[Hermann the Cherusker]

Can you tell me in all honesty that you believe it is RIGHT to kill someone for their beliefs?

This was provoked by malakhi paraphrasing one of the condemnations made of Luther in the Bull Exsurge Domine "33. To burn heretics is against the will of the Spirit."

The heretics were not burned for their beliefs, but because they insisted on disturbing the faith of others and the order of Church and State. The burnings were carried out by their being handed over to the secular arm, because heresy was a crime against the State, since Christianity is part of the Common Law.

A perfect example of this is the Hussite rebellion, which was not merely a religious movement against the Church, but a political revolution against the established temporal order.

Similarly, there is nothing morally wrong with knocking down pagan temples or converting them into Churches once Paganism was outlawed, as the Church Fathers did.

I don't think there was anything morally wrong with the burnings of the middle ages by the Catholic Church, and they were certainly practiced all around by all sides, Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox. In fact, I think a world of good could be done today in ridding the Catholic Church of the heretic communist perverts hiding in clerics and molesting young boys by public burnings. Pope Piel may be saying this half in jest, but I as a Catholic am not. I'd be the first one there in my Altar Boy's cassock and surplice with the holy flame.

"If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch and shall wither: and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire: and he burneth." (John 15.6)

One should keep firmly in mind that the Inquisition was aimed squarely at correcting wayward Catholics, not the faithful of other religions. Once the Protestant settlement ocurred in the mid-1500's after the Wars of Religion were finished, the Inqusition was no longer aimed at those men, since they were no longer rebels against the established order, nor had they left the Catholic Church anymore, but rather they were never a part of it from the beginning. Similarly in England with Catholics after the settlement of 1688.

No society can tolerate a willful and despiteful attempt to subvert its religion, no more than it would to break down its laws--a general, malicious and deliberate intent to overthrow Christianity, general Christianity. Without these restraints no free government could long exist. It is liberty run mad to declaim against the punishment of these offences, or to assert that the punishment is hostile to the spirit and genius of our government. They are far from being true friends to liberty who support this doctrine, and the promulgation of such opinions, and general receipt of them among the people, would be the sure forerunners of anarchy, and finally, of despotism. No free government now exists in the world unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country.... Its foundations are broad and strong, and deep. .. it is the purest system of morality, the firmest auxiliary, and only stable support of all human laws. ...
(The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1824, in the Case of Updegraph V The Commonwealth 11 Serg. & R. 393-394, 398-399, 402, 507 [1824])

[MarMema]

The heretics were not burned for their beliefs, but because they insisted on disturbing the faith of others and the order of Church and State. The burnings were carried out by their being handed over to the secular arm, because heresy was a crime against the State, since Christianity is part of the Common Law.

OH! Now it all makes perfect sense. You can burn people alive as long you have a good reason. I get it now.

[MarMema]

In fact, I think a world of good could be done today in ridding the Catholic Church of the heretic communist perverts hiding in clerics and molesting young boys by public burnings.

Umm, Aliska, I think I am beginning to understand your sense of loneliness. Run while you still can. :-)

[drstevej]

***I don't think there was anything morally wrong with the burnings of the middle ages by the Catholic Church, and they were certainly practiced all around by all sides, Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox. In fact, I think a world of good could be done today in ridding the Catholic Church of the heretic communist perverts hiding in clerics and molesting young boys by public burnings. Pope Piel may be saying this half in jest, but I as a Catholic am not. I'd be the first one there in my Altar Boy's cassock and surplice with the holy flame.***

 

Introducing the amazing Pope Piel Porta-Purger™

Eliminate that wayward hand, wandering eye, heretical tongue or other offending body part with amazingly accurate Pope Piel Porta-Purger™. Handle heretics and priestly perverts where ye find them. No need to drag them to a Torquemada Inn wasting precious time.

Not to be used for home repair or other secular D-I-Y projects.

"Apply the Holy Flame and they won't be the same!"

[George W. Bush]

I don't think there was anything morally wrong with the burnings of the middle ages by the Catholic Church...

No, your church never does, contrary to the squeaky little apologies they emit when confronted with the truth by civilized people.

Funny, though, how the pope only apologizes to those who are long dead and whose Roman persecutors are safely in their graves. This is why he won't apologize to the Serbian Orthodox for Rome's murder of two million Serbs under an Ustashe Catholic genocide so brutal that even the Nazis were appalled by them. Many of the victims and their persecutors are still living so he'll ignore them and continue with his little fake apologies to those dead for many centuries. Except for making a saint of a viciously insane Ustashe killer at just the right time to encourage the resurgence of the Ustashe under Rome's banner. Maybe John-Paul's hoping to finish them all off before he goes to his final reward.

One should keep firmly in mind that the Inquisition was aimed squarely at correcting wayward Catholics, not the faithful of other religions.

Certainly this does not address the central issues in the Spanish Inquisition. A substantial number of those burned were Jews who had been forcibly converted to Romanism (if not killed outright). They were tortured and burned for showing the least sign of observing any portion of their Jewish traditions. Or upon mere suspicion or idle accusation of Jewish practice. But then, you are technically correct: since Rome forcibly baptized them, they were Catholics and were being "corrected" by the Roman bonfires.

And some people think Rome doesn't have a sense of humor.

[TexConfederate1861]

Hernmann: You are a FRUITCAKE...and that is the nicest thing I can say about you. You can gloss over the facts all you want. The Latins have murdered more people in the name of religon than can ever be atoned for.

It amazes me that you can be so smug about your warped belief.

I am washing my hands of you.

[RnMomof7]

One should keep firmly in mind that the Inquisition was aimed squarely at correcting wayward Catholics, not the faithful of other religions. Once the Protestant settlement ocurred in the mid-1500's after the Wars of Religion were finished, the Inqusition was no longer aimed at those men, since they were no longer rebels against the established order, nor had they left the Catholic Church anymore, but rather they were never a part of it from the beginning. Similarly in England with Catholics after the settlement of 1688.

The curses still stand as church doctrine

"If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ’s sake, let him be anathema" (Canon 12, Council of Trent).

"If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out that no debt of temporal punishment remains...let him be anathema (Canon 30, Council of Trent).

[FormerLib]

I've repeatedly and politely asked you not to ping me. Stop it.

[Admin Moderator]

Stop pinging FormerLib. Thank you.