Posted on 03/02/2023 9:59:57 AM PST by CheshireTheCat
On this date in 1401, Lollard priest William Sawtre(y) was burned at Smithfield for heresy — the first known heresy execution in England.
Sawtre was a follower of John Wycliffe, the Biblical translator and church reformer 16 years dead as we lay our scene.
Wycliffe anticipated much of Luther’s later critique of the Catholic Church. His call to study Scripture directly without the intercession of doctors in Rome touched a spiritual thirst; his summons to apostolic poverty for the wealthy vicars of Christ was a message with a ready audience.
“From about 1390 to 1425, we hear of the Lollards in all directions,” notes this public domain history, “so that the contemporary chronicler was ale to say that of every two men found on the roads, one was sure to be a Lollard.”
Lollardy did not immediately manifest as an outlaw movement; it had many adherents among England’s elites and even the royal household. Although the papacy had declared various Wycliffe doctrines heretical in that prelate’s time, England had shown little appetite for calling an Inquisition — a step that would project papal authority into the kingdom.**....
(Excerpt) Read more at executedtoday.com ...
we will see these sorts of things happen again
1401: The FIRST known execution for heresy by Catholics in all of Great Britain. And the ONLY known executed among all the Lollards (Wycliffeans).
In general, the Catholic Church has opposed execution for heresy. Typically, people allegedly tried for heresy were in fact merely turned over to state authorities once stripped of the Church’s protection, or punished in strictly non-physical ways, such as Galileo who, quite differently than the imagined tortures, was sentenced to having his niece say the rosary for him.
In this case, I don’t quickly find what was so unique about Sawtrey that led to his execution. Lollards basically were like communist revolutionaries, in that they preached that the wealth of the nobilities and Church should be siezed and distributed to the people. But in Lollard’s case, whereas he was tried under a *state* law, the description given in the various “easy”-but-flawed sources (Wikipedia) describe this as a state law against heresy, which was generally banned by the Papal Inquisition, which claimed for itself jurisdiction over heresies, and which banned corporal punishment for those cases. So I’m not sure why this act under which Sawtrey was executed (De heretico comburendo) was legal under the Papal Inquisition, if in fact, it was. I might think that the Communist-like elements of Lollardism were seen by the Papal Inquisitors as constituting a valid state concern of Lollardism, but if so, this is a different mechanism employed by the Church than was used in the case of the Spanish Reconquista, wherein a special Inquisition was set up (yes, I mean the Spanish Inquisition), allowing the Spanish ecclesiastical hierarchy to conduct trials indepenedently of the Papal Inquisition.
Or perhaps the jurisdiction afforded the State to ban heresy was a response to the general crisis of British autonomy which was the underlying motivation of Lollardism. (Ironically, Wycliffe was funded by the British monarchy to find justification for rejecting fealty to Rome, even though the tithe imposed was merely nominal.)
EDIT:
I said the Papal Inquisition banned “corporal punishment” (physical punishment). This was the wrong term; I meant “capital punishment” (Death sentences). The Papal Inquisition permitted what would be today considered corporal punishment: the accused could be subject to what the Inquisition denied was torture and what the U.S. government would call “enhanced interrogation”, but would reasonably be considered “torture”: “Enhanced interrogation” could not result in permanent injury or impairment or take more than fifteen minutes in total; Wikipedia claims John Purvey, another Lollard, was “tortured.”
“In general, the Catholic Church has opposed execution for heresy. Typically, people allegedly tried for heresy were in fact merely turned over to state authorities once stripped of the Church’s protection, ”
Baloney. That’s sophistry. The kings of that era basically ruled with the blessing of the Vatican. Every time they do something the Vatican wanted done, the church always acts innocent and says they merely “turned over” the poor wretch to the monarch and they were just as shocked as anybody else.
It’s a pure lie. They never lifted a finger to stop such abuses. One could say they washed their hands and turned him over. Kinda like Pontius Pilate note that I think about it.
Baloney also about Galileo. Where did you hear that his sentence was merely that his niece was to say the rosary for him? He was threatened with torture during his interrogation. Then in 1633 sentenced to house arrest where he remained until his death until 1642.
>> Baloney. That’s sophistry. The kings of that era basically ruled with the blessing of the Vatican. Every time they do something the Vatican wanted done, the church always acts innocent and says they merely “turned over” the poor wretch to the monarch and they were just as shocked as anybody else.
>> It’s a pure lie. They never lifted a finger to stop such abuses. One could say they washed their hands and turned him over. Kinda like Pontius Pilate note that I think about it. <<
Various church leaders may have well been pleased with the state’s actions against various heretics (Jan Hus leaps to mind), but what is from a legal viewpoint key is that “heretics” were not typically burned for their heresy, but for what the State considered valid state interests.
To understand the gravity of this reform, you must understand the laws BEFORE the reforms of the papal inquisition. Kings routinely accused their political opponents of heresy as a pretext for “saving their souls” through political torture. Criticizing a king could make it almost inevitable to be found guilty of heresy when kings were able to invent their own theological doctrine.
Disagree with a king’s “right” to have sex with your wife on your wedding night? God gives him this right! If you disagree, you’re a heretic!
By claiming the sole jurisdiction over heresy, the Church deprived the kings of the easiest way to abuse their countrymen; the king couldn’t simply invent a moral doctrine and punish dissenters for disagreeing with it.
“but what is from a legal viewpoint key is that “heretics” were not typically burned for their heresy, but for what the State considered valid state interests.“
Again, Pontius Pilate.
And the truth is, it was not the church attempting to protect heretics… it’s factual that when the Vatican declared a king to be operating outside the Blessing of the Vatican, that a monarch was wide open for attacks from all quarters and was likely to be deposed.
It would be better for the church to simply be honest that in those days they were complicit in the abuse, torture, and murder of heretics. They lose massive credibility by feigning innocence and even goodwill for their actions back then. For the reason that matters, is that it is a strong endorsement that today’s church is on the path of God. When they launch into apologetics were the other three-year-old explaining why they stole the cookies, or of Bill Clinton explaining why Monica Lewinsky, it makes them look as though they were just as dishonest as they were back then. I and honestly, it proves the necessity of the reformation.
From that “house arrest,” he made many travels and continued to publish his theses. His actual “imprisonment” consisted of ONE SINGLE DAY.
Plus, the “house” he was allegedly but not actually confined to was a castle far grander than any he could have otherwise lived in. Contrary with the tiresome, nearly universal claims that Galileo was “tortured,” the Pope prohibited his torture. I guess because the Pope didn’t specify that he couldn’t be tricked into thinking he could be tortured, it’s often inferred that he was threatened with torture. But no such record of such a threat exists.
IN FACT, Galileo was permitted to publish his heliocentrism theory in 1620 with the blessings of the Church, so long as it was presented as mere theory. Instead, he eventually went on to write that the fact that the Earth rotates around the Sun proves that the Bible is wrong and called the Pope a “retard” (”Simplicio”).
>> Again, Pontius Pilate. <<
No, the OPPOSITE of Pontius Pilate. Pilate was a STATE ruler who handed Jesus off to the RELIGIOUS rulers to be executed.
>> And the truth is, it was not the church attempting to protect heretics… it’s factual that when the Vatican declared a king to be operating outside the Blessing of the Vatican, that a monarch was wide open for attacks from all quarters and was likely to be deposed. <<
Well, therein you describe the power by which the Church could prevent the State from conducting heresy trials. Look, no-one’s trying to say the Church was trying to PROMOTE heresy. But the point is that PRIOR to the Papal Inquisition, people were routinely killed for crimes of heresy that were not actual heresy as the Church defined heresy, and that AFTER the inquisition, the State had to find a secular cause for execution, even when, as in the case of Galileo, the Church was strongly affronted by heresy.
>> It would be better for the church to simply be honest that in those days they were complicit in the abuse, torture, and murder of heretics. They lose massive credibility by feigning innocence and even goodwill for their actions back then. <<
Yes, except when the Church DOES acknowledge its complicity, people infer that every wild slander against the Church is true. So I feel it behooves some of us outside the hierarchy to delimit what faults the Church had. In fact, a TON of people end up thinking Catholic doctrine is opposite of what it is. Consider Luther’s Sola Fides argument. Because the Church has apologized for its mishandling of Luther, people presume Luther was justified and therefore that the Church teaches salvation through works. In fact, salvation through works is the heresy of Pelagianism and is, was, and always had been condemned by the Church. What the Church condemned was Luther’s antinomianism (”Sin boldly that you may know more keenly the miracle of Christ’s forgiveness”), which errs in that it is ignorant of the harm of concupiscence (sin begets more sin) and ignores the harm sin does to others.
>> For the reason that matters, is that it is a strong endorsement that today’s church is on the path of God. When they launch into apologetics were the other three-year-old explaining why they stole the cookies, or of Bill Clinton explaining why Monica Lewinsky, it makes them look as though they were just as dishonest as they were back then. I and honestly, it proves the necessity of the reformation. <<
A failure to properly define the Church’s history also leads to the most deadly heresy of them all, modernism, the belief that doctrines stemming from secularism and rationalization of sin are superior to the doctrines which originate with the Bible and the apostles. It’s important to distinguish between the sinfulness of individual Christians and the supposed falsity of the Catholic faith. If the Catholic Church can abandon one doctrine, who is to say the Church is correct on abortion, extramarital relations, homosexuality, idolatry? Indeed, this is the present crisis of the Catholic church: a second pope now promotes all manner of heretic, in the name of tolerance, while he wages war against the holy. To remain true to itself, the Church must uphold doctrine, not simply blindly follow.
I know that remnant group of Protestants which have recently thrived in America and the third world, but which are nearly alien to Europe and which uphold biblical teaching fancy that merely through upholding the bible, independent of the Church history, they can retain orthodoxy. History says otherwise. People can contort their understanding of scripture to support whatever doctrine they want. Note that among us Catholics, it is the second pope, who hates Catholicism’s history, who promote those who contort the bible on moral matters. We Catholics have suffered through many of their own “theologians” who claim that the bible condemns temple prostitution, not homosexuality; who claim that ensoulment happens at birth and therefore abortion is tolerable; who claim that mercy and forgiveness require allowing people to remarry. They cannot be defeated by debating over “arsenokoitai” refers to gays or just pedophiles and johns. Words mean what their usage say they mean . You can’t understand that apart from history.
(There were many other flaws with Luther’s Sola Fides besides antinomianism, including his denial of the efficacy of sacraments, the Lollards’ condemnation of prayer, etc.)
Wait. Never mind. ;-D
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.