The Burning Alive of Heretics

CThomas · #1 Apr 13, '12, 9:13 am

Leo X's 1520 bull says very forcefully that it's error to condemn the burning of heretics as contrary to the will of the Holy Spirit. Do the Catholic readers here view this bull as binding on Catholics? If so, do you believe that God does or does not want heretics to be burned alive?

Sincerely curious. Thanks.

CThomas

Luvtosew · #2 Apr 13, '12, 9:16 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by CThomas

Leo X's 1520 bull says very forcefully that it's error to condemn the burning of heretics as contrary to the will of the Holy Spirit. Do the Catholic readers here view this bull as binding on Catholics? If so, do you believe that God does or does not want heretics to be burned alive?

Sincerely curious. Thanks.

CThomas

God didn't nor would he ever want a herectic to be burned alive. Thou shall not murder also includes hate. These are commands from the beginning of time.

**1ke** · #3 Apr 13, '12, 10:18 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by CThomas

Leo X's 1520 bull says very forcefully that it's error to condemn the burning of heretics as contrary to the will of the Holy Spirit.

Martin Luther basically proposed this idea that capital punishment is inherently against God's law. This is not true. Therefore, the position is here refuted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CThomas

Do the Catholic readers here view this bull as binding on Catholics?

It doesn't really work like that.

The Bull is a censure of Martin Luther. Certainly the Pope reiterates correct teaching so in that sense, yes. But, that isn't the purpose of the Bull.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CThomas

If so, do you believe that God does or does not want heretics to be burned alive?

To ask this question is to completely misunderstand what the bull says.

Capital punishment is not inherently against God's law. It can be used in circumstances that warrant it. Whether or not a particular circumstance warrants capital punishment is a function of many factors. At the time, yes the state took seriously the treasonous effects of the spread of heresy and revolt against lawful authority.

The fact that capital punishment is not inherently wrong in no way implies that it should or should not be used in any particular instance. So, no, one cannot phrase the question as you have. The Pope's bull correcting Martin Luther's errors in no way implies that capital punishment *must* be used for that, or any other, crime.

Prayer_Warrior · #4 Apr 13, '12, 10:18 am

I had to look this one up. I'm glad to say the bull does not meet the criteria for papal infallibility. In other words, the pope was not speaking ex cathedra and it is not binding upon Catholics. This argument was laid out by Jimmy Akin. Of course, Jimmy points out that God Himself, commanded capital punishment several times in scripture (Ex. 22:18; Deut. 13:6, 8–10, 15, 18:20). In fact, Dt 13:6 is precisely about the prophet or dreamer who leads people astray and God commands that person be put to death.

Verbum Caro · #5 Apr 13, '12, 10:18 am

CThomas,

Many of the condemned propositions in the Bull are about theological questions that are independent of time and context but others, it seems to me at least, are highly dependent on time and context.

The one you mention, and the next, for instance:

34. To go to war against the Turks is to resist God who punishes our iniquities through them.

I don't think you can divorce all of them from their contextual framework.

Thanks,
VC

sllhouette · #6 Apr 13, '12, 10:20 am

Although we may find no dignity in the error of a heretic, the subject who errs has dignity.

To put it more simply, God Loves heretics.

nickybr38 · #7 Apr 13, '12, 10:31 am

Honestly, the God who commanded that entire cities be burned to the ground in the Old Testament is the same God who could command the killing of heretics in the modern age if necessary.

I suppose this is what concerns people.

But if we truly believe that God does not change, then we must believe that He could call for genocide if He so wished...

This isn't Church teaching, by the way, just my own personal view of things.

Also, I'd like to point out that Protestants were just as violent in their advent.

empther · #8 Apr 13, '12, 10:33 am

That remark in Leo X's bull is just one of 41 "errors" he lists.
So he got one wrong. He wasn't proclaiming a new doctrine to be believed by all Catholics.

The truth is, execution of heretics in Italy, France and other Catholic countries were extremely rare by 1520. Many years would go by between cases.

Protestant England was torturing and killing Catholic priests and other Catholics for the "heresy" of not being Protestans long after 1520.

It's unfair to judge people without taking into consideration the climate of the time. It's like in The Hunger Games. The people know nothing else but the harsh world they live in. They do what they do because they believe there is no other choice, and there are no choices if you don't know about them!

I think this thread is nothing more than another example of Catholic-bashing, the last politically correct predjudicial national pastime.

CThomas · #9 Apr 13, '12, 10:39 am

Thanks for the responses, but I have a few follow-ups. 1ke. The bull does not merely address capital punishment. It addresses capital punishment for heresy. Also the use of burning alive as the method for capital punishment What I'm curious about is whether you view the bull's statement on these issues as binding and correct. Also, I know that the bull was directed to Luther, but its language specifically addresses the theological issue of the burning of heretics, and I don't think it's fair to say that because this issue arose in response to Luther we don't need to take the text at face value.

Prayer Warrior, I'm not asking whether the bull is infallible, but rather whether it is binding on Catholics.

Thanks again, and regards.

CThomas

CThomas · #10 Apr 13, '12, 10:44 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by empther

That remark in Leo X's bull is just one of 41 "errors" he lists.
So he got one wrong. He wasn't proclaiming a new doctrine to be believed by all Catholics.

Protestant England was torturing and killing Catholic priest and other Catholics for the "heresy" of not being Protestans long after 1520.

I think this thread is nothing more than another example of Catholic-bashing, the last politically correct predjudicial pastime.

Empther, thanks for the response. But why do you say that his statements on this issue was not required "to be believed by all Catholics"? I'm not trying to play a game of "gotcha," I'm seriously trying to figure out what documents Catholics believe themselves to be bound by. Is a direct papal bull saying that "X is theologically incorrect" something that you are supposed to believe? If not, then what sorts of documents are binding on Catholics, such that they are not free to simply say, "Well I disagree with the Pope on that." It sounds like you and I agree that Luther was right on this issue and the Pope was wrong. I assume that you, as a Catholic, do not view yourself as free to say that Luther was right about, say, sola fide, and the Pope was wrong about that doctrine. But wherein specifically lies the difference?

CThomas

jschutzm · #11 Apr 13, '12, 10:46 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by CThomas

Leo X's 1520 bull says very forcefully that it's error to condemn the burning of heretics as contrary to the will of the Holy Spirit.

Quote please...
I skimmed the Papal Bull - and while he lists amongst the errors professed by Heretics
"That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit."

I don't see this as encouraging it. Just that he feels strongly that it is one of the errors professed by Heretics that people who knowingly spread heresy shouldn't be burned.

It is sad that burning a person was a civil punishment metered out by the courts or people of the day.. but that is how they dealt with them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CThomas

Do the Catholic readers here view this bull as binding on Catholics?

Papal Bulls are not binding.. so NO.

A papal bull is merely a term to denote an official document issued by the Pope or his offices. Papal bulls can cover a wide range of situations The papacy has been issuing documents for centuries, and these documents have been referred to with a wide assortment of terms, depending on the era and their contents. The term itself, did not enter common use until the 13th century.

The term is derived from the device which is used to seal a traditional formal papal bull. The device is known as a “bulla,” related to the Latin word bullire, “to boil,” a reference to the bubble-like shape of the bulla. The bulla is traditionally made from metal, and stamped with devices representing the current Pope and the Church. It is connected to the papal bull with a silk or hempen cord

Over time, people began to use “bulla” to refer both to the seal and to the document, and the concept of a papal bull was born. The exact definition of a papal bull can be difficult to nail down, as popes issue numerous formal documents while they sit in office. In general, a bull is a document of extreme importance to society and the church and since many followers of the Christian faith view the Pope as an important figure in their church, papal bulls are often widely discussed when they are issued.

Source Adapted from: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-papal-bull.htm

CThomas · #12 Apr 13, '12, 10:51 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by jschutzm

Papal Bulls are not binding.. so NO.

JSchutzm, thanks for the response. This is very interesting and perhaps helpful. Could you tell me, then, what documents are binding on Catholics, and how Catholics know which are binding and which are not? Again, I'm not asking about the whole question of infallibility. I'm asking simply what Catholics are and are not free to disbelieve.

Thanks,

CThomas

Evan · #13 Apr 13, '12, 10:56 am

It's up to the state to determine if treason is punishable by death.

In a country that claims all citizens MUST be Catholic, then someone who denies the faith and leads others astray are treasonous. If the state decides the proper course of action is death, it is also up to the state to determine what is the punishment and how it is to be applied.

The Church does not teach that heresy should be punished by death, rather that the state has certain rights, given by God, and it should use them in a christian fashion.

The pope was defending the rights of the state. A particular state, in a particular century. Time change, govt's, people, culture all change. What would be the proper action these days?

I don't know if we even have states with an official Catholic religion. Where it is treason to not be a Catholic. We now reserve (I think) capital punishment for treason to times of war. We now use lethal injection (I don't know which is more painful).

It is up to the state, and the church sometimes comes to the defense of the state for rights that are reserved for it.

Veronica97 · #14 Apr 13, '12, 11:00 am

Actually I am wondering the same thing as nickybr38. This is one of the things that keeps me from fully accepting God's mercy: the Old Testament God did destroy whole cities and even struck some people dead straight away (Onan for instance). And if God never changes...
But my understanding is that Christ negates the need for these punishments--he has taken all the punishment we deserve; therefore, God no longer needs to exact such radical punishment on human beings. Thus, there was no need to burn anyone at the stake, as it violates the new covenant. So I know in my heart that God and Jesus are one and love me just the same...but I still tend to cling to Jesus and remain just a might bit afraid of God the Father. How can I overcome this?

CThomas · #15 Apr 13, '12, 11:13 am

It may be helpful to put aside for the moment the question of what this bull says about capital punishment. I have not found some of the discussions of this question above to be entirely convincing, but I'm actually more interested in the other question, which is whether Papal bulls of this sort are binding on Catholics, or whether individual Catholics are free to reject them. And what Church documents are binding on Catholics. Obviously anyone can address anything they want, but it would be particularly helpful to me if anyone has any further thoughts about these questions in particular.

Thanks,

CThomas