Heretics

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]Well, at least its good that you don't approve of killing civilians.
(I thought if they were heretic or infidel civilians, this wouldn't be a problem.)

Yeah, going around bombing buildings sounds like a great way to spread the Faith (so long as you stick gov't buildings, I guess!)
A bunch of Catholic Osama bin Wannabes blowin' stuff up would be the perfect way to bring the Faith to the world!
(I mean, like after 9-11-01, I really wanted to be Muslim! - Get real!)

I suppose this doesn't matter anyway, since making people inclined to accept the Faith and bringing souls to Christ really isn't important, compared with not compromising one's position on on killing heretics (which is not a dogma of the Church, by the way.)

After all, was Christ concerned with bringing souls to Him or killing unbeleivers? Don't recall Christ killing anyone, or commanding others to kill. [/quote]


Wow are you really an idiot or do you just play one on Phatmass? Can you argue your Position or is hurling Sarcasm and insults the only weapon at your disposal?



First I never said that blowing up building was a great way to bring people to the faith... I challenge you to find anywhere that I said that, I tire of people on this forum putting words in others mouth and then crying the cry of the victim " oh look at _______ he's so mean and he says ______________. I never said that bringing souls to Christ wasn't important, I have spent a good deal of my life Evangelizeing and have had quite a bit of success in that area, but evangelization is not the topic of this thread, but even if it where evangelization where the Truth is sugar coated is not evangelization at all but simple treachery.

The Fact is that Ecumenical Councils have called for Crusades, to question the morality of the Crusades is therefore a questioning of the Moral Authority of Councils, to question that is to tread quite deeply into the realm of heresy. This doesn't even address the problems with questioning the Popes authority in these matters.
It is obvious from your Post that you have little understanding of Traditional Catholic doctrine regarding Just War, particularly "taking the combatant out of the man" In warfare killing must be accidental to the goal of removing the combatant, One cannot directly intend the death of the opponent, but one may use
methods which are likely to kill him if these are the most effective ant removing the combatant from him and are not inherently wrong in and of themselves. The insurgents in Iraq for example are perfectly with intthe moral law of combat when they attack a convoy or a police station but not when they blow up a bomb on the street. It ias a distinction vital to understanding the Catholic view of warfare, particularly agianst those who are directly attacking the Faith.


The fact is that Cathoics and other christians are being killed in africa right now and there children are being taken as slaves these same children are being raised to be musilms not Catholic( or any form of Christian) So yes violent confrentation of the Infidel WOULD bring people to Christ, immediatly, it would bring those children to Christ, as there parents intended.

Now as for Christ never killing anyone, Christ incarnate as fully man and fully God used violence when the Temple was being defiled by the money changers, he also said he cam to bring the sword, counciled his apostles to buy swords, and told numerous parables where the just used violence( even lethal violence) to achieve their rightous end. Additionally Christ is the son and therefore part of the Trinity, as such He has directly killed multitudes, and the striking down didn't stop with the resurrection either, read Acts.

[Socrates]

Listen pal, learn come civility.

You come into the thread insulting those who disagree with you, when no one had previously been insulting or uncivil on the thread, continue to be rude, insulting, and beligerent, and then get upset when I use sarcasm.

Seems some can dish it out, but not take it themselves!
You yourself said you condoned bin Laden's methods had he only attacked the Pentagon and the "paramilitary" tower. And I said nothing against the Crusades (which were ultimately a defensive war against Muslim agression.)
Driving the money-changers from the temple was not killing them. And we are not supposed to "play God."

Unless you can post in a civil manner, I'm done arguing with you.

[Guest Aluigi]

:huh:maybe it's just cause i'm a fan of sugarless convo... refreshing and real, but his post seemed quite civil to me... respond to his arguments.

Edited November 17, 2004 by Aluigi

[Paladin D]

[quote name='noncatholicname' date='Nov 15 2004, 07:54 PM'] You want the infidels dead.  I'm an infidel.  2+2=what? [/quote]
[b]5 ???[/b]

[Don John of Austria]

Socrates, I haven't seen you argue anything yet so I am really not sure how you could be "done with argueing with me" . Now I hate to break this to you but the conflict which you broke into between noncatholic name and myself was about the Crusades, [b]read the thread[/b] if you didn't intend to question them then you should have made that clear when you started to attack my position, in my post I specificly mention the Crusades ( not just thase agianst the Muslims either) you attack my position comparing the Crusaders to Osama ben Lauden would you like the qoute here you go

"Also, specific political situations were different in medieval Europe. Do you honestly think waging physical violence against "heretics" or "infidels" would bring anyone to Christ in today's world? Do you think Osama bin Laden would be right in his actions/strategy if he were a Catholic?"


That implys ( not even subtly) that the Crusaders actions where like to Osama's.

I reponded quite civilly to that attack and yet I still have yet to see you actually argue for any position you simply proclaim that things are so, and ask about the effectiveness of these issues, effectiveness has nothing to do morallity nor does what you think Should be the teaching of the Church make it so, the Church has in Ecuminical Councils declared wars agianst Heretics and Infidels, thus these wars cannot be immoral. That is Simply the Facts you must accept if you are a Catholic like it or not.

Edited November 18, 2004 by Don John of Austria

[Socrates]

Sorry, I think there is actually much less disagreement between us than you think. Tempers started flaring up, unfortunately lowering the level of the debate. I think we were both partially at fault for making attacks without carefully reading each other's postions. (This began with your "sweet and spineless" remark.)

My intitial problem wasn't really with your arguments about the crusades, but more with Catholic Crusader's position (stated in this post and elsewhere) that heretics should be killed for the simple crime of being heretics.
While this might work in a situation where the entire civil society is Catholic, I do not think this policy is at all practical in today's world, and I am sill firmly against a "convert or die" policy. (That is the Muslim way, not Christian).
I have no problem with a military attack on Muslims or others if they had commited acts of violent agression against Christians (as in the Crusades), but would be against violent attacks on people simply because of their erroneous beliefs.

Much of this probably falls more under issues of prudence than objective morality/immorality, but I think violence should be endorsed with extreme caution, and only under those circumstances where it is clear that it will save Christian lives, and not have the opposite effect.

Again, while Islam was spread by the sword and military conquest, Christianity grew by the blood of martyrs, and the example of saints (who rarely practiced violence.)

Edited November 18, 2004 by Socrates

[Don John of Austria]

I disagree with very little of what you say here, it was those who said there is never any reason to make war on Heretics or Infidels which I was responding to with the " sweet and sppinless remark". the only disagreement I can see that we have is this --- I would contend that there are certian beliefs and practices which are so evil and have such a great tendency or potental for destruction that they must be stoped, that is is Morally Obligatory to stop them( such as the religion of the Cathari and that of the Aztecs) even if it means useing Force, other than that I don't think that military force should be used as a means of conversion.

I do believe that Public Heresy ( as opposed to a Personal Private Heresy) is a crime for which it is Morally Permissable to execute the Guilty, I don't think that is always the best or wisest choice, but it is morally permissable and CC is right to say so, to say that it is not or to imply that it is unjust to do so is not in keeping with the Tradition of the Church.

Edited November 18, 2004 by Don John of Austria

[Socrates]

Don John,

Appears there's really not much disagreement here. I think I caused some confusion by addressing a number of people/issues in one post without making it clear.


Pax,

Socrates

[amarkich]

So, even if there is little confusion, why don't you (or we, I would like to join the discussion) try to establish which position is correct in regard to the area of disagreement. It seems that Socrates is claiming that it is not permissible to execute a public heretic for the sin of Heresy in itself. Socrates please defend this. You have not made any real argument substantiating this yet. I will simply post Saint Thomas Aquinas on the matter for now because I have class in 15 minutes.


Whether heretics ought to be tolerated?
Objection 1. It seems that heretics ought to be tolerated. For the Apostle says (2 Tim. 2:24,25): "The servant of the Lord must not wrangle . . . with modesty admonishing them that resist the truth, if peradventure God may give them repentance to know the truth, and they may recover themselves from the snares of the devil." Now if heretics are not tolerated but put to death, they lose the opportunity of repentance. Therefore it seems contrary to the Apostle's command.

Objection 2. Further, whatever is necessary in the Church should be tolerated. Now heresies are necessary in the Church, since the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:19): "There must be . . . heresies, that they . . . who are reproved, may be manifest among you." Therefore it seems that heretics should be tolerated.

Objection 3. Further, the Master commanded his servants (Mt. 13:30) to suffer the cockle "to grow until the harvest," i.e. the end of the world, as a gloss explains it. Now holy men explain that the cockle denotes heretics. Therefore heretics should be tolerated.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Titus 3:10,11): "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted."

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."

Reply to Objection 1. This very modesty demands that the heretic should be admonished a first and second time: and if he be unwilling to retract, he must be reckoned as already "subverted," as we may gather from the words of the Apostle quoted above.

Reply to Objection 2. The profit that ensues from heresy is beside the intention of heretics, for it consists in the constancy of the faithful being put to the test, and "makes us shake off our sluggishness, and search the Scriptures more carefully," as Augustine states (De Gen. cont. Manich. i, 1). What they really intend is the corruption of the faith, which is to inflict very great harm indeed. Consequently we should consider what they directly intend, and expel them, rather than what is beside their intention, and so, tolerate them.

Reply to Objection 3. According to Decret. (xxiv, qu. iii, can. Notandum), "to be excommunicated is not to be uprooted." A man is excommunicated, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 5:5) that his "spirit may be saved in the day of Our Lord." Yet if heretics be altogether uprooted by death, this is not contrary to Our Lord's command, which is to be understood as referring to the case when the cockle cannot be plucked up without plucking up the wheat, as we explained above (10, 8, ad 1), when treating of unbelievers in general.


[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/301103.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/301103.htm[/url]

[Guest JeffCR07]

Adam, God Bless! I know that the above post was addressed to Socrates, but I hope you won't mind my responding to it.

I am really glad that you posted what the Angelic Doctor has to say on the matter, for I think that it is particularly important.

It seems to me that St. Thomas deals with two seperate issues within the broad topic of "whether heretics ought to be tolerated?" The first is the issue of excommunication, the second the issue of death.

Now it seems to me that St. Thomas has placed the consequences of heresy within two orders. He has placed the excommunication of the heretic and the condemnation of the heresy within the order of the Church, and the judgement and punishment of the crime within the order of the State, for he says:

[quote]if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death.[/quote]

In this manner, it seems that Aquinas has ordered heavenly justice (that is, excommunication) as being proper to the Church, and temporal justice (that is, death) as being proper to the State. Now, this is not to say that there must by necessity be a "seperation of Church and State" but rather, that when both entities exist, it is more fitting that the Church deal with the spiritual and the State with the temporal.

This makes sense because it is fitting for the Church, which, as St. Thomas says, "looks to the conversion of the wanderer" to relegate earthly punishment to earthly powers, and thus keep itself above the accusation of being in material cooperation with the damnation of a soul.



Now please keep in mind that the above does [i]not[/i] argue that it is "wrong" to kill the heretic, but rather, it argues, as the Angelic Doctor argues, that the Church should, when necessary, refuse to tolerate the heretic via the imposition of excommunication and the formal condemnation of heretical teachings, while the State deals with the earthly punishment. for it logically follows that if the State makes the determination of whether or not a man should die on account of his theft, so too does the State decide if a man should die on account of his heresy.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[Socrates]

Time prohibits me from really making an adequate response, but

I would agree that a Catholic state would have a right to execute heretics, but I would argue that it would be extremely imprudent to institute such a policy. In the modern world, I cannot see such actual good for the Church come out of such policies. In fact, it would likely inspire violence against the Church.

Conversion should be made by free will, not by fear of force.

Consider the parable of the Wheat and Cockle St. Thomas mentions.


(And, by the way, I agree with Don John about the Aztecs, etc.)

[JP2Iloveyou]

OK. All you people that are advocating that we should kill heretics, let's get a couple of things straight here. I have been away for a few days and I didn't expect to see this many responses to this thread. Anyway, I am so mad right now, I can't put it into words. You gusy sit here and try to make the claim that the Magisterium has instructed us to go around and kill everyone who doesn't believe what we believe. Yet, I show you documents, specific paragraphs in those documents, and you patently ignore them. For your sake, I'll repost the names again, but not the links. I gave you the links in a previous post. [i]Unitatis Redintegratio, Nostra Aetate, Ut Unum Sint, and the Declaration on the Freedom of Conscience and of Religion[/i] I could go on and on. Clearly, Pope John Paul II has not advocated killing anyone. In fact, I think you that are sitting here saying that we should "kill all heretics" may be closer to heresy yourselves. Speaking of that, let's define heresy, shall we, since no one on here appears to even know the simple definition.

[quote]Heresy: The refection of one or more truths revealed by God and infallibly defined by they Catholic Church, or the false interpretation of an infallibly defined doctrine, by one who has been baptized and who has professed the Christian religion.  Heresy is either [i]formal[/i] or [i]material[/i].  [i]Formal[/i] heresy, a serious sin, is committed when a baptized Christian knowingly and willingly denies or doubts one or more truths.  [i]Material[/i] heresy is the result of ignorance of the truth and is not accompanied by a rejectio of the will.  Material heresy is not sinful unless the individual suspects the truth and either neglects seeking the correct interpretations, or refuses to submit willingly to the rulings of the Church on the matter in question.  biblically speaking, the New Testament Greek word [i]heresis[/i] means a faction.  Heresy has existed since the beginning of the Church.  St. Paul speaks of "deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ" (2 Cor 11: 13).  Sacred Scripture also refers to those who had broken away from the teaching of the Apostles (cf. 1 Jn 2: 19, 2 Pt 2).  In the early centuries of the Church, there were many heresies, with some continuing into the Middle Ages and into the modern era.[/quote]

[quote]Heretic:  A baptized person who deliberately and with full consent of his will, rejects one of more infallibly defined doctrines of the Catholic Church.  The Church automatically excommunicates those guilty of heresy.[/quote]

You know, last year was my first year in seminary and some of the guys in my class were throwing those terms around (heresy and heretic). Our rector, a very holy and orthodox priest, gave us a stern chewing out session about using those terms. I remember a couple of the points he said. First, he said if you accuse someone of being a heretic who is not, it is sinful and it might be mortally sinful. Then I remember him saying that you could go to hell for that. Some of you people need to be VERY careful here.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Nov 19 2004, 08:04 AM'] Some of you people need to be VERY careful here. [/quote]
Heed your own advice, friend.

[popestpiusx]

By the way, the definition of material heresy provided in the quote is incorrect. MAterial heresy does not always involve the willful rejection of dogma, but it certainly can. All formal heretics are also material heretics. But not all material heretics are formal heretics.

What is the source for those? And how are they relevan to the discussion?

[popestpiusx]

Allow me to cause some scandal:

Some snippets from St. Bernard of Clairvaux's "In Praise of the New Knighthood" (a letter written to Hugh of Payn, Master of the Knights Templar):

BUT THE KNIGHTS OF CHRIST may safely fight the battles of their Lord, fearing neither sin if they smite the enemy, nor danger
at their own death; since to inflict death or to die for Christ is no sin, but rather, an abundant claim to glory. In the first case one gains
for Christ, and in the second one gains Christ himself. The Lord freely accepts the death of the foe who has offended him, and yet
more freely gives himself for the consolation of his fallen knight.


Neither does he bear the sword in vain, for he is God's minister, for the punishment of evildoers and for the
praise of the good. If he kills an evildoer, he is not a mankiller, but, if I may so put it, a killer of evil. He is evidently the avenger of
Christ towards evildoers and he is rightly considered a defender of Christians. Should he be killed himself, we know that he has not
perished, but has come safely into port. When he inflicts death it is to Christ's profit, and when he suffers death, it is for his own gain.
The Christian glories in the death of the pagan, because Christ is glorified; while the death of the Christian gives occasion for the King
to show his liberality in the rewarding of his knight. In the one case the just shall rejoice when he sees justice done, and in the other
man shall say, truly there is a reward for the just; truly it is God who judges the earth.

I do not mean to say that the pagans are to be slaughtered when there is any other way to prevent them from harassing and
persecuting the faithful, but only that it now seems better to destroy them than that the rod of sinners be lifted over the lot of the just,
and the righteous perhaps put forth their hands unto iniquity.


I do not know if it would be more
appropriate to refer to them as monks or as soldiers, unless perhaps it would be better to recognize them as being both. Indeed they
lack neither monastic meekness nor military might. What can we say of this, except that this has been done by the Lord, and it is
marvelous in our eyes. These are the picked troops of God, whom he has recruited from the ends of the earth; the valiant men of
Israel chosen to guard well and faithfully that tomb which is the bed of the true Solomon, each man sword in hand, and superbly
trained to war.

[popestpiusx]

One last thing. No one on here has suggested that "the Magisterium has instructed us to go around and kill everyone who doesn't believe what we believe."

You are attempting to polarize the issue, as though there is no middle ground between allowing people to believe and act as they see fit and starting off down the street executing every non-Catholic. THere is, as usual, a middle position. And it is, as usual, the Catholic position.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Nov 19 2004, 09:04 AM']




You know, last year was my first year in seminary and some of the guys in my class were throwing those terms around (heresy and heretic). Our rector, a very holy and orthodox priest, gave us a stern chewing out session about using those terms. I remember a couple of the points he said. First, he said if you accuse someone of being a heretic who is not, it is sinful and it might be mortally sinful. Then I remember him saying that you could go to hell for that. Some of you people need to be VERY careful here. [/quote]
yep we do know the definition:
In the Roman Catholic Church, heresy has a very specific meaning. Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic. Accordingly four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy; previous valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God; and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative.

Objectively, therefore, to become a heretic in the strict canonical sense and be excommunicated from the faithful, one must deny or question a truth that is taught not merely on the authority of the Church but on the word of God revealed in the Scriptures or sacred tradition. Subjectively a person must recognize his obligation to believe. If he acts in good faith, as with most persons brought up in non-Catholic surroundings, the heresy is only material and implies neither guilt nor sin against faith. (Etym. Latin haeresis, from the Greek hairesis, a taking, choice, sect, heresy.)

[cmotherofpirl]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines these three sins against the faith in this way:

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." [Code of Canon Law c.751]

The Church's moral theology has always distinguished between objective or material sin and formal sin. The person who holds something contrary to the Catholic faith is materially a heretic. They possess the matter of heresy, theological error. Thus, prior to the Second Vatican Council it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians as heretics, since many of their doctrines are objectively contrary to Catholic teaching. This theological distinction remains true, though in keeping with the pastoral charity of the Council, today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy. Thus, the person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if 1) their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and 2) they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God.

The same is true of apostasy. The person who leaves not just the Catholic Church but who abandons Christ Himself is materially an apostate. He is formally an apostate through willful, and therefore culpable, repudiation of the Christian faith.
Finally, the person who refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff, whom Vatican I defined as having a universal primacy of authority over the whole Church, is at least a material schismatic. It was thus common in the past to speak of the schismatic Orthodox Churches who broke with Rome in 1054. As with heresy, we no longer assume the moral culpability of those who belong to Churches in schism from Rome, and thus no long refer to them as schismatics.

excerpted from article by ftrom Colin Donovan

[Don John of Austria]

It din't break any forum guidelines I have been around for 3 incarnations of Phatmass and it is this kind of Garbage that consistantly forces me to concider if I want to stay around-- If we can't debate the hard things then whats the point of having this Phorum at all , so we can discuss inanities on open mic? Well I for one refuse to be shut out by someone who doesn't even have the courage to take responsability for there actions.



This post should continue from [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=23711&st=75"]here[/url]


Who ever locked it if you don't like that I have done this -- warn me we'll take it up with dust, this thought police stuff is BS [i][b]particularly when you don't follow the rules yourself![/b][/i]



PopepiusX -- man you are cool! Thanks for the Quote from Saint Bernard

JP2Iloveyou-- Here are some more references to making war on Infidels and Heretics I will post still more if you would like.

These are a couple of Canons from The Fourth Lateran Council this Council did a lot of important things like Defining the Nature of the Devil and declaring the Truth of the Transubstantiation proclaimed the following mind you these are Canons Declared under the Authority of the Council --


Canon 3
[quote]
3. On Heretics

We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and catholic faith which we have expounded above. We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under. They have different faces indeed but their tails are tied together inasmuch as they are alike in their pride. Let those condemned be handed over to the secular authorities present, or to their bailiffs, for due punishment. Clerics are first to be degraded from their orders. The goods of the condemned are to be confiscated, if they are lay persons, and if clerics they are to be applied to the churches from which they received their stipends. Those who are only found suspect of heresy are to be struck with the sword of anathema, unless they prove their innocence by an appropriate purgation, having regard to the reasons for suspicion and the character of the person. Let such persons be avoided by all until they have made adequate satisfaction. If they persist in the excommunication for a year, they are to be condemned as heretics. Let secular authorities, whatever offices they may be discharging, be advised and urged and if necessary be compelled by ecclesiastical censure, if they wish to be reputed and held to be faithful, to take publicly an oath for the defence of the faith to the effect that they will seek, in so far as they can, to expel from the lands subject to their jurisdiction all heretics designated by the church in good faith. Thus whenever anyone is promoted to spiritual or temporal authority, he shall be obliged to confirm this article with an oath. If however a temporal lord, required and instructed by the church, neglects to cleanse his territory of this heretical filth, he shall be bound with the bond of excommunication by the metropolitan and other bishops of the province. If he refuses to give satisfaction within a year, this shall be reported to the supreme pontiff so that he may then declare his vassals absolved from their fealty to him and make the land available for occupation by Catholics so that these may, after they have expelled the heretics, possess it unopposed and preserve it in the purity of the faith -- saving the right of the suzerain provided that he makes no difficulty in the matter and puts no impediment in the way. The same law is to be observed no less as regards those who do not have a suzerain.

Catholics who take the cross and gird themselves up for the expulsion of heretics shall enjoy the same indulgence, and be strengthened by the same holy privilege, as is granted to those who go to the aid of the holy Land. Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend or support heretics. We strictly ordain that if any such person, after he has been designated as excommunicated, refuses to render satisfaction within a year, then by the law itself he shall be branded as infamous and not be admitted to public offices or councils or to elect others to the same or to give testimony. He shall be intestable, that is he shall not have the freedom to make a will nor shall succeed to an inheritance. Moreover nobody shall be compelled to answer to him on any business whatever, but he may be compelled to answer to them. If he is a judge sentences pronounced by him shall have no force and cases may not be brought before him; if an advocate, he may not be allowed to defend anyone; if a notary, documents drawn up by him shall be worthless and condemned along with their condemned author; and in similar matters we order the same to be observed. If however he is a cleric, let him be deposed from every office and benefice, so that the greater the fault the greater be the punishment. If any refuse to avoid such persons after they have been pointed out by the church, let them be punished with the sentence of excommunication until they make suitable satisfaction. Clerics should not, of course, give the sacraments of the church to such pestilent people nor give them a christian burial nor accept alms or offerings from them; if they do, let them be deprived of their office and not restored to it without a special indult of the apostolic see. Similarly with regulars, let them be punished with losing their privileges in the diocese in which they presume to commit such excesses.

"There are some who holding to the form of religion but denying its power (as the Apostle says) , claim for themselves the authority to preach, whereas the same Apostle says, How shall they preach unless they are sent? Let therefore all those who have been forbidden or not sent to preach, and yet dare publicly or privately to usurp the office of preaching without having received the authority of the apostolic see or the catholic bishop of the place", be bound with the bond of excommunication and, unless they repent very quickly, be punished by another suitable penalty. We add further that each archbishop or bishop, either in person or through his archdeacon or through suitable honest persons, should visit twice or at least once in the year any parish of his in which heretics are said to live. There he should compel three or more men of good repute, or even if it seems expedient the whole neighbourhood, to swear that if anyone knows of heretics there or of any persons who hold secret conventicles or who differ in their life and habits from the normal way of living of the faithful, then he will take care to point them out to the bishop. The bishop himself should summon the accused to his presence, and they should be punished canonically if they are unable to clear themselves of the charge or if after compurgation they relapse into their former errors of faith. If however any of them with damnable obstinacy refuse to honour an oath and so will not take it, let them by this very fact be regarded as heretics. We therefore will and command and, in virtue of obedience, strictly command that bishops see carefully to the effective execution of these things throughout their dioceses, if they wish to avoid canonical penalties. If any bishop is negligent or remiss in cleansing his diocese of the ferment of heresy, then when this shows itself by unmistakeable signs he shall be deposed from his office as bishop and there shall be put in his place a suitable person who both wishes and is able to overthrow the evil of heresy.

[/quote]
Canon 71
[quote]71. Crusade to recover the holy Land

It is our ardent desire to liberate the holy Land from infidel hands. We therefore declare, with the approval of this sacred council and on the advice of prudent men who are fully aware of the circumstances of time and place, that crusaders are to make themselves ready so that all who have arranged to go by sea shall assemble in the kingdom of Sicily on 1 June after next : some as necessary and fitting at Brindisi and others at Messina and places neighbouring it on either side, where we too have arranged to be in person at that time, God willing, so that with our advice and help the christian army may be in good order to set out with divine and apostolic blessing. Those who have decided to go by land should also take care to be ready by the same date. They shall notify us meanwhile so that we may grant them a suitable legate a latere for advice and help. Priests and other clerics who will be in the christian army, both those under authority and prelates, shall diligently devote themselves to prayer and exhortation, teaching the crusaders by word and example to have the fear and love of God always before their eyes, so that they say or do nothing that might offend the divine majesty. If they ever fall into sin, let them quickly rise up again through true penitence. Let them be humble in heart and in body, keeping to moderation both in food and in dress, avoiding altogether dissensions and rivalries, and putting aside entirely any bitterness or envy, so that thus armed with spiritual and material weapons they may the more fearlessly fight against the enemies of the faith, relying not on their own power but rather trusting in the strength of God. We grant to these clerics that they may receive the fruits of their benefices in full for three years, as if they were resident in the churches, and if necessary they may leave them in pledge for the same time.

To prevent this holy proposal being impeded or delayed, we strictly order all prelates of churches, each in his own locality, diligently to warn and induce those who have abandoned the cross to resume it, and them and others who have taken up the cross, and those who may still do so, to carry out their vows to the Lord. And if necessary they shall compel them to do this without any backsliding, by sentences of excommunication against their persons and of interdict on their lands, excepting only those persons who find themselves faced with an impediment of such a kind that their vow deservedly ought to be commuted or deferred in accordance with the directives of the apostolic see. In order that nothing connected with this business of Jesus Christ be omitted, we will and order patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, abbots and others who have the care of souls to preach the cross zealously to those entrusted to them. Let them beseech kings, dukes, princes, margraves, counts, barons and other magnates, as well as the communities of cities, vills and towns -- in the name of the Father, Son and holy Spirit, the one, only, true and eternal God -- that those who do not go in person to the aid of the holy Land should contribute, according to their means, an appropriate number of fighting men together with their necessary expenses for three years, for the remission of their sins in accordance with what has already been explained in general letters and will be explained below for still greater assurance. We wish to share in this remission not only those who contribute ships of their own but also those who are zealous enough to build them for this purpose. To those who refuse, if there happen to be any who are so ungrateful to our lord God, we firmly declare in the name of the apostle that they should know that they will have to answer to us for this on the last day of final judgment before the fearful judge. Let them consider beforehand, however with what conscience and with what security it was that they were able to confess before the only-begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, to whom the Father gave all things into his hands, if in this business, which is as it were peculiarly his, they refuse to serve him who was crucified for sinners, by whose beneficence they are sustained and indeed by whose blood they have been redeemed.

Lest we appear to be laying on men's shoulders heavy and unbearable burdens which we are not willing to lighten, like those who say yes but do nothing behold we, from what we have been able to save over and above necessities and moderate expenses, grant and give thirty thousand pounds to this work, besides the shipping which we are giving to the crusaders of Rome and neighbouring districts. We will assign for this purpose, moreover, three thousand marks of silver, which we have left over from the alms of certain of the faithful, the rest having been faithfully distributed for the needs and benefit of the aforesaid Land by the hands of the abbot patriarch of Jerusalem, of happy memory, and of the masters of the Temple and of the Hospital. We wish, however, that other prelates of churches and all clerics may participate and share both in the merit and in the reward. We therefore decree, with the general approval of the council, that all clerics, both those under authority and prelates, shall give a twentieth of their ecclesiastical revenues for three years to the aid of the holy Land, by means of the persons appointed by the apostolic see for this purpose; the only exceptions being certain religious who are rightly to be exempted from this taxation and likewise those persons who have taken or will take the cross and so will go in person. We and our brothers, cardinals of the holy Roman church, shall pay a full tenth. Let all know, moreover, that they are obliged to observe this faithfully under pain of excommunication, so that those who knowingly deceive in this matter shall incur the sentence of excommunication. Because it is right that those who persevere in the service of the heavenly ruler should in all justice enjoy special privilege, and because the day of departure is somewhat more than a year ahead, crusaders shall therefore be. exempt from taxes or levies and other burdens. We take their persons and goods under the protection of St Peter and ourself once they have taken up the cross. We ordain that they are to be protected by archbishops, bishops and all prelates of the church, and that protectors of their own are to be specially appointed for this purpose, so that their goods are to remain intact and undisturbed until they are known for certain to be dead or to have returned. If anyone dares to act contrary to this, let him be curbed by ecclesiastical censure.

If any of those setting out are bound by oath to pay interest, we ordain that their creditors shall be compelled by the same punishment to release them from their oath and to desist from exacting the interest; if any of the creditors does force them to pay the interest, we command that he be forced by similar punishment to restore it. We order that Jews be compelled by the secular power to remit interest, and that until they do so all intercourse shall be denied them by all Christ's faithful under pain of excommunication. Secular princes shall provide a suitable deferral for those who cannot now pay their debts to Jews, so that after they have undertaken the journey and until there is certain knowledge of their death or of their return, they shall not incur the inconvenience of paying interest. The Jews shall be compelled to add to the capital, after they have deducted their necessary expenses, the revenues which they are meanwhile receiving from property held by them on security. For, such a benefit seems to entail not much loss, inasmuch as it postpones the repayment but does not cancel the debt. Prelates of churches who are negligent in showing justice to crusaders and their families should know that they will be severely punished.

Furthermore, since corsairs and pirates greatly impede help for the holy Land, by capturing and plundering those who are travelling to and from it, we bind with the bond of excommunication everyone who helps or supports them. We forbid anyone, under threat of anathema, knowingly to communicate with them by contracting to buy or to sell; and we order rulers of cities and their territories to restrain and curb such persons from this iniquity. Otherwise, since to be unwilling to disquiet evildoers is none other than to encourage them, and since he who fails to oppose a manifest crime is not without a touch of secret complicity, it is our wish and command that prelates of churches exercise ecclesiastical severity against their persons and lands. We excommunicate and anathematize, moreover, those false and impious Christians who, in opposition to Christ and the christian people, convey arms to the Saracens and iron and timber for their galleys. We decree that those who sell them galleys or ships, and those who act as pilots in pirate Saracen ships, or give them any advice or help by way of machines or anything else, to the detriment of the holy Land, are to be punished with deprivation of their possessions and are to become the slaves of those who capture them. We order this sentence to be renewed on Sundays and feast-days in all maritime towns; and the bosom of the church is not to be opened to such persons unless they send in aid of the holy Land the whole of the damnable wealth which they received and the same amount of their own, so that they are punished in proportion to their offence. If perchance they do not pay, they are to be punished in other ways in order that through their punishment others may be deterred from venturing upon similar rash actions. In addition, we prohibit and on pain of anathema forbid all Christians, for four years, to send or take their ships across to the lands of the Saracens who dwell in the east, so that by this a greater supply of shipping may be made ready for those wanting to cross over to help the holy Land, and so that the aforesaid Saracens may be deprived of the not inconsiderable help which they have been accustomed to receiving from this.

Although tournaments have been forbidden in a general way on pain of a fixed penalty at various councils, we strictly forbid them to be held for three years, under pain of excommunication, because the business of the crusade is much hindered by them at this present time. Because it is of the utmost necessity for the carrying out of this business that rulers of the christian people keep peace with each other, we therefore ordain, on the advice of this holy general synod, that peace be generally kept in the whole christian world for at least four years, so that those in conflict shall be brought by the prelates of churches to conclude a definitive peace or to observe inviolably a firm truce. Those who refuse to comply shall be most strictly compelled to do so by an excommunication against their persons and an interdict on their lands, unless their wrongdoing is so great that they ought not to enjoy peace. If it happens that they make light of the church's censure, they may deservedly fear that the secular power will be invoked by ecclesiastical authority against them as disturbers of the business of him who was crucified.

We therefore, trusting in the mercy of almighty God and in the authority of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, do grant, by the power of binding and loosing that God has conferred upon us, albeit unworthy, unto all those who undertake this work in person and at their own expense, full pardon for their sins about which they are heartily contrite and have spoken in confession, and we promise them an increase of eternal life at the recompensing of the just; also to those who do not go there in person but send suitable men at their own expense, according to their means and status, and likewise to those who go in person but at others' expense, we grant full pardon for their sins. We wish and grant to share in this remission, according to the quality of their help and the intensity of their devotion, all who shall contribute suitably from their goods to the aid of the said Land or who give useful advice and help. Finally, this general synod imparts the benefit of its blessings to all who piously set out on this common enterprise in order that it may contribute worthily to their salvation
[/quote]


If you would like I can provide voluminous material supporting the position that it is not immoral to make war on Heretics and Infidels likewise that they should be punished by the secular Authorities. These Canons where formed in Council and proclaimed under there Authority, there morality cannot be questioned without "outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God" which is the very heart of heresy.

[littleflower+JMJ]

[quote]It din't break any forum guidelines I have been around for 3 incarnations of Phatmass and it is this kind of Garbage that consistantly forces me to concider if I want to stay around-- If we can't debate the hard things then whats the point of having this Phorum at all , so we can discuss inanities on open mic? Well I for one refuse to be shut out by someone who doesn't even have the courage to take responsability for there actions.



This post should continue from here


Who ever locked it if you don't like that I have done this -- warn me we'll take it up with dust, this thought police stuff is BS particularly when you don't follow the rules yourself[/quote]!


actually that was me. and im afraid your right i didn't provide a reason--which i apologize for not doing...mybad. it was locked because of a concern that was reported.

you won't be warned for making this thread when it was totally my fault for not providing a reason for it.

what i can do is merge this thread with the last one since this is a continuous of it so you can continue it.

apologies.