increased when it was
formally approved by Pope Innocent IV in 1252. If the victim yielded
under pressure, he was compelled to sign a declaration that he had
confessed of his own free will.

The Auto-da-fe:

On a particular Sunday, all condemned heretics appeared before the
Inquisition for formal sentence. Because a sermon was preached in
their presence and before the assembled clergy and people, this
solemn ceremony came to be called officially the sermo (Latin,
"discourse") or by its later and more famous Portuguese name,
auto-de-fe ("act of faith")

The late middle ages:

During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the papacy gradually lost
effective control over the Inquisition, especially in France, where it
had been most vigorously conducted with the cooperation of the
French kings, for example, St. Louis IX (1226 - 1270). The testimony
of disreputable persons began to be admitted, and the power which the
civil authority enjoyed of confiscating the property of heretics gave rise
to persecutions motivated largely by greed. Beginning with the reign of
the French King Philip IV (1285 - 1314), the Inquisition fell increasingly
under the dominance of men, both clerical and lay, who utilized it
cynically to foster the growing royal ambitions. Philip IV, in particular,
proceeded savagely against the Knights Templars to bring about their
extermination and consequently enrich his treasuries with their reputed
wealth. In that tragic affair, subservient Inquisitors, with the sanction of
a pope (Clement V), inhumanly tortured many great Knights of the Order
in the attempt to extract from them confessions of an absurd and
impossible blasphemy and immorality. In 1430 and 1431, during the
Hundred Years' War between France and England, the English power in
France, the Duke of bedford, exploited the pliant Inquisition to
condemn Joan of Arc as a heretic and a witch and thus discredit her
mission.

Secular control of the Inquisition reached its high-water mark in
sixteenth century Spain. At the request of Ferdinand and Isabella,
Pope Sixtus IV established the tribunal there in 1480. Its goal was to
expose and punish those numerous Jews and Moors who had externally
adopted christian practice but retained in secret their former beliefs and
worship. Though ostensibly still occupied with religious orthodoxy,
from the outset its political character and ambition were hardly to be
denied.

[Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967]

End of paste-in…

Now, in conclusion, we Catholics acknowledge the unfortunate bad things that occurred in the inquisitions by priests, bishops and even popes. What we object to is the excessive exaggeration that has taken place in a strident screed with Catholicism by her enemies.

Early in her history, the United States of America did some rather unfortunate and bad things against the Native Americans. And even in more recent history we see us doing bad things by the internment of Japanese-American citizens in internment camps during World War II.

I hope you are ashamed of those things as I am about our country, Bob. But I think we would both acknowledge the great goodness that exists in the best nation in the world, would you not agree?

Keep that in mind as you continue to rail against the Holy Catholic Church, Bob…

Oh, and one more thing: You have not claimed this, but others have, that if given the chance, the Catholic Church would do the same things again! In that vane, would you also agree that "given the chance" our country would revert back to the bad things it has done?

No, this is not for you, Bob, as again, you have not made such a statement, but it is for those who harbor this thought in their minds.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Forgive us Lord,
when in longing to defend what is right,
when in trying to support the truth
we do what is hurtful and mean,
forgetting to take out
whatever logs are in our own eyes
to take the speck out of the eye of our fellows,
forgetting to work all things in love.

Lord, forgive us
when hurt by our fellow man,
we complain, and strike back.

Heal us Lord,
and give us strength to offer you
our hurts and sadnesses,
to offer you the pain of being corrected,
rather rightly or not.

If it is our job to correct,
help us learn to do it in ways that heal,
not hurt,

And whatever we do in your name,
may we always do it for your glory,
without hate, anger,or the taint of self-righteousness.

May we learn to be quiet
in our longing and respect for you,
rather than speak words
that would drive any away from you,
or harm those who love you.

And when we speak,
may it always be guided by the Holy Spirit.

Amen.

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:
One the reasons that Luther was excommunicated was that he taught that heretics should not be burned. See ( http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/L10EXDOM.HTM ). Are Luther and Dr. Carroll false teachers or is Pope Leo X? And, if Luther's excommunication contains a false statement, how can it be considered valid?

Well, I scanned that link, and my bleary eyes could not land upon the paragraph that even implies what you claim, so please do a copy/paste where it is pertinant.

God bless,

PAX

Rome has spoken, case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.

 

[John Gilmore]

WPutnam,

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows: . . .33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
CONDEMNING THE ERRORS OF MARTIN LUTHER
Exsurge Domine
Bull of Pope Leo X issued June 15, 1520

If the current Pope can not the lift the entire excommunication, perhaps he could absolve Martin of the sin of not wanting to burn heretics.

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:
WPutnam,

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows: . . .33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
CONDEMNING THE ERRORS OF MARTIN LUTHER
Exsurge Domine
Bull of Pope Leo X issued June 15, 1520

Maybe I am reading this cross-eyed, but I read this as []icondemning[/i] burining at the state, not condemning the "practice that the Catholic Church is free to do so" as I think you are implying.

Correct me if I am wrong here. please...

If the current Pope can not the lift the entire excommunication, perhaps he could absolve Martin of the sin of not wanting to burn heretics.

If Martin Luther were still alive, he certainly could do so, as he recants and returns to Holy Mother Church!

But since he has been mouldering in the grave these vew hundreds of years, I am afraid that Christ did not give him the power to resurrect a soul into his glorified body!

That's God's job!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son,
Our Lord;
who was conceived by the holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died,
and was buried.

He descended into hell;
the third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
sitteth at the right hand of God,
the Father almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge
the living and the dead.

I believe in the holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

 

[John Gilmore]

WPutman,

Maybe I am reading this cross-eyed, but I read this as []icondemning[/i] burining at the state, not condemning the "practice that the Catholic Church is free to do so" as I think you are implying.

Correct me if I am wrong here. please...

I don't understand your confusion. Pope Leo is clearly condemning Luther for writing, "Burning heretics is contrary to the will of the Holy Ghost."

If Martin Luther were still alive, he certainly could do so, as he recants and returns to Holy Mother Church!

Which Holy Mother Church? The 16th century one or the 21st century one? Since he appears to be in agreement with the 21st century church, why can't the 21st century Holy Mother Church absolve him?

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.
Alessandra Galloni

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:
WPutman,

Maybe I am reading this cross-eyed, but I read this as icondemning burning at the state, not condemning the "practice that the Catholic Church is free to do so" as I think you are implying.

Correct me if I am wrong here. please...

I don't understand your confusion. Pope Leo is clearly condemning Luther for writing, "Burning heretics is contrary to the will of the Holy Ghost."

Let me paste-in from the link, the list of things condemned, with my comments:

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

1. It is a heretical opinion, but a common one, that the sacraments of the New Law give pardoning grace to those who do not set up an obstacle.

QUESTION: Did Luther proclaim this error? It seems to be an expanded list of other errors beyond what Luther may have taught.

2. To deny that in a child after baptism sin remains is to treat with contempt both Paul and Christ.

Again, did Luther teach this?

3. The inflammable sources of sin, even if there be no actual sin, delay a soul departing from the body from entrance into heaven.

Did Luther teach this? (I have not seen this idea before.)

4. To one on the point of death imperfect charity necessarily brings with it great fear, which in itself alone is enough to produce the punishment of purgatory, and impedes entrance into the kingdom.

I'm not sure I underatand the nuance of this, but again, a Lutheren doctrine condemned? Remember, this is a list of things CONDEMNED in this document!

5. That there are three parts to penance: contrition, confession, and satisfaction, has no foundation in Sacred Scripture nor in the ancient sacred Christian doctors.

The error here is the statement "has no foundation..." That was a Luther claim that is condemned here, because there is ample scriptural evidence, in the eyes of the Church, to support confessions to a priest by simply reading John 20:22-23!

6. Contrition, which is acquired through discussion, collection, and detestation of sins, by which one reflects upon his years in the bitterness of his soul, by pondering over the gravity of sins, their number, their baseness, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the acquisition of eternal damnation, this contrition makes him a hypocrite, indeed more a sinner.

7. It is a most truthful proverb and the doctrine concerning the contritions given thus far is the more remarkable: "Not to do so in the future is the highest penance; the best penance, a new life."

8. By no means may you presume to confess venial sins, nor even all mortal sins, because it is impossible that you know all mortal sins. Hence in the primitive Church only manifest mortal sins were confessed.

I confess my venial sins all the time in confession! Therefore, if this is a Luther teadhing, it is obviously wrong and in error!

9. As long as we wish to confess all sins without exception, we are doing nothing else than to wish to leave nothing to God's mercy for pardon.

10. Sins are not forgiven to anyone, unless when the priest forgives them he believes they are forgiven; on the contrary the sin would remain unless he believed it was forgiven; for indeed the remission of sin and the granting of grace does not suffice, but it is necessary also to believe that there has been forgiveness.

The error here is, if it were true, the poor penitant would leave the confessional without assurrance that his sims were forgiven! Luther has it that the attitude of the priest effects the validity of his absolution!

11. By no means can you have reassurance of being absolved because of your contrition, but because of the word of Christ: "Whatsoever you shall loose, etc." Hence, I say, trust confidently, if you have obtained the absolution of the priest, and firmly believe yourself to have been absolved, and you will truly be absolved, whatever there may be of contrition.

This seems related to the article immediately above. If Luther taught that, he is in obvious error!

Do you see what is happening here? the papal bull is condemning what Luther (and others) are teaching!

12. If through an impossibility he who confessed was not contrite, or the priest did not absolve seriously, but in a jocose manner, if nevertheless he believes that he has been absolved, he is most truly absolved.

It depends upon the attitude of the priest! If he does not believe any longer that he has the power to forgive sins, his absolutions are no longer good. The poor penitant leaves the confessional thinking he has been absolved but he is still in his sins! I am not sure Luther taught this, but I have heard of this error before.

13. In the sacrament of penance and the remission of sin the pope or the bishop does no more than the lowest priest; indeed, where there is no priest, any Christian, even if a woman or child, may equally do as much.

A smack in the face of Holy Orders and the power, given to the apostles (and their successors) to "bind and loose," including the power to forgive sins, among other things.

Did you notice the trend here? The pope is listing things that are ERROR!

(The rest of the paste-in truncated here to reduce the size of my reply)

32. A good work done very well is a venial sin.

An obvious error the Church condemns!

and now finally, the meat of our discussion:

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

An obvious error the pope is condemning! Remember, this may not be what Luther is teaching, but an all-inclusive list of other errors, the pope includes in this papal bull!

There is no way you can say that the pope is condemning what Luther says the church teaches!
The statement of number 33 is an obvious error the pope is condemning. My eyes are not bleary at all!

(I also truncated the rest of the list, to save space in this reply.)

I last said:

If Martin Luther were still alive, he certainly could do so, as he recants and returns to Holy Mother Church!

Which Holy Mother Church? The 16th century one or the 21st century one? Since he appears to be in agreement with the 21st century church, why can't the 21st century Holy Mother Church absolve him?

John, Luther is DEAD!

How can the Church absolve a person who is dead? It is too late! he has already been judged and sent to his reward!

You are expanding the power to forgive or retains the sins of man, per JOhn 20:22-23 well beyond it's limits. The person who comes to a priest is alive, not dead. He is seeking absolution for his sins so that when he dies, he will be judged kindly and go to heaven!

I can discuss the ability we all have to pray for those souls who may be in purgatory, but let's save it for another time.

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.
Alessandra Galloni

I am not contesting that at all, John!

What I do contest is the gross exaggeration, others put on the Catholic Church in the affairs of the inquisitions! I have never denied the existence of sinning priests, bishops and a pope or two in the bad things that have occurred in these awful times. Again, what I do contest is the gross exaggerations that are out of proportion with what research has revealed concerning those events, given in links I provide a message or two ago.

John, we have sinners in the Catholic Church! ok?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Forgive us Lord,
when in longing to defend what is right,
when in trying to support the truth
we do what is hurtful and mean,
forgetting to take out
whatever logs are in our own eyes
to take the speck out of the eye of our fellows,
forgetting to work all things in love.

Lord, forgive us
when hurt by our fellow man,
we complain, and strike back.

Heal us Lord,
and give us strength to offer you
our hurts and sadnesses,
to offer you the pain of being corrected,
rather rightly or not.

If it is our job to correct,
help us learn to do it in ways that heal,
not hurt,

And whatever we do in your name,
may we always do it for your glory,
without hate, anger,
or the taint of self-righteousness.

May we learn to be quiet
in our longing and respect for you,
rather than speak words
that would drive any away from you,
or harm those who love you.

And when we speak,
may it always be guided by the Holy Spirit.

Amen.

 

[John Gilmore]

WPutnam,

I think you may be confusing Luther's doctrine with Pope Leo's doctrine. If so, the RCC has changed a lot in 400 years. I will go through each point you have listed and give what I think is the Lutheran doctrine:


1. It is a heretical opinion, but a common one, that the sacraments of the New Law give pardoning grace to those who do not set up an obstacle.

Luther teaches, contrary to Leo, that the sacraments do not confer grace to those who have no faith.

2. To deny that in a child after baptism sin remains is to treat with contempt both Paul and Christ.

Luther teaches, contrary to Leo, that children continue to sin after baptism.

3. The inflammable sources of sin, even if there be no actual sin, delay a soul departing from the body from entrance into heaven.

Luther teaches, contrary to Leo, that there is no delay in the entrance into heaven due to the sin nature in man.

4. To one on the point of death imperfect charity necessarily brings with it great fear, which in itself alone is enough to produce the punishment of purgatory, and impedes entrance into the kingdom.

Luther, contrary to Leo, denies that fear of death impedes entrance into heaven.

5. That there are three parts to penance: contrition, confession, and satisfaction, has no foundation in Sacred Scripture nor in the ancient sacred Christian doctors.

Luther, contrary to Leo, denies that satisfactions are necessary for repentance. He does not deny that absolution (repentance) is a sacrament but teaches that only contrition and faith are necessary.

6. Contrition, which is acquired through discussion, collection, and detestation of sins, by which one reflects upon his years in the bitterness of his soul, by pondering over the gravity of sins, their number, their baseness, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the acquisition of eternal damnation, this contrition makes him a hypocrite, indeed more a sinner.

Luther, contrary to Leo, is teaching that, unless man is regenerated by Word and Sacrament, he remains a condemned sinner.

7. It is a most truthful proverb and the doctrine concerning the contritions given thus far is the more remarkable: "Not to do so in the future is the highest penance; the best penance, a new life."

Luther, contrary to Leo, rejects good works as penance.

8. By no means may you presume to confess venial sins, nor even all mortal sins, because it is impossible that you know all mortal sins. Hence in the primitive Church only manifest mortal sins were confessed.

This is little confusing because Luther taught we should confess all the sins that we can remember at confession.

9. As long as we wish to confess all sins without exception, we are doing nothing else than to wish to leave nothing to God's mercy for pardon.

Luther, contrary to Leo, teaches that we should not be concerned that we may have omitted a sin because it is impossible to know or remember all our sins.

10. Sins are not forgiven to anyone, unless when the priest forgives them he believes they are forgiven; on the contrary the sin would remain unless he believed it was forgiven; for indeed the remission of sin and the granting of grace does not suffice, but it is necessary also to believe that there has been forgiveness.

The error here is, if it were true, the poor penitant would leave the confessional without assurrance that his sims were forgiven! Luther has it that the attitude of the priest effects the validity of his absolution!

No, Luther is speaking about the attitude of the penitant not the priest. If the penitant does not believe he is forgiven, he is not forgiven. Leo teaches that faith in absolution given by the priest is not necessary. The outward act confers grace.

11. By no means can you have reassurance of being absolved because of your contrition, but because of the word of Christ: "Whatsoever you shall loose, etc." Hence, I say, trust confidently, if you have obtained the absolution of the priest, and firmly believe yourself to have been absolved, and you will truly be absolved, whatever there may be of contrition.

This seems related to the article immediately above. If Luther taught that, he is in obvious error!

Leo is distorting what Luther taught. Luther taught that contrition is necessary and faith in the words of the priest.

Do you see what is happening here? the papal bull is condemning what Luther (and others) are teaching!

12. If through an impossibility he who confessed was not contrite, or the priest did not absolve seriously, but in a jocose manner, if nevertheless he believes that he has been absolved, he is most truly absolved.

It depends upon the attitude of the priest! If he does not believe any longer that he has the power to forgive sins, his absolutions are no longer good. The poor penitant leaves the confessional thinking he has been absolved but he is still in his sins! I am not sure Luther taught this, but I have heard of this error before.

Again Luther, contrary to Leo, teaches that contrition is necessary but attitude of priest does not invalidate the absolution. Leo seems to repeating an old heresy about the sins of a priest affecting the validity of a sacrament.

13. In the sacrament of penance and the remission of sin the pope or the bishop does no more than the lowest priest; indeed, where there is no priest, any Christian, even if a woman or child, may equally do as much.

A smack in the face of Holy Orders and the power, given to the apostles (and their successors) to "bind and loose," including the power to forgive sins, among other things.

Luther, contrary to Leo, is merely repeating the teachings of Jerome and Augustine.

Did you notice the trend here? The pope is listing things that are ERROR!

Like burning heretics is against the will of the Spirit?


(The rest of the paste-in truncated here to reduce the size of my reply)

32. A good work done very well is a venial sin.

An obvious error the Church condemns!

I don't understand Leo's meaning.

and now finally, the meat of our discussion:

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

An obvious error the pope is condemning! Remember, this may not be what Luther is teaching, but an all-inclusive list of other errors, the pope includes in this papal bull!

There is no way you can say that the pope is condemning what Luther says the church teaches!
The statement of number 33 is an obvious error the pope is condemning. My eyes are not bleary at all!

Burning heretics is not contrary to the will of the Holy Ghost?

 

[WPutnam]

John replied:

I think you may be confusing Luther's doctrine with Pope Leo's doctrine. If so, the RCC has changed a lot in 400 years. I will go through each point you have listed and give what I think is the Lutheran doctrine:


1. It is a heretical opinion, but a common one, that the sacraments of the New Law give pardoning grace to those who do not set up an obstacle.

Luther teaches, contrary to Leo, that the sacraments do not confer grace to those who have no faith.

This is interesting because if one has no faith, how then could one be baptized in the first place? Of course, the person was previously baptized but apostacizes, then the only sacrament that could possible confer grace is the Sacrament of reconciliation.

2. To deny that in a child after baptism sin remains is to treat with contempt both Paul and Christ.

Luther teaches, contrary to Leo, that children continue to sin after baptism.

3. The inflammable sources of sin, even if there be no actual sin, delay a soul departing from the body from entrance into heaven.

Luther teaches, contrary to Leo, that there is no delay in the entrance into heaven due to the sin nature in man.

4. To one on the point of death imperfect charity necessarily brings with it great fear, which in itself alone is enough to produce the punishment of purgatory, and impedes entrance into the kingdom.

Luther, contrary to Leo, denies that fear of death impedes entrance into heaven.

5. That there are three parts to penance: contrition, confession, and satisfaction, has no foundation in Sacred Scripture nor in the ancient sacred Christian doctors.

Luther, contrary to Leo, denies that satisfactions are necessary for repentance. He does not deny that absolution (repentance) is a sacrament but teaches that only contrition and faith are necessary.

6. Contrition, which is acquired through discussion, collection, and detestation of sins, by which one reflects upon his years in the bitterness of his soul, by pondering over the gravity of sins, their number, their baseness, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the acquisition of eternal damnation, this contrition makes him a hypocrite, indeed more a sinner.

Luther, contrary to Leo, is teaching that, unless man is regenerated by Word and Sacrament, he remains a condemned sinner.

7. It is a most truthful proverb and the doctrine concerning the contritions given thus far is the more remarkable: "Not to do so in the future is the highest penance; the best penance, a new life."

Luther, contrary to Leo, rejects good works as penance.

8. By no means may you presume to confess venial sins, nor even all mortal sins, because it is impossible that you know all mortal sins. Hence in the primitive Church only manifest mortal sins were confessed.

This is little confusing because Luther taught we should confess all the sins that we can remember at confession.

9. As long as we wish to confess all sins without exception, we are doing nothing else than to wish to leave nothing to God's mercy for pardon.

Luther, contrary to Leo, teaches that we should not be concerned that we may have omitted a sin because it is impossible to know or remember all our sins.

10. Sins are not forgiven to anyone, unless when the priest forgives them he believes they are forgiven; on the contrary the sin would remain unless he believed it was forgiven; for indeed the remission of sin and the granting of grace does not suffice, but it is necessary also to believe that there has been forgiveness.

The error here is, if it were true, the poor penitant would leave the confessional without assurrance that his sims were forgiven! Luther has it that the attitude of the priest effects the validity of his absolution!

No, Luther is speaking about the attitude of the penitant not the priest. If the penitant does not believe he is forgiven, he is not forgiven. Leo teaches that faith in absolution given by the priest is not necessary. The outward act confers grace.

11. By no means can you have reassurance of being absolved because of your contrition, but because of the word of Christ: "Whatsoever you shall loose, etc." Hence, I say, trust confidently, if you have obtained the absolution of the priest, and firmly believe yourself to have been absolved, and you will truly be absolved, whatever there may be of contrition.

This seems related to the article immediately above. If Luther taught that, he is in obvious error!

Leo is distorting what Luther taught. Luther taught that contrition is necessary and faith in the words of the priest.

Do you see what is happening here? the papal bull is condemning what Luther (and others) are teaching!

12. If through an impossibility he who confessed was not contrite, or the priest did not absolve seriously, but in a jocose manner, if nevertheless he believes that he has been absolved, he is most truly absolved.

It depends upon the attitude of the priest! If he does not believe any longer that he has the power to forgive sins, his absolutions are no longer good. The poor penitant leaves the confessional thinking he has been absolved but he is still in his sins! I am not sure Luther taught this, but I have heard of this error before.

Again Luther, contrary to Leo, teaches that contrition is necessary but attitude of priest does not invalidate the absolution. Leo seems to repeating an old heresy about the sins of a priest affecting the validity of a sacrament.

13. In the sacrament of penance and the remission of sin the pope or the bishop does no more than the lowest priest; indeed, where there is no priest, any Christian, even if a woman or child, may equally do as much.

A smack in the face of Holy Orders and the power, given to the apostles (and their successors) to "bind and loose," including the power to forgive sins, among other things.

Luther, contrary to Leo, is merely repeating the teachings of Jerome and Augustine.

Did you notice the trend here? The pope is listing things that are ERROR!

Like burning heretics is against the will of the Spirit?


(The rest of the paste-in truncated here to reduce the size of my reply)

32. A good work done very well is a venial sin.

An obvious error the Church condemns!

I don't understand Leo's meaning.

John, look, I quoted your last message above, but I did not answer your individual points because you are now going off into all directions here. Maybe it is my fault that I commented on these points, but I did so only to show the trend of what the papal document is doing - listing the errors that the paper condemns!

I am perfectly willing to discuss the other points above, but another time. Let's concentrate on the one in question below:

and now finally, the meat of our discussion:

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

An obvious error the pope is condemning! Remember, this may not be what Luther is teaching, but an all-inclusive list of other errors, the pope includes in this papal bull!

There is no way you can say that the pope is condemning what Luther says the church teaches!
The statement of number 33 is an obvious error the pope is condemning. My eyes are not bleary at all!

Slow down, John! Remember, this is a list of errors in general they are condemning, where I noted that Luther may not have declared what is given in article 33.

I know of no place where Luther ever taught such a thing and I do not claim it here at all.

Again, "the list of errors" above is a general list of errors that are being condemned, in addition of a condemnation of what Luther holds to (not having the document before me now to see specifically what it is, the pope is condemning of Luther specifically.)

Burning heretics is not contrary to the will of the Holy Ghost?

And the answer is: Burning heretics is against the will of the Holy Ghost!

Luther may not have declared such a thing, but apparently, others have, and the pope included that error in this document.

What the document says is: It is an error to believe it is hunky dory to burn heretics at the stake! Get it?

Sometimes, a quick read throws you off the rails until you read it again carefully. And that is what I think you have done here in an attempt to prove that the Church believed it was OK to burn heretics at the stake.

John, you are a good guy, but believe me, burning people at the stake is not what we believe in this modern day and age, even while some of our erroneous clergy, both Protestant and Catholic, may have thought it to be OK.

It has never been the teaching of the Church to inflict such punishment, even while it has, unfortunately, been done. I hang my head in shame that clerics in those early times did such a thing.

I am also sorry for the bad things this country has done to native Americans, as well as native born Japanese-Americans. But I still love this country, as I love my Church.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son,
Our Lord;
who was conceived by the holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died,
and was buried.

He descended into hell;
the third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
sitteth at the right hand of God,
the Father almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge
the living and the dead.

I believe in the holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

- The Apostles Creed -

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by WPutnam:
Luther may not have declared such a thing, but apparently, others have, and the pope included that error in this document.

What the document says is: It is an error to believe it is hunky dory to burn heretics at the stake! Get it?

I do not see how you can see Leo condemning the burning of heretics when he says the exact opposite. Luther said exactly what Pope Leo said he said, "Burning heretics is contrary to the will of the Holy Ghost." And Leo condemned Luther for saying it.

I do not say this is or was the doctrine of the RCC. It is what Leo X said in his Bull of Excommunication.

I don't see any point in continuing this conversation. We are obviously at an impasse.

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:
I don't see any point in continuing this conversation. We are obviously at an impasse.

Yes, my not being glib of tongue enough to make my point.

But we are brothers in Christ, John, so please remember this poor sinner in your prayers!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

[BobRyan]

Bill - thank you for posting from your own RC source on this. Since I have posted quotes from pro-Catholic -- Catholic sources to make my point , would you brave the air waves and also provide objective pro-Protestant reviews of the Dark Ages to make your point?


Bill said "Now, in conclusion, we Catholics acknowledge the unfortunate bad things that occurred in the inquisitions by priests, bishops and even popes".

Bill that has been "very very hard to come by". In fact MERELY QUOTING papal inclination and Cardinal inclinition and RC theologians inclined to that same sentiment - has gotten me attacked 99% of the time here - merely quoting them does the trick.

However "as if that is not enough", we also have the problem on this board that Catholics are DEFENDING the atrocities of the dark ages RATHER than "sorrowing over them" - they are "DENYING the atrocities" and even attacking the messenger if all else fails. Finally - they even demonize the victims declaring the victims to be in hell "wishing the Catholic Church had used MORE force".

But lets "pretend" for a minute that INSTEAD of the overwhelming RC response of denial and counter-attack - WE HAD instead the RC response of "acknowledge the unfortunate bad things that occurred in the inquisitions - by the Catholics Church in her servants in the dark ages"...(lets just pretend that such a thing had actually happened here) - THEN when we observe the DETAILS as given in the Vatican news report - that these atrocities occured over a period of CENTURIES and were at their zenith in RESPONSE to Catholic REFORMERS trying to turn aside the abuses of the Catholic Church (in fact Catholic Reformers that went on to found some Christian churches represented here on this board) -- is it not "objective" and "expected" that such reformed churches should search the scriptures and prophecies to see "IF God NOTICED that the massive controlling power of Europe - that controlled all of Christendom for over a 1000 years - had in fact gone on to do such things?".

Or is that just "yada-yada-yada-something-negative-about-the-catholic-church"? Surely you would not consider significance of the history of the Catholic church as THE controlling power of Europe during the centuries of the dark ages -- to be "insignificant" in Christian history - so insignificant that God might never mention it at all as He gives us a short summary of Christian history to the end of time.

Bill said -- I am also sorry for the bad things this country has done to native Americans, as well as native born Japanese-Americans. But I still love this country, as I love my Church.

No doubt we all are sorry to see what happened to the Indians and what happened to the Catholic reformers - and even what happened to rival armies of catholics killing each other for their individual popes etc... But "we" are "allowed" to see error and admit it - and sorrow over it --- my 2nd question for you is -- "Is the Catholic Church allowed to do the same over its misdeeds in history"?

EWTN's Dr. Carroll is adamant about TWO things. ONE is that the Catholic church certainly WOULD have burned Billy Graham at the stake. The SECOND point he makes is that the Pope admitted to and apologized for NOTHING in history. In other words - he stated clearly that NO specific Catholic atrocity in history was ADMITTED to being "an error" NOR apologized for.

Clearly that is a subtlety that most non-Catholics miss.

In Christ,

Bob

[ October 06, 2003, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by WPutnam:

But we are brothers in Christ, John, so please remember this poor sinner in your prayers!

Almighty God, we beseech Thee, show Thy mercy unto Thy humble servants, that we who put no trust in our own merits may not be dealt with after the severity of Thy judgment, but according to Thy mercy; through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee and the Holy Ghost, ever One God, world without end. Amen
Collect for the 25th Sunday after Trinity