Posted on 11/15/2002 4:25:22 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
Matt Lauer just completed an interview with Nancy Pelosi. After some standard stuff about her "historic" role as the first woman to lead a congressional party, Lauer asked a a pretty probing question:
"When Republicans chose Newt as their leader, Democrats were quick to say they had gone too far right. Why shouldn't the Republicans now say that in choosing you, the Democrats have gone too far left?"
Pelosi answered by stating that while she represented her district in SF (implying that she was being very liberal in representing a very liberal district), she will lead "right down the center" of the Dem caucus.
She then added the following statement: "When people call me a liberal, I call myself a conservative Catholic."
I had heard Pelosi make the same statement in an interview yesterday, so this clearly seems to be a standard part of her defense to the charge that she's too liberal to lead successfully.
I'm not Catholic, but I have to assume that many true "conservative Catholics" will be upset by hearing Pelosi claim that label. It is hard to imagine an authentic conservative Catholic supporting unrestricted abortion, including partial birth abortion, as does Pelosi.
Pelosi failed to vote to ban PBA even when an exception was included for the life of the mother. I think it is thus fair to categorize her as a pro-abortion extremist. Given that record, to go on national TV and call herself a conservative Catholic seems the height of gall and duplicity.
As a sidenote, Pelosi also trotted out what the Dems have apparently decided to make their new theme: "Safety and Soundness," apparently some combination of national security and economic progress. Instant nominee for the "Lamest Political Slogan of the Decade."
He was not saying temporal authority, he was saying the church has a right to kill people for disagreeing with it. Christ said otherwise. So I do disagree.
While the Church has always recognized the right of the state to impose capital punishment for crimes including heresy (the spreading of which was and is considered worse than murder because it can jeopardize a person's salvation), the decision to carry out the death sentence in any particular case is a prudential one to be made by the king, emperor or other leader of the State.
Uh this is at best a diversion. Exsurge doesn't play the games of Church vs. state authority in murdering people for disagreeing on a religious basis. Furthermore, the state only got involved in killing heretics because the Popes pushed to get them to do such killing for them. It was rather prudent and saved the church having to send out hired hands all over it's empire to do the job when the local authorities were under the church's thumb. The Lateran Councils are where much of this begun after the church had set itself up as spiritual judge, jury and executioner of anyone who threatened their 'spiritual authority'. The church had already slaughtered a large number of people by this time and were looking to expand their reach. The end of the Lateran Councils and Papal arm twisting was the Constitution of Lombardy. Once produced, the Pope strongarmed the rest of the civils under his control into passing similar measures over their kingdomes. In so doing, they signed their own fate as the Church developed language such that if an authority failed to deal with a heretic, they would be deemed a heretic and if in so doing failed to recant within a year, they themselves would be put to death. So let's not try to seperate church and state and say this is a state issue. It is not. It was the church 100%. And the Church's own documents bare that out. Finally, the term "unjust aggressor" is a load of bunk when applied here. Aggresiveness was not a hallmark of accused heretics on the whole, rather it was the rare exception to the rule. Luther himself was not condemned for being a combatant in physical terms. He was condemned for pointing out the Church's errors and very publicly so. It threatened authority of a group in power who had no right to be there in the first place. Lest we forget, their authority was wrought by fraud and later stripped away as they were found out. The only reason there is a Vatican state now is because a demented lunatic named Musolini gave the church some land long after the italian Government disposessed the church of the lands it had stolen through fraud. Harsh terms, perhaps, but I'm not one to sugar coat anything.
Christ rebuked peter for taking to sword in his defense. The penalty of the law was removed by Christ's death. Who is the Catholic Church to reinvoke the penalty of the law when God removed it? Who is the Catholic church to condemn a man to hell in his sin by taking life when Christ said the opposite is our charge - to save souls. No one. They do not have that authority. They do, however, have a great deal of answering to do as each man who's put himself in that position goes before God in judgement. Or do you not know that the blood of them whome you send to hell by your action or inaction will be required at your hands.. You might know that had Clement not passed a bull around 1700 forbidding the reading of the Bible. I'll have to look that one up. Been a while since I read that one.
I don't see that here.
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:The pope was saying that the Church cannot tolerate the erroneous teaching "that heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit."...33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
In other words the Church upholds the principle that temporal authorities have the power and duty to suppress heresy with means up to and including execution.
While the Church has always recognized the right of the state to impose capital punishment for crimes including heresy (the spreading of which was and is considered worse than murder because it can jeopardize a person's salvation), the decision to carry out the death sentence in any particular case is a prudential one to be made by the king, emperor or other leader of the State.
Uh this is at best a diversion. Exsurge [?] doesn't play the games of Church vs. state authority in murdering people for disagreeing on a religious basis. Furthermore, the state only got involved in killing heretics because the Popes pushed to get them to do such killing for them.
That's probably true. But there is a difference between an infallible teaching which says that it is erroneous to teach "that heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit" and the practice of exhorting particular kings to persecute particular groups of heretics. This does not fall into the category of the normal exercise of papal infallibility, just as John Paul II's advice today to the leader of a head of state does not fall into the category of the normal exercise of papal infallibility.
It was rather prudent and saved the church having to send out hired hands all over it's empire to do the job when the local authorities were under the church's thumb. The Lateran Councils are where much of this begun after the church had set itself up as spiritual judge, jury and executioner of anyone who threatened their 'spiritual authority'.
I assume this is what you're speaking of: Canon 20: Kings and princes are to dispense justice in consultation with the bishops.
Again, this is not an invocation of infallibility.
Aggresiveness was not a hallmark of accused heretics on the whole, rather it was the rare exception to the rule.
True, but heresy usually leads to civil unrest and disturbance. Such was the history of Europe after the spread of Luther's errors. There resulted the inevitable infighting of various Protestant sects each claiming their own particular, "infallible" interpretation of Scripture. The French Revolution was the ultimate fruit of the false doctrine of "Scripture alone" since this doctrine laid the groundwork for the modern primacy of "conscience."
Luther himself was not condemned for being a combatant in physical terms. He was condemned for pointing out the Church's errors and very publicly so.
True.
It threatened authority of a group in power who had no right to be there in the first place.
False. The Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth," the ultimate authority in settling disputes with our brothers according to Jesus (so it must be visible), and the Church which the gates of hell will not prevail against.
Lest we forget, their authority was wrought by fraud and later stripped away as they were found out.
The Church in general? (see above).
The only reason there is a Vatican state now is because a demented lunatic named Musolini gave the church some land long after the italian Government disposessed the church of the lands it had stolen through fraud. Harsh terms, perhaps, but I'm not one to sugar coat anything.
We don't sugar coat the deeds of Catholics either. When Catholic children received solid Catholic education years ago, they were made very aware of the sins of Catholics in the past. Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia entry under Papal States. You might want to weigh it against whatever history you're reading. Frankly, Protestant Church history is not altogether trustworthy.
Christ rebuked peter for taking to sword in his defense. The penalty of the law was removed by Christ's death. Who is the Catholic Church to reinvoke the penalty of the law when God removed it?
Huh? So murderers can't be punished? Heretics can't be punished? Did Jesus tell soldiers to disarm or did he tell them not to extort money from people and to be content with their pay?
Who is the Catholic church to condemn a man to hell in his sin by taking life when Christ said the opposite is our charge - to save souls. No one. They do not have that authority.
No. The temporal authority has the responsibility to safeguard the common welfare. The spread of heresy is injurious to the common welfare. Therefore the temporal authority has the responsibility to suppress heresy using means up to and including execution. Such judgements are prudential.
They do, however, have a great deal of answering to do as each man who's put himself in that position goes before God in judgement. Or do you not know that the blood of them whome you send to hell by your action or inaction will be required at your hands..
All individual members of the Church will be judged according to their adherence to Church teaching.
You might know that had Clement not passed a bull around 1700 forbidding the reading of the Bible. I'll have to look that one up. Been a while since I read that one.
Probably for a time. Any idea why? Maybe it had something to do with the spread of false doctrines springing from the great false doctrine of "sola scriptura." Or are you going to tell me that Luther's doctrine of "sola scriptura" has unified the Church (as is the will of God as Jesus expressed in Scripture)?
BTW, does the Bible teach the doctrine of "the Bible alone"?
Please look up that papal letter if you have a chance.
With all due respect and heartfelt love to my Catholic friends - of which I have many - it's people like Pelosi and this specific view that made me leave the Catholic Church back in the early 90's.
Granted, I live in the liberal dominated Chicago Archdiocese controlled area and that didn't help much ..........
Again, it says nothing about "temporal authorities". It merely states the Roman Catholic clergy will not tolerate such "pernicious poisons" and sees fit to put what it classifies as heretics to death. I differentiate because Catholicism Differentiates between temporal and spiritual authorities while it set itself up as both and acted as both. So such a differintiation here is diversionary and not applicable.
That's probably true. But there is a difference between an infallible teaching which says that it is erroneous to teach "that heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit" and the practice of exhorting particular kings to persecute particular groups of heretics. This does not fall into the category of the normal exercise of papal infallibility, just as John Paul II's advice today to the leader of a head of state does not fall into the category of the normal exercise of papal infallibility.
Uhm, it actually does fall under the excercise of Papal infallibility because it was directed through the auspices of official decree on matters of faith and morals that are applicable to the entire church. By very definitian, it would be considered infallible on it's face for those reasons. If it were not, it would be no more binding on Luther or anyone else than the pope saying "neener neener neener". The pope used the official function of the councils to push it and backed it up with official pronouncements binding upon the whole church.
I assume this is what you're speaking of: Canon 20: Kings and princes are to dispense justice in consultation with the bishops. Again, this is not an invocation of infallibility.
I would rather point elsewhere wherein it is adjoined that these men are responsible to "exterminate in their territories" people determined to be heretics or to fall to the same judgement themselves. Or are you unaware of this official infallible pronouncement?
And just for grins, why is it that only now, when the public awareness of such things is so great, it falls to latter day apologists to try and tell us that what the church used as infallible at the time really isn't infallible in the broader sense because admitting so is damanging. Who do you think is buying this stuff? The 5 year old mentality might have bought it back then. I don't.
True, but heresy usually leads to civil unrest and disturbance. Such was the history of Europe after the spread of Luther's errors. There resulted the inevitable infighting of various Protestant sects each claiming their own particular, "infallible" interpretation of Scripture. The French Revolution was the ultimate fruit of the false doctrine of "Scripture alone" since this doctrine laid the groundwork for the modern primacy of "conscience."
This is not civil unrest. It is called healthy debate. There is a difference. You're starting to sound like Tom Daschle. The french and spanish have been restless for ages. Religion is just one of many excuses they have used to fight over. If you give them genuine principles, they can't find a reason to defend them. But essentially you are saying that Heretics are not combative, they merely cause people to have dissenting opinions. Civil unrest came about when the church used it's stalinist tactics to shut anyone up that didn't buy their story. IE the church caused the unrest by it's level of overbearing just like the Democrats in the modern us are causing feet to move by their abuses. You want to blame everyone for What the Catholic Church caused. It doesn't work that way.
False. The Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth," the ultimate authority in settling disputes with our brothers according to Jesus (so it must be visible), and the Church which the gates of hell will not prevail against.
FALSE: the verse you are trying to misapply by parroting your mislead teachers says GOD is the pillar and foundation of truth, not the church. Reading scripture before jumping to conclusions about what it says really tends to help. The rest of what you say about visibility is rather useless.
The Church in general? (see above).
Now you're being obtuse to be sure. The Catholic Church ruled Europe through use of fraud. Had they not employed fraud, they would have had no right of ascendancy to power and others would have ruled in their stead - leaving them powerless to abuse mankind with their lies. The tall and short of it is that the authority the Roman church employed in masacring "heretics" did not exist. In modern days we would call that multiple homicides committed in the act of another crime. Y'all call it infallibility and divine right and all sort of other nonsense along with the usual handwringing and excuse making.
Huh? So murderers can't be punished? Heretics can't be punished? Did Jesus tell soldiers to disarm or did he tell them not to extort money from people and to be content with their pay?
Now you sound like Kennedy arguing for abortion. What, so we can't kill the kid to save the mother? The soldiers were not Jesus' followers. Peter was. And when ole Pete lopped off the Centurian's ear (bad aim) in Jesus' Defense, Jesus rebuked and corrected him for battling against the flesh. Our war is not with flesh and blood - it is spiritual. You can play word games; but, you're seeking excuses on this one. Scripture is very plain - else you'd tell us Jesus was wrong with regard to the Adultress woman - she should have been killed as a heretic to prevent the civil unrest of men chasing about trying to kill her for her sin. Wake up and smell what you're shovelling.
No. The temporal authority has the responsibility to safeguard the common welfare. The spread of heresy is injurious to the common welfare. Therefore the temporal authority has the responsibility to suppress heresy using means up to and including execution. Such judgements are prudential.
The spread of what the church deamed heresy was only inurious to the credibility of those who set themselves up as the end all be all of Christianity and didn't seem to know much about it when they started perverting it (ie your quote from Timothy above.) And Jesus didn't see such judgements as Prudential, he saw them as belonging to His Father in heaven - not to you, me or anyone else. Jesus removed the penalty of the law and reserved Judement to God. As a Christian, you are responsible to HONOR that - not to take it upon yourselves as the crowd did with the adultrous woman. If you understood christianity, you might understand that. The church has no right to send a soul to Hell. Only God and the sould in question have that right. When you rob one of that right, you set yourself in God's place and thusly become responsible for that soul. And you don't even seem to understand the weight of that...
All individual members of the Church will be judged according to their adherence to Church teaching.
Wrong bucko. What did Jesus say. He said He came to speak that which the Father gave him. And that which he spake would judge man in the end. If the Church speaks other than Christ spoke, then what you say is utterly false. I've demonstrated two issues in which they utterly overturn both Christ and an apostle. Another here said my words a while back were "near blasphemous" at one point because he didn't know scripture. When I gave him chapter and verse and told him Jesus had said it - he shut up. If you guys knew scripture and what it actually said and backed it up with the dedication you have to lies right now, you'd be a force to be reconed with.
Please look up that papal letter if you have a chance.
Will do. And on the subject of Bible only. Why do ya'll try to slip that red herring in at every chance. Let's keep the argument centered, shall we. I don't wish to waste my time debating irrelevant junk. Paul satisfactorily answers you but I doubt you'd listen to him on authority any more than you do on who the pillar and foundation of truth is.
FALSE: the verse you are trying to misapply by parroting your mislead teachers says GOD is the pillar and foundation of truth, not the church. Reading scripture before jumping to conclusions about what it says really tends to help.
This is what I got out of the abridged Protestant Bible:
"if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."I think you may be following a tradition of men in your interpretation of this passage rather than "the Bible alone" as you claim.
The rest of what you say about visibility is rather useless.
In the Bible, Jesus says:
Matthew 18:17Clearly we are to settle our disputes in the Church. And obviously Jesus must be referring to the Church that He founded, the Church that the gates of hell will not prevail against. And obviously this Church must be visible if we are to go there and settle our disputes. (Note also that Jesus doesn't tell us to take our disputes to "the Bible alone").
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
As someone who claims as a first principle "the Bible alone," how can I take you seriously when you dismiss or wildly distort the clear meaning of passages of Scripture in your own abridged Bible?
If I can't trust you with adhering to your own doctrines, how can I trust you with the explication of doctrines of a Church that is not your own?
If you want to refute the Catholic teaching regarding papal infallibility, then you should refute what the Catholic Church teaches regarding papal infallibility, not a straw man.
That's probably true. But there is a difference between an infallible teaching which says that it is erroneous to teach "that heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit" and the practice of exhorting particular kings to persecute particular groups of heretics. This does not fall into the category of the normal exercise of papal infallibility, just as John Paul II's advice today to the leader of a head of state does not fall into the category of the normal exercise of papal infallibility.
Uhm, it actually does fall under the excercise of Papal infallibility because it was directed through the auspices of official decree on matters of faith and morals that are applicable to the entire church.
We may be talking about different things. The bull which decreed as erroneous the teaching that "burning heretics is against the Holy Spirit" is infallible as far as I know. On the other hand, the advice that the pope gave to temporal rulers would not fall into the category of infallible teaching any more than Pope John Paul II's advice to a sitting president would fall into the category of papal infallibility.
Now you sound like Kennedy arguing for abortion. What, so we can't kill the kid to save the mother? The soldiers were not Jesus' followers. Peter was. And when ole Pete lopped off the Centurian's ear (bad aim) in Jesus' Defense, Jesus rebuked and corrected him for battling against the flesh. Our war is not with flesh and blood - it is spiritual. You can play word games; but, you're seeking excuses on this one. Scripture is very plain - else you'd tell us Jesus was wrong with regard to the Adultress woman - she should have been killed as a heretic to prevent the civil unrest of men chasing about trying to kill her for her sin. Wake up and smell what you're shovelling.
Adultery is heresy?
Are laws against murder "against the Holy Spirit"? Are laws criminalizing heresy "against the Holy Spirit"?
The church has no right to send a soul to Hell.
As far as I can tell, you're equating the execution of heretics with "sending a soul to hell." Do I have that right?
If that's what you're asserting, then you're wrong. Here's why.
Heresy effects the common good. Consider the Catharist heresy for example which forbid marriage. Clearly this heresy was injurious to the common welfare and was justly suppressed.
The Catholic rulers had two choices: tolerate the heresy or suppress it. Tolerating this heresy would lead to the literal end of society. Suppressing this heresy would prevent the literal end of society. Would the rulers who executed Catharists be automatically "sending souls to hell"? No. Not anymore than a person who shoots an intruder into his home is "sending a soul to hell."
The rulers had no way of judging whether the heretic held to his heresy through ignorance or malice. A heretic who died in ignorance of his heresy would not be condemned by God. But would it be wrong to execute an "innocent person." No, because that person presented a danger to society, just as a murderer presents a danger to society. The State has within its just powers the elimination of threats to the common welfare with means up to and including execution.
The doctrine of "the Bible alone" is not a "red herring." It's the central teaching of Protestantism. It's the only doctrine that all Protestants share in common. I don't think, it's irrelevant. It's doctrinal junk, but not irrelevant.
Paul satisfactorily answers you but I doubt you'd listen to him on authority any more than you do on who the pillar and foundation of truth is.
Paul wasn't referring to the New Testament. How do I know this? Because the canon of Scripture wasn't settled until several Church Councils around the year 400 A.D., many centuries after Pauls death.
Which is in keeping with my ongoing assertian that protestants can't read any better than ya'll in a lot of circumstances. Thus many of them think they can have a cadillac by praying for it.
Here's the KJV with partial context to show what's being discussed - behavior in God's house:
3:13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a
good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
3:14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in
the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
"Church of the living God" modifies the prior noun "house". The word in Greek is strong's 3624. It means literally or figuratively - a building - by usage. In proper usage, house, home, palace, etc. The same usage appears earlier in the same passage and is translated the same "house." because of the application and context. Thus, you are either saying a building is the pillar and foundation, which is nonsense, or that God is, which makes perfect sense. The church in the sense of what it is is not the foundation of truth at any rate, that would mean truth comes from it rather than God. Not what Paul was saying in any way. The foundation of the church is truth. But that doesn't turn a building into a foundation. Lest you should tell us the construction is not ended once the roof is on and turn something else on its ear. Things make sense when sense is applied. They lose their sense when agendas overide intelligence. God is the pillar and foundation of truth. I know you deny that; but, then I'm not expecting you to honor a title of God. Especially not when you have yanked it from him and self applied it as though it's your own. Hautiness must protect appearances.
As for the reast of what you've said, I'll have to address it later. I'm on lunch at the moment and it's just about over.
This is a silly cavil. The meaning is plain. Paul is simply saying that the house of God is the Church of God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
I don't know Greek, but it's my understanding that the word "Church" here comes from the Greek "ecclesia," which means "church" as we understand it today (as in "ecclesiastical").
Logically, the Church can be the pillar and foundation of truth because it is the mystical Body of Christ.
I. THE TERM ECCLESIAIn order to understand the precise force of this word, something must first be said as to its employment by the Septuagint translators of the Old Testament. Although in one or two places (Ps. xxv, 5; Judith, vi, 21; etc.) the word is used without religious signification, merely in the sense of "an assembly", this is not usually the case. Ordinarily it is employed as the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew qahal, i.e., the entire community of the children of Israel viewed in their religious aspect. Two Hebrew words are employed in the Old Testament to signify the congregation of Israel, viz. qahal 'êdah. In the Septuagint these are rendered, respectively, ekklesia and synagoge. Thus in Proverbs v, 14, where the words occur together, "in the midst of the church and the congregation", the Greek rendering is en meso ekklesias kai synagoges. The distinction is indeed not rigidly observed -- thus in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, both words are regularly represented by synagoge -- but it is adhered to in the great majority of cases, and may be regarded as an established rule. In the writings of the New Testament the words are sharply distinguished. With them ecclesia denotes the Church of Christ; synagoga, the Jews still adhering to the worship of the Old Covenant. Occasionally, it is true, ecclesia is employed in its general significance of "assembly" (Acts, xix, 32; I Cor., xiv, 19); and synagoga occurs once in reference to a gathering of Christians, though apparently of a non-religious character (James, ii, 2.) But ecclesia is never used by the Apostles to denote the Jewish Church. The word as a technical expression had been transferred to the community of Christian believers.
It has been frequently disputed whether there is any difference in the signification of the two words. St. Augustine (in Psalm. lxxvii, in P. L., XXXVI, 984) distinguishes them on the ground that ecclesia is indicative of the calling together of men, synagoga of the forcible herding together of irrational creatures: "congregatio magis pecorum convocatio magis hominum intelligi solet". But it may be doubted whether there is any foundation for this view. It would appear, however, that the term qahal, was used with the special meaning of "those called by God to eternal life", while 'êdah, denoted merely "the actually existing Jewish community" (Schürer, Hist. Jewish People, II, 59). Though the evidence for this distinction is drawn from the Mishna, and thus belongs to a somewhat later date, yet the difference in meaning probably existed at the time of Christ's ministry. But however this may have been, His intention in employing the term, hitherto used of the Hebrew people viewed as a church, to denote the society He Himself was establishing cannot be mistaken. It implied the claim that this society now constituted the true people of God, that the Old Covenant was passing away, and that He, the promised Messias, was inaugurating a New Covenant with a New Israel.
As signifying the Church, the word Ecclesia is used by Christian writers, sometimes in a wider, sometimes in a more restricted sense.
* It is employed to denote all who, from the beginning of the world, have believed in the one true God, and have been made His children by grace. In this sense, it is sometimes distinguished, signifying the Church before the Old Covenant, the Church of the Old Covenant, or the Church of the New Covenant. Thus St. Gregory (Epp. V, ep. xviii ad. Joan. Ep. Const., in P. L., LXXVII, 740) writes: "Sancti ante legem, sancti sub lege, sancti sub gratiâ, omnes hi . . . in membris Ecclesiæ sunt constituti" (The saints before the Law, the saints under the Law, and the saints under grace -- all these are constituted members of the Church).
* It may signify the whole body of the faithful, including not merely the members of the Church who are alive on earth but those, too, whether in heaven or in purgatory, who form part of the one communion of saints. Considered thus, the Church is divided into the Church Militant, the Church Suffering, and the Church Triumphant.
* It is further employed to signify the Church Militant of the New Testament. Even in this restricted acceptation, there is some variety in the use of the term. The disciples of a single locality are often referred to in the New Testament as a Church (Apoc., ii, 18; Rom., xvi, 4; Acts, ix, 31), and St. Paul even applies the term to disciples belonging to a single household (Rom., xvi, 5; I Cor., xvi, 19, Col., iv, 15; Philem., i, 2). Moreover, it may designate specially those who exercise the office of teaching and ruling the faithful, the Ecclesia Docens (Matt., xviii, 17), or again the governed as distinguished from their pastors, the Ecclesia Discens (Acts xx, 28). In all these cases the name belonging to the whole is applied to a part. The term, in its full meaning, denotes the whole body of the faithful, both rulers and ruled, throughout the world (Eph., i, 22; Col., i, 18). It is in this meaning that the Church is treated of in the present article. As thus understood, the definition of the Church given by Bellarmine is that usually adopted by Catholic theologians: "A body of men united together by the profession of the same Christian Faith, and by participation in the same sacraments, under the governance of lawful pastors, more especially of the Roman Pontiff, the sole vicar of Christ on earth" (Coetus hominum ejusdem christianæ fidei professione, et eorumdem sacramentorum communione colligatus, sub regimine legitimorum pastorum et præcipue unius Christi in Terris vicarii Romani Pontificis. -- Bellarmine, De Eccl., III, ii, 9). The accuracy of this definition will appear in the course of the article.
Disputes, who cares. You can settle disputes all you want without putting someone to death. Jesus recognized the right of secular states to do what they will because they are under the rule of the master of this world - not Him. They will be judged just as you will be. But God didn't give us leave to act like the heathen. So what's with the handwringing. Scripture is clear that the right of judgement belongs to God - not you. And in putting a sinner to death in their sin, you condemn them to hell. Period. The wages of sin are Death. You'd make a good democrat pro- choicer cause your level of excuse making is just like them.
As someone who claims as a first principle "the Bible alone," how can I take you seriously when you dismiss or wildly distort the clear meaning of passages of Scripture in your own abridged Bible?
First of all, I didn't claim your red herring of Sola Scriptura. Secondly, I'm not a protestant. My Bible Is a Thompson Chain Reference backed up by The original Greek. I have a small library of Bibles and references. I'm a Christian. And I stick to what the Apostles taught - that the Holy spirit would teach and lead in all things.
If I can't trust you with adhering to your own doctrines, how can I trust you with the explication of doctrines of a Church that is not your own?
This is the reason I'm not debating sola scriptura with you. It's not my doctrine. Nor is your definition and mistating of it the protestant doctrine. So it neither behoves me to defend it or your mistated version of it.
We may be talking about different things. The bull which decreed as erroneous the teaching that "burning heretics is against the Holy Spirit" is infallible as far as I know. On the other hand, the advice that the pope gave to temporal rulers would not fall into the category of infallible teaching any more than Pope John Paul II's advice to a sitting president would fall into the category of papal infallibility.
Well we are talking about different things because the pope didn't give advice on this matter. The Words "exterminate from their territories" is command and councilier. Official as it were and binding. It comes from council if you hadn't figured it out. The Lateran councils are web published. Surprised you haven't read them. The Constitution of Lombardy is web published as well if I'm not mistaken. Your church has taught and bound it's followers to believe that murdering someone for teaching what you deem as error is ok. And it is murder because you as a Christian do not have the lawful right to put someone to death for sin. You want to mince words, but that's the bottom line.
Adultery is heresy? Are laws against murder "against the Holy Spirit"? Are laws criminalizing heresy "against the Holy Spirit"?
Is it legal to cook on the sabbath. You sound just like the pharisees. But you're trying to dance subtly around the issues aren't you. Adultery is Sin. Heresy is Sin. God judges Sin. And as Christians, we are about avoiding sin and teaching others to so do. But as Christ taught by example with the Adultrous woman, you don't have the right to take the life of another in judgement over sin. Period. You plead a different authority than do I. You plead the church of Rome. I plead the teaching of Christ. And if your church were the church, so to would they. For even in giving direction to settle disputes of church members within the church - no authority over life and death is granted. Nor is any penalty from civil authority forstalled. These are liberties that Rome in it's haughtiness has taken in sin. Paul and the other apostles - even Christ subjected themselves to civil authority. Rome has put herself above civil authority as though she is better than the Apostles and Christ in the examples they set down and taught.
One can criminalize heresy without putting said heretic to death. So you aren't addressing the real issue. Nor are you addressing the fact that Rome not only criminalized heresy, it murdered heretics and ordered their murders via their use of civil authorities. Why is it you seem to want to distance yourself from this? It's a matter of historical fact - not a fresh charge out of the blue. That doesn't stop the church in CE from applying it's standard mia culpa and shifting the blame for those deaths to the civil authorities - which is outright deciet if not a bald faced lie.
As far as I can tell, you're equating the execution of heretics with "sending a soul to hell." Do I have that right? If that's what you're asserting, then you're wrong. Here's why. Heresy effects the common good. Consider the Catharist heresy for example which forbid marriage. Clearly this heresy was injurious to the common welfare and was justly suppressed.
When you think you have made the case, go back and read what you said. This is the weakest construct I have seen in a while. You obviously know nothing about the nature of sin. If a man dies in his sin he is damned. Scripture is plain on this point. Sin damns one to hell. If one is a heretic, then one by definition is in sin. Therefore putting one to death in one's sin damns one to hell. QED. It should be pretty simple; but, you have a need to ignore and explain away the obvious (it's not a living creature, it's just some growing mass). What you're saying is they had no way of knowing if the person was in sin or not so they aren't putting one in Hell because they didn't know for sure. That's like saying gravity affects things but you aren't responsible for breaking a watermellon because you didn't see it splat on the sidewalk though you saw everything leading up to it. That is true blindness.
New testament and cannon are our words. Paul spoke to this by referencing his own writings and the writings of the other apostles in charging to keep to what they taught in word or in writing. He then specifically deliniated what those things were so there would be no question. Paul did answer it for you. You just choose to excuse yourself from that course on the buffet as though it is your right to choose what you will heed or not. It is, actually your choice, but it's God's right to judge you on that basis because you know better and have the ability to know better. And pointing your finger at the church of Rome in the presence of God won't save your hide anymore than pointing at Jimmy swaggert would save Hugh Heffner's.
It's not silly, it's straight forward. You are trying to use an adjective modifier to the pronoun "house" as though it were the active pronoun. It is not, it is being used as a modifier. It basically does the same thing we do today in referencing a building as a Church building. The directives Paul defined for the Bishops and priests were defined because they didn't have the background of the Jews who already knew how to behave themselves in the temple and Synagogues. If you're going to be in God's house, you are going to be reverent and honor God or you don't rate the office you attempt to hold. Even the context screams it. But it's apparent your church doesn't know the context because when it comes to priests breaking those rules laid down by Paul, Rome has it's own rules - deeming Pauls too much to swallow. Again, the Apostles said one thing, the Church of Rome made it's own rules contrary to theirs. Then of course Rome says "well we teach and practice what the apostles taught" - Bunk!
The Church is any number of things. But the operative portion of the verse is the phrase "house of God" - which by definition and terminology is a building. However you modify it from there - it is still referencing a building. And a building - inanimate object - dwelling made with hands - is not the pillar and foundation of truth. Nor is the church. The church is supposed to Preach and teach the truth. But God is still the author, pillar and foundation of all truth and it is his word and his son his truth upon which the living body of christ is founded - not the other way around. If the Catholic Church thought it were the pillar of truth, one would expect it could operate in truth rather than deciet and tell the truth rather than lie and further follow the apostles instead of doing their own thing then lyingly teach their own doctrines in place of apostolic doctrine. Pull the other one.
REPOST to fix broken link:
Sure, I can give you Both: Papal Bull Exsurge Domine issued by Leo X on June 15, 1520. Note point number 33. This is binding on you right now. It has never been recanted (as if the Roman church would recant on this matter and admit to a further error on a matter of faith and morals without handwringing and doubletalk).
Thus, to this day, You cannot say that burning heretics is against the will of the Holy Spirit as a Catholic without being labeled a heretic officially.
Sigh... AF, Vatican Council II proclaims in Dignitatis Humanae, Article 2 concerning religous freedom:
"Freedom of this kind means that all men should be immune from coercion on the part of individuals, social groups and every human power so that, within due limits, nobody is forced to act against his convictions in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others."
Of course, that may not satisfy some that the Church did not "recant" to satisfy a few on FreeRepublic. The statement that one cannot say that "burning heretics" is against the will of the Holy Spirit and be labeled a heretic "officially" (whatever that means), is nonsense.
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.