Of the 16 Catholics excommunicated during Francis reign of terror, 7 of them were on grounds of accusing Bergoglio of being either a heretic or an antipope:
Posted on 07/05/2024 4:55:39 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Well what the RCC did was find someone being a heretic or having a schism and then let the local government or King/Queen burn them at the stake. See the RCC wasn’t so bad after all.
No, he’s correct, at least technically. The state imposed the death penalty, because heresy was a civil crime against the state. The Church (for rather obvious reasons) insisted on conducting the trials. Or at least that’s how it was supposed to be. In Spain, it gradually morphed into the state running the show with thin veneer of “church” on top to maintain appearances.
Of the 16 Catholics excommunicated during Francis reign of terror, 7 of them were on grounds of accusing Bergoglio of being either a heretic or an antipope:
he’s like biden going after trump.
Vigano and Pavone will get their rewards in heaven.
Thank you for your explanation.
(The problem with this topic is that one who has more emotion than knowledge about the Catholic Church is often more interested in simply taking a potshot at the Catholic Church.)
I’d say you were the one emotional, Cap’n. I’m just recounting history. Nobody is taking a potshot at the RCC. The truth is the truth. I’m not buying the state was responsible and the church wasn’t applying pressure to kill those not of their denomination. Does God judge man according to his denomination or his faith and character? What right does the church or the state have to kill somebody for their faith?
See today’s 2nd reading: 2 Corinthians 12:7-10. V is suffering the sin of Pride, ebby. Seek humility like Paul and not the humiliation V is asking for and receiving. If you wish to join in humiliation with your proud “7” simply have a visit with your Bishop. Post your postings on his church/rectory doors. You too will get what you ask for.
No, you're not; you've made a veritable smear against the Catholic Church.
The Church never burned a heretic at the stake; civil authorities did, because the heretic was completely disruptive to the well-integrated town or village in which he or she lived (and because the heretic failed the most basic IQ test and wouldn't move on to the next locale).
The Church has an obligation to point out heresies as they appear; this protects the faithful from being misled from the Church's correct teaching. But the Church does this with the hope that the individual will return to the Church; to think that the Church has any interest in having someone lose their life over doctrine is offensive, frankly.
Imagine how the people who lost their lives felt. Being burned alive seems cruel though. Galileo wasn't put to death, he was under house arrest for showing how the earth actually orbits the sun, not the other way around. Funny how the church seemed to stick its nose into everyone elses affairs including scientists.
There wasn't an accurate account kept of the number lives lost during the Inquisition years but nowadays it is fashionable to soft pedal the numbers and atrocities. In the end, God will bring all sins to light and deliver justice.
Another potshot.
He was under house arrest for teaching heliocentrism as an established fact, which it had not been at that time. (The Church was under a storm of criticism from the Sola Scriptura crowd, who insisted that Galileo's teaching contradicted Scripture; the Church didn't reject Galileo's theory, it only insisted that it be taught as one.)
"He was under house arrest for teaching heliocentrism as an established fact"
It was a fact then and it is a fact now, so the church was in error one more time.
If you want more "potshots", we can have Elsie put out the "naughty Pope list". They have have some doozies. I'm not intentionally antagonizing you but you really should look into your churchs history from a historical viewpoint. There is plenty of Catholic literature which explains away and minimizes their foul deeds but in the end God will expose them all.
Stop posting to me!
If the scientists have a problem with censorship, then they need to work at an institution that the Church isn't financing; the one who pays the piper gets to call the tune.
It was a fact then and it is a fact now, so the church was in error one more time.
No, it wasn't; the Church never declared that heliocentrism was false, only that it had not been determined. (The Church was under incredible pressure from those who claimed that the Bible ruled heliocentrism out.)
Galileo was a working professor at the University of Padua. I don't know how much this university would receive from the Catholic Church (if any). Beside even if he was a direct employee of the Catholic Church (which he wasn't), the threat of death and house arrest seems draconian. If an employee at Ford came up with a new theoretical engine design which he wanted them to make a prototype, I doubt they would imprison him for his idea. If anything, he should be rewarded for thinking, studying and researching. Which is what Galileo was doing (like any good scientist). I think you would be okay with anything your Church did and to me that's just sad.
It's not a matter of "fashion," it's a matter of actually doing the research instead of just swallowing the Prevailing Wisdom Because That's What Everyone Just Knows [tm].
I’m not buying the state was responsible
The state explicitly said they were responsible by enacting the laws in the first place.
the church wasn’t applying pressure to kill those not of their denomination.
There's a long, torturous history of the church trying to "apply pressure" to the state, and getting absolutely nowhere constructive with it. (In fact, in England and in the Greek east, what it accomplished is to get the church taken over by the state and made an appendage of it.)
Why do you suppose this worked any differently?
What right does the church or the state have to kill somebody for their faith?
Now you're talking like someone who is post-Enlightenment, post-American revolution, and post-French revolution. Which is fine, since you (and I) are all of those things. But people in the 15th century were post- none of those things, and didn't think like we think.
All of the countries we're talking about were monarchies. Even today, if you look at a British (or Canadian, Australian, or New Zealand) coin, you'll see the head of the monarch and the legend "Charles III*D*G*Rex" or "Elizabeth II*D*G*Regina". "*D*G*" is a gloss for "Dei gratia" ... "Charles III, by the grace of God, King ...".
Today, we don't take that very seriously. People in the 15th C were deadly serious about every word. Now, if you're a heretic from the faith professed by your sovereign, what are you saying about your sovereign? Well, you're saying that he's the real heretic, aren't you? And what are you saying about his right to rule? Does a heretic rule over the orthodox, the truly-right-believing, "Dei gratia" ... "by the grace of God"?
You see how, in a monarchical setting where kings are held -- one way or another -- to have a commission from God (cf this scene from "The Crown," which takes place in 1952 (!!)), heresy rapidly starts to sound very treasonous.
The Inquisition's complaint about Galileo centered on his theories (they argued) contradicting Scripture, specifically pointing to the narrative of the sun standing still in the Book of Joshua. The weren't just on his case because they were nasty and hated science.
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.