Replies

they were MERCILESSLY SLAUGHTERED.

ROFL.. stop it, you're killing me. The Roman Catholic Church arm twisted these kings and nobles into prescribing the death penalty for heresy, and when it backfires and the civil authorities put Catholics to death, then it's the fault of the protestants.. I mean, yes they do bear some responsibility; but, the gun that turned on Catholics was wrought by Catholics. It's a bit like swinging an axe to decapitate someone you hate and then pointing and screaming in their directions when the crowds gather because you missed and hit yourself instead.

Believe me, I think we all sympathize with the wrongs done to both sides. But at the same time, some healthy perspective is required. Let's not forget, it was Roman Catholic Manuals in the hands of Protestants at the witch trials and the like. They followed blindly where Rome had led them. Any way you cut it, Rome is ultimately responsible for letting that evil Djin out of the bottle. If Rome had followed New Testament Scripture on this as they should have - this discussion would not be taking place.

You are ripping the 4th Lateran Council out of its historical context. The heretics it dealt with were the Albigensians, not Protestants, who wouldn't surface for another 200 years. These were a vile sect that did such pernicious things as encourage people to starve themselves to death, to fornicate at will, and forbid the taking any oaths. Medieval society being based on oaths, they were a threat to the social order and perhaps civilization itself. The heresy had to be exterminated. In today's world the measures used in the 13th century would be seen as overly harsh, but this was a primitive time with primitive means.

Furthermore, it's not as if people were being indiscriminately killed. To be convicted of heresy, you had to be publicly spreading the pernicious doctrines of the sect, not merely privately adhering to it. If you recanted, your life would be spared. The numbers actually killed were small.

Why does the very same Canon, in the very same link you provided above go on like this:

We decree that those who give credence to the teachings of the heretics, as well as those who receive, defend, and patronize them, are excommunicated; and we firmly declare that after any one of them has been branded with excommunication, if he has deliberately failed to make satisfaction within a year, let him incur ipso jure the stigma of infamy and let him not be admitted to public offices or deliberations, and let him not take part in the election of others to such offices or use his right to give testimony in a court of law. Let him also be intestable, that he may not have the free exercise of making a will, and let him be deprived of the right of inheritance. Let no one be urged to give an account to him in any matter, but let him be urged to give an account to others. If perchance he be a judge, let his decisions have no force, nor let any cause be brought to his attention. If he be an advocate, let his assistance by no means be sought. If a notary, let the instruments drawn up by him be considered worthless, for, the author being condemned, let them enjoy a similar fate.

Awful peculiar, don't you think, that if these excommunicated-for-a-year-heretics were supposed to be killed that this Canon goes on about how not to hire them if they are attornies, or how not to abide by their judgments if they are judges.

Strange, isn't it? Are we to presume that the dead often served as notary publics in the Middle Ages?