Should Heretics Be Burned?

[PeteWaldo]

[quote name='T-Bone _' post='1895873' date='Jun 19 2009, 08:05 AM']Nobody was killed for preaching the Gospel.[/quote]

Try the Waldenses for as one example.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldenses"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldenses[/url]

You might even agree that they hardly qualify under a category such as "...a violent band of murderders who could not be contained in a prison went all through the country murdering citizens daily......."

Edited June 25, 2009 by PeteWaldo

[PeteWaldo]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1896008' date='Jun 19 2009, 12:52 PM']From [i]a[/i] Protestant viewpoint (having once been a Protestant, this was my view), those "heretics" in the Reformation were seeing excessive Catholic practices (such as indulgences and burning people for their heresy) as unbiblical.[/quote]

And now as a Roman Catholic you likely still don't see it as biblical.

[quote name='Patrick' post='1896008' date='Jun 19 2009, 12:52 PM']Preaching the Bible against these practices puts the Protestant at odds with the Catholic church and they are deemed "heretics", and put to death as such. Thereby, they were put to death for preaching the Gospel.[/quote]

Indeed they were.

[quote name='Patrick' post='1896008' date='Jun 19 2009, 12:52 PM']Thus, Protestants hold a memory of persecution by Catholics from the Reformation similar to Orthodox remembering the 4th Crusade. Orthodox have at least received some form of papal apology. Have there been any papal apologies to Protestants for the persecutions the Catholic Church imposed? How much more they are needed! It is arguable that the 4th Crusade was accidental and that the See of Rome did not intend to attack Constantinople and worse. Whereas the attack upon Protestants was deliberate and intentional.[/quote]

Luk 6:43 [color="#000080"]For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.[/color]

Edited June 25, 2009 by PeteWaldo

[PeteWaldo]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1896107' date='Jun 19 2009, 04:16 PM']That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit

Error 33 of Exsurge Domine.

Yes it would be an error to say that it is agianst the will of the Spirit to burn heretics.

That [b][i]does not [/i][/b] translate to " all heretics should be burned."[/quote]

Can you provide any scriptural support to suggest that it is acceptable for men to burn [b]any[/b] heretics?

1 John 4:7 [color="#000080"]Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. 8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.[/color]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1896107' date='Jun 19 2009, 04:16 PM']That said the Catholic Church did condone the burning of Heretics by the secular authorities in the past. It would be an error to attribute such action as decidedly incorrect. The Church, and many popes for centuries declared that indeed it was the will of God that some heretics be put to death for their crimes agianst man and God. That said, the Church almost always plead for mercy to the secular authority.[/quote]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but you seem to be suggesting that the Church turned heretics over to the secular state to be burned (as Roman Catholic dogma calls for), but then turned around and plead of the secular authority to which they had turned them over, to extend mercy to them.

Though your post seems more knowledgeable than those that I read in this thread that seem to want to blame the secular authorities who acted on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church, as if the Roman Catholic Church were innocent of these persecutions.

Edited June 25, 2009 by PeteWaldo

[VoTeckam]

I could not talk myself into reading this whole thread so forgive me if someone else has asked, but for those of you who believe that killing heretics is permissible, who gets to decide if someone is a heretic?

Secondly, do they have to be burned? Are, say, firing sqaud or death by lion mauling also acceptable punishments?

[PeteWaldo]

[quote name='VoTeckam' post='1901278' date='Jun 25 2009, 12:16 PM']I could not talk myself into reading this whole thread so forgive me if someone else has asked, but for those of you who believe that killing heretics is permissible, who gets to decide if someone is a heretic?

Secondly, do they have to be burned? Are, say, firing sqaud or death by lion mauling also acceptable punishments?[/quote]
They were tortured and killed in many ways.

Edited June 25, 2009 by PeteWaldo

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='PeteWaldo' post='1901256' date='Jun 25 2009, 12:16 PM']Try the Waldenses for as one example.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldenses"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldenses[/url]

You might even agree that they hardly qualify under a category such as "...a violent band of murderders who could not be contained in a prison went all through the country murdering citizens daily......."[/quote]




The Waldenses were not pursecuted in anyway for preaching the Gospel. That is a nice fiction, but fiction regardless.

The Waldenses preached numerous heretical doctrines and resembled strongly the Cathari heresy. THey created a wholy ficticious history to justify their sects existance and testified that this was true. They elevated men to the office of bishop and performed Sacraments as if they were ordained when they were not. They allowed members to disolve thier marriage without fault or the consent of thier spouse. They declared the efficacy of a Sacrament was tied to the worthiness of the minister. They broke followers into caste, the Perfect and teh Friends, and declared that morality was differant for these differant people. (THis is quite differant than monastic life, there is nothing it is intrinsicly evil for a monk to do that is not intrinsicly evil for anyone to do.)

They specifically rejected purgatory, indulgences ( not just their sale mind you) and Prayers for the Dead.
They preached that the Catholic Church was the Community of Satan ( at least the Lombard ones did).


There is a lot there that is worthy of persecution, but preachingthe gospel is not among them.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='VoTeckam' post='1901278' date='Jun 25 2009, 12:16 PM']I could not talk myself into reading this whole thread so forgive me if someone else has asked, but for those of you who believe that killing heretics is permissible, who gets to decide if someone is a heretic?[/quote]

A panel of well-educated clerics decides.

In many cases, though, it was not very difficult. If someone had written a book calling the Pope the "son of Satan," preached that the Catholic Church was the "whore of babylon," and set up a rival church or ecclesial community, then it was pretty obvious that such a person was a heretic.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='PeteWaldo' post='1901274' date='Jun 25 2009, 12:50 PM']Can you provide any scriptural support to suggest that it is acceptable for men to burn [b]any[/b] heretics?[/quote]


Sure thing Matthew 22:1–14
[quote]Once more Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying: 2‘The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son. 3He sent his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding banquet, but they would not come. 4Again he sent other slaves, saying, “Tell those who have been invited: Look, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready; come to the wedding banquet.” 5But they made light of it and went away, one to his farm, another to his business, 6while the rest seized his slaves, maltreated them, and killed them. [color="#2E8B57"]7The king was enraged. He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.[/color] 8Then he said to his slaves, “The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9Go therefore into the main streets, and invite everyone you find to the wedding banquet.” 10Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both good and bad; so the wedding hall was filled with guests.
11 ‘But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing a wedding robe, 12and he said to him, “Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe?” And he was speechless. 13Then the king said to the attendants, “Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 14For many are called, but few are chosen.’[/quote]

That one is off the top of my head.



[quote name='PeteWaldo' post='1901274' date='Jun 25 2009, 12:50 PM']Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but you seem to be suggesting that the Church turned heretics over to the secular state to be burned (as Roman Catholic dogma calls for), but then turned around and plead of the secular authority to which they had turned them over, to extend mercy to them.

Though your post seems more knowledgeable than those that I read in this thread that seem to want to blame the secular authorities who acted on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church, as if the Roman Catholic Church were innocent of these persecutions.[/quote]



Yes I am saying that eccesiastical courts tried people for heresy. Heresy was a civil Crime, States viewed it as distructive to society and a potential instigator of God's Wrath. If found guilty, they were almost always set free if they recanted and agreed to not say or do such things again. If found guilty a second time ( or sometimes the first time) they were turned over to the Civil authorities for civil punishment. The Majority of the time ( particularly if the person had recanted agian, the Church authorites woudl formally request mercy for the convicted. Often this was granted, though what was concidered mercy varies considerably from place to place and time to time.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Don John of Austria

[PeteWaldo]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1901295' date='Jun 25 2009, 12:47 PM']Sure thing Matthew 22:1–14


That one is off the top of my head.[/quote]

Do you know why Jesus spoke in parables?

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1901295' date='Jun 25 2009, 12:47 PM']Yes I am saying that eccesiastical courts tried people for heresy. Heresy was a civil Crime, States viewed it as distructive to society and a potential instigator of God's Wrath. If found guilty, they were almost always set free if they recanted and agreed to not say or do such things again. If found guilty a second time ( or sometimes the first time) they were turned over to the Civil authorities for civil punishment. The Majority of the time ( particularly if the person had recanted agian, the Church authorites woudl formally request mercy for the convicted. Often this was granted, though what was concidered mercy varies considerably from place to place and time to time.[/quote]

Quite a stunning parallel to Islam.
[url="http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/apostasy.htm"]http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/apostasy.htm[/url]

[PeteWaldo]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1901293' date='Jun 25 2009, 12:46 PM']A panel of well-educated clerics decides.[/quote]
Jhn 8:7 [color="#000080"]So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. [/color]
[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1901293' date='Jun 25 2009, 12:46 PM']In many cases, though, it was not very difficult. If someone had written a book calling the Pope the "son of Satan," preached that the Catholic Church was the "whore of babylon," and set up a rival church or ecclesial community, then it was pretty obvious that such a person was a heretic.[/quote]

Edited June 25, 2009 by PeteWaldo

[PeteWaldo]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1901286' date='Jun 25 2009, 12:35 PM']The Waldenses were not pursecuted in anyway for preaching the Gospel. That is a nice fiction, but fiction regardless.[/quote]

"The earliest Waldensians believed in poverty and austerity, promoting true poverty, public preaching and the personal study of the scriptures."

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1901286' date='Jun 25 2009, 12:35 PM']The Waldenses preached numerous heretical doctrines and resembled strongly the Cathari heresy. THey created a wholy ficticious history to justify their sects existance and testified that this was true. They elevated men to the office of bishop and performed Sacraments as if they were ordained when they were not. They allowed members to disolve thier marriage without fault or the consent of thier spouse. They declared the efficacy of a Sacrament was tied to the worthiness of the minister. They broke followers into caste, the Perfect and teh Friends, and declared that morality was differant for these differant people. (THis is quite differant than monastic life, there is nothing it is intrinsicly evil for a monk to do that is not intrinsicly evil for anyone to do.)

They specifically rejected purgatory, indulgences ( not just their sale mind you) and Prayers for the Dead.
They preached that the Catholic Church was the Community of Satan ( at least the Lombard ones did).[/quote]

While they obviously didn't start out there, it wouldn't have seemed a stretch for them to have eventually believed that, with entire villages being wiped out.

"On 24 April 1655, at 4 a.m., the signal was given for a general massacre, the horrors of which can be detailed only in small part.
The massacre was so brutal it aroused indignation throughout Europe."

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1901286' date='Jun 25 2009, 12:35 PM']There is a lot there that is worthy of persecution, but preachingthe gospel is not among them.[/quote]
They saw, as others, contradiction between the Gospel and Roman Catholic dogma.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='PeteWaldo' post='1901327' date='Jun 25 2009, 02:47 PM']"The earliest Waldensians believed in poverty and austerity, promoting true poverty, public preaching and the personal study of the scriptures."

[color="#2E8B57"] There was no persecution of the "earlist Waldensians" though thery believed much more than that.[/color]

While they obviously didn't start out there, it wouldn't have seemed a stretch for them to have eventually believed that, with entire villages being wiped out.

"On 24 April 1655, at 4 a.m., the signal was given for a general massacre, the horrors of which can be detailed only in small part.
The massacre was so brutal it aroused indignation throughout Europe."

[color="#2E8B57"]1655? that is hundreds of years after the Waldenses began, and frankly the Waldensian church of the 17th century and later bears little relation to the early Waldenses. The confession of Faith published in 1655 is simply calvinism in a new package. THey specifically rejected the Sacrament of Penence which was extremely important to early Waldensians. The Church you speak of is nothing more than a group that kept a name, Theologically, as well as materially, they are substantially differant groups.[/color]

They saw, as others, contradiction between the Gospel and Roman Catholic dogma.

[color="#2E8B57"]They may have interpreted the Gospel in such a way that they believed it to be in contradiction to the Church founded by Christ. They may have been persecuted by various groups for things that they did and taught. But preachingthe Gospel was not among those things.[/color][/quote]

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='PeteWaldo' post='1901315' date='Jun 25 2009, 02:31 PM']Do you know why Jesus spoke in parables?

[color="#2E8B57"]Yup... .do you?[/color][/quote]

[Don John of Austria]

Just wanted to make sure I recalled correctly. You are talking about actions of the Duke of Savoy who had been told that the Waldensians were resisting his authority. I fail to see how that has any relation to the issue of punishment of heritics.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='PeteWaldo' post='1901315' date='Jun 25 2009, 02:31 PM']Quite a stunning parallel to Islam.
[url="http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/apostasy.htm"]http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/apostasy.htm[/url][/quote]


Not really parrallel at all. Apostates are not at issue here. As I said before, peoples private views were never punished. Many many apostates( and out and out traitors) were captured in the Wars with Islam. They were not ussually killed, and when they were it had nothing to do with apostacy. Heritics were punished for teaching falsehoods to others. They were almost always given another chance and only if agian caught, after they had sworn to God that they would not would they be punished.

Islam specifically punishes you for your privatly held beliefs. These are not the same.

[PeteWaldo]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1901346' date='Jun 25 2009, 02:19 PM']Not really parrallel at all. Apostates are not at issue here. As I said before, peoples private views were never punished. Many many apostates( and out and out traitors) were captured in the Wars with Islam. They were not ussually killed, and when they were it had nothing to do with apostacy. Heritics were punished for teaching falsehoods to others. They were almost always given another chance and only if agian caught, after they had sworn to God that they would not would they be punished.[/quote]

In Islam, the classic period of incarceration pending "repentance" to avoid execution, is 3 days.

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1901346' date='Jun 25 2009, 02:19 PM']Islam specifically punishes you for your privatly held beliefs. These are not the same.[/quote]

[PeteWaldo]

"Do you know why Jesus spoke in parables?

Yup... .do you?"

Yes. So then how do you reconcile your understanding of the parable of Matthew 22:1–14 justifying the Roman Catholic murder of "heretics", against these verses of the very same chapter that describe the very heart of Christianity:

Matt 22:37 [color="#000080"]Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second [is] like unto it, [b]Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.[/b] 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.[/color]

How does your understanding of that parable reconcile with this:

Mat 5:44 [color="#000080"]But I say unto you, [b]Love your enemies[/b], bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; [/color]

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='PeteWaldo' post='1901373' date='Jun 25 2009, 04:17 PM']"Do you know why Jesus spoke in parables?

Yup... .do you?"

Yes. So then how do you reconcile your understanding of the parable of Matthew 22:1–14 justifying the Roman Catholic murder of "heretics", against these verses of the very same chapter that describe the very heart of Christianity:

Matt 22:37 [color="#000080"]Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second [is] like unto it, [b]Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.[/b] 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.[/color]

How does your understanding of that parable reconcile with this:

Mat 5:44 [color="#000080"]But I say unto you, [b]Love your enemies[/b], bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; [/color][/quote]


I Have no need to justify Roman Catholic Murder of Heretics becuase there is no discussion of Murder going on here.

Murder is the intentional killing of the innocent and the helpless. Heretics are not innoccent and they were rarely helpless.

Simply put loving your enemy does not preclude killing them. Just as Loving my son does not preclude my spanking him. Punishment is not unloving. More to the point, loving Bob does not mean I allow Bob to convince Cindy, and Simon, and John, and Mary , and Luis, etc, etc to believe things that will send them to Hell. I owe all my brethren love and protection, not just those who are in error, butthose who are not and yet are targeted by those that are.


If I was a heretic leading people to Hell, was explained the error of my ways, and given a chance to repent, then I broke my oath to God and continued, I would hope sopmeone would have the common decency to kill me.

I see no contradiction at all.
In fact, the practice was almost exactly that of the King in the Parable. Invite one to come to the Church, send out messangers, to the feast, [i]heretics were treated exactly as this, invited to renounce their heresy and accept correction[/i]. When they do not come invite them again and again, again heretics had to refuse multiple warnigns before they were tried, and then if found guilty ( which most wre not by the way) they were given a chance to recant and go about their merry way.. If they abuse your messangers, i.e.[i] they break their oath and continue to teach damnable heresy[/i], invite others to the party and send out the army to eliminate them.


Of course the Church rarely sent out the Army, with the exception of Crusades such was virtually always done by the secular authority.

[PeteWaldo]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1901408' date='Jun 25 2009, 03:53 PM']I Have no need to justify Roman Catholic Murder of Heretics becuase there is no discussion of Murder going on here.

Murder is the intentional killing of the innocent and the helpless. Heretics are not innoccent and they were rarely helpless.[/quote]
That is somewhat similar to the view that Islam takes. No non-Muslim is innocent.
[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1901408' date='Jun 25 2009, 03:53 PM']Simply put loving your enemy does not preclude killing them.[/quote]
Well put!
[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1901408' date='Jun 25 2009, 03:53 PM']Just as Loving my son does not preclude my spanking him.[/quote]

"Just as..." spanking your son?
Through a Roman Catholic view, when you murder a heretic, aren't you condemning him to hell for eternity by killing him while he is in a state, that you yourself believe, to be outside the grace of God?

Surely you're not suggesting that is "just as" spanking your son?

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1901408' date='Jun 25 2009, 03:53 PM']Punishment is not unloving. More to the point, loving Bob does not mean I allow Bob to convince Cindy, and Simon, and John, and Mary , and Luis, etc, etc to believe things that will send them to Hell.[/quote]

So because of what you believe, for example your misunderstanding of the parable discussed here, you send Bob to, what you believe to be perdition, for an eternity?

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1901408' date='Jun 25 2009, 03:53 PM']I owe all my brethren love and protection, not just those who are in error,[/quote]
Your love for those in error is manifest by killing them?
[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1901408' date='Jun 25 2009, 03:53 PM']butthose who are not and yet are targeted by those that are.


If I was a heretic leading people to Hell, was explained the error of my ways,[/quote]
Jhn 8:7 [color="#000080"]So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, [b]He that is without sin among you,[/b] let him first cast a stone at her. [/color]
[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1901408' date='Jun 25 2009, 03:53 PM']and given a chance to repent, then I broke my oath to God and continued, I would hope sopmeone would have the common decency to kill me.[/quote]
And send you to perdition for ever for your error?
[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1901408' date='Jun 25 2009, 03:53 PM']I see no contradiction at all.[/quote]
Indeed you don't.
[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1901408' date='Jun 25 2009, 03:53 PM']In fact, the practice was almost exactly that of the King in the Parable. Invite one to come to the Church, send out messangers, to the feast, [i]heretics were treated exactly as this, invited to renounce their heresy and accept correction[/i]. When they do not come invite them again and again, again heretics had to refuse multiple warnigns before they were tried, and then if found guilty ( which most wre not by the way) they were given a chance to recant and go about their merry way.. If they abuse your messangers, i.e.[i] they break their oath and continue to teach damnable heresy[/i], invite others to the party and send out the army to eliminate them.[/quote]

Just as in Islam. Did you ever wonder if it's because of the same reason that Muslims that come to Christ are killed?
That men resort to taking matters into their own hands physically, when they find themselves helplessly disarmed against the Sword of the Spirit?

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1901408' date='Jun 25 2009, 03:53 PM']Of course the Church rarely sent out the Army, with the exception of Crusades such was virtually always done by the secular authority.[/quote]

Come on my friend. We are talking about several centuries of this stuff. Or are you now going to join those that try and excuse this away as the work of some "secular authority" as if unguided by the Roman Catholic Church?

Edited June 25, 2009 by PeteWaldo

[Resurrexi]

I am wondering something, PeteWaldo. Are you a neo-Waldensian?

Edited June 25, 2009 by Resurrexi