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.