Replies

“while Rome requires RC rulers to exterminate all she deemed to be heretics or loose their authority.”
Another one of your blatantly false and non historical statements. They go well with the non biblical texts in the rest of your answers.

There was no such “requirement” so why are you making things up. Secular authorities saw having a common religious base as a good way to control the populace.

This was true too for the Calvinists in Netherlands, the Anglicans under Liz 1, the Lutherans under the Danish kings and the Catholic French kings.

Further afield the Safavids used it to forcibly converted iran to Shia. And the Omanis did the same with Ibadiism.

The only experiment in tolerance in a pre modern Abrahamuc religion country was in the Rzeczpospolita of Poland Lithuania where despite the majority being Catholic, all Faith’s were tolerated by the kings. That failed when, during the swedish invasion the Lutherans and Calvinists supported the Swedes.

Abrahamic religions didn’t lend themselves to multi religious states before the enlightenment era.

"“while Rome requires RC rulers to exterminate all she deemed to be heretics or loose their authority.” Another one of your blatantly false and non historical statements. They go well with the non biblical texts in the rest of your answers. There was no such “requirement” so why are you making things up. Secular authorities saw having a common religious base as a good way to control the populace."

Rather, it is your denial that there was no such “requirement” that is a blatantly false and non historical statement, which also goes well with biblical texts wrested in support of distinctive Catholic teachings in other of your answers. For there was indeed this “requirement,” so why are you making things up?

• Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3), 1215:

Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath.

But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action.

The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp)

Unless you are ignorant of such history, then it seems you must imagine that "Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure...to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church..But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated" does not mean Rome required "RC rulers to exterminate all she deemed to be heretics or loose their authority.” Or maybe you think "exterminate" never means kill.

Along with this is that of Rome requiring civil rulers to engaged in other means of punishment and compulsion under her claimed power of "coercive jurisdiction," such as, Pope Innocent IV, Ad extirpanda,1252:

(25) Those convicted of heresy by the aforesaid Diocesan Bishop,surrogate or inquisitors, shall be taken in shackles to the head of state or ruler or his special representative, instantly,or at least within five days, and the latter shall apply the regulations promulgated against such persons.{7}

(26) The head of state or ruler must force all the heretics whom he has in custody{8}... to confess their errors and accuse other heretics whom they know, and specify their motives, {9} and those whom they have seduced, and those who have lodged them and defended them,as thieves and robbers of material goods are made to accuse their accomplices and confess the crimes they have committed...

(29) The head of state or ruler must...The head of state or ruler must......The head of state or ruler must... The head of state or ruler must... The head of state or ruler must...

More.

"Secular authorities saw having a common religious base as a good way to control the populace. This was true too for the Calvinists in Netherlands, the Anglicans under Liz 1, the Lutherans under the Danish kings and the Catholic French kings. Further afield the Safavids used it to forcibly converted iran to Shia. And the Omanis did the same with Ibadiism. The only experiment in tolerance in a pre modern Abrahamuc religion country was in the Rzeczpospolita of Poland Lithuania where despite the majority being Catholic, all Faith’s were tolerated by the kings. That failed when, during the swedish invasion the Lutherans and Calvinists supported the Swedes."

Well, I myself said "Early Prots actually had to unlearn this abuse themselves."