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.