barry1@ihlpa.att.com (Barry O Olson) (09/23/89)
John writes: >-- Trent did not (so far as I have been able to find-- > Barry and others are free to correct me if they find otherwise) > prescribe the death penalty for anathematizing heresy. (So > far, I haven't found anything in the decrees concerning > any sort of secular punishment.) And you won't. My intent on emphasizing Trent with its accompanying anathemas was to point out its potential for abuse from overzealous popes, bishops, and clergy, at their own discretion, when they felt it was warranted. Trent leaves the door open for such abuse as is the case of the Rc reaction to the reformation. She was losing her grip on control. How does this grip on control differ from say China today? How has China reacted to her perceived loss of control? Or any other despotic government for that matter?(not to change the subject, but as an example) >Now, it is no secret that in other instances, people in the RC Church >did call on secular authorities to punish heretics, including >kill them. We've already noted how Innocent III preached a >crusade against the Albigensians in France, in which heretics >were bound to get killed. (As it turned out, so did a number >of Catholics-- see my previous post on Beziers. I've verified the >massacre in Jedin & Dolan, ed., _Handbook of Church History_. The >"Kill them all" quote I have not been able to verify in a second >source-- the quote is quite possibly apocryphal.) This is true. It didn't stop with the Albigensis either. It was extended to almost every reformer, except the ones that got away. The church has killed her own many times in the past. If the pope or bishop, or one of the clergy has a bone to pick with someone, and hates that someone with a passion, They will find a way to label them a heretic(fallen member of the church), and justify the confiscation of their property, and order their death. Please read Foxes _Book of Martyrs_, i don't want to quote the entire book on the net. This book is an eyewitness account of the abuses indulged by the church representatives against the reformers. >It also became common practice for the Inquisition (established >in 1215 by Lateran IV) to hand over to the "secular arm" >those they had convicted of heresy. Supposedly, this was accompanied >with a plea that the heretic not be injured or blood shed >[Tierney & Painter and the Encyclopedia Brittanica]. It seems as >if no one took this seriously, including the Church. In 1224, >Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II called for the burning of heretics, >and by 1231 Pope Gregory IX had incorporated Frederick's penalties >into his "Excommunicamus" constitution, so that "from then on, >animadverso debita became synonymous with death at the stake." >[Jedin & Dolan]. Yes, and in light of the infallibility of the decrees of a pope all the way back to constantine, it is unlikely that it was removed. Hidden in legalise maybe, but not removed. >What was the status of this constitution three centuries later, at the >time of Trent? That I don't know yet, and I'd be interested in >learning more from historians out there. Probably a number of >heretics were killed on the basis of the decrees mentioned above >and the sorts of heresies that Trent concerned itself with. >But on the basis of Trent by itself, so far as I've read, one >cannot find reason to condemn someone to death for any of the >heresies which Trent details. True, and you won't, as i stated in the above responses. Barry >John Ockerbloom >-- [The Catholic Church is by no means that only organization with this problem. Power corrupts Protestants, Communists, and just about everybody else too. I have no objection to bringing up these things and making sure that they do not happen again. But it would perhaps be more useful for Protestants to be wary of persecutions carried out by Protestants. It's always easier to ask the other guy to reform. --clh]
paulk@caen.engin.umich.edu (Paul J. Kominsky) (09/25/89)
Someone said that >>by 1231 Pope Gregory IX had incorporated Frederick's penalties >>into his "Excommunicamus" constitution, so that "from then on, >>animadverso debita became synonymous with death at the stake." >>[Jedin & Dolan]. > > Yes, and in light of the infallibility of the decrees of a pope all > the way back to constantine, it is unlikely that it was removed. Infallible decrees of Popes are extrememly rare. Outiside of councils there have been only 18 "ex cathedra" infallible documents, and that's it. This constitution of Gregory IX was not one of them. Furthermore, infallibility is limited to the sphere of faith and morals, so the statement above about civil punishment could not possibly be infallible. Here is a list of all of the ex cathedra pronouncements *outside* of councils, from "That Catholic Church," Radio Replies Press, 1954: Leo I, Lectis Dilectionis Tuae, 13 June 449, On the divinity of Christ. Agatho, Omnium Bonorum Spes, ~680, On the divine and human wills in Christ. Boniface VII, Unam Sanctam, 18 Nov 1302, On papal supremacy in the Church. Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus, 29 Jan 1336, On the heavenly destiny of saints. Leo X, Exsurge Domine, 15 June 1520, Condemning the errors of Martin Luther. Innocent X, Cum Occasione, 31 May 1653, Condemning the errors of the Jansenists. Innocent XI, Coelestis Pastor, 19 Nov 1687, Condemning the erros of the Quietists. Clement XI, Unigenitus, 8 Sept 1713, Condemning the false teachings of Paschasius Quesnel. Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, 28 Aug 1794, Condemning the false teachings of the Synod of Pistoia. Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 8 Dec 1854, Defining the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. also, Quantae Cura, 8 Dec 1864, Condemning the erros of secularism and communism. Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 13 Sept 1896, Condemning Anglican orders as null and void. also, Testem Benevolentiae, 22 Jan 1899, Condemning merely Naturalistic interpretations of Christian Activities. [A few theologians say these two are not technically ex cathedra.] Pius X, Lamentabili, 3 July 1907, also, Pascendi, 7 Sept, 1907, Condeming the errors of the Modernists. Pius XI, Casti Connubii, 31 Dec 1930, Calling contraceptive birth control a grave violation of the Law of God. Quadragesimo Anno, 15 May 1931, Condeming materialistic socialism. [These two are "very probably" ex cathedra, according to my source.] Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, 1 Nov 1950, Defining the dogma of the Assumption. | Paul Kominsky --+-- paulk@caen.engin.umich.edu | |\ | /| The more noble a thing is, ---\---|- the more reprehensible is its abuse. | V | -Aloysius Biskupek, S.V.D. [I have often seen the claim that only the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are infallible. What makes something ex cathedra? --clh]
paulk@caen.engin.umich.edu (paul kominsky) (09/29/89)
>[I have often seen the claim that only the Immaculate Conception and >the Assumption are infallible. What makes something ex cathedra? --clh] There are three criteria for the attribute of infallibility, of which one is a statement being "ex cathedra." The other two criteria is that the statement relates to faith and morals, and that it is proposed as the belief of the entire Church. First, for a papal statement, encyclical, constitution, or bull to be infallible, it must concern faith and morals. Whenever the Pope speaks on art, science, or politics, he cannot speak with the absolute authority of infallibility, but with relative authority as a learned person. Some issues, like communism for example, involve both faith and politics, so the Pope can (and did) speak on that issue infallibly. The second criterion for infallibility is that a statment must be "ex cathedra" or "from the chair" of St. Peter. In other words, the Pope must make the statment not as a private theologian or even as a bishop of the Church, but as the official head of the Church. He must intend to exercise his authority as the Pope. That a statement is "ex cathedra" is normally shown by the word choice and the style of the statement. It is revealed by words like "we proclaim" or "we define." The literary style of ex cathedra pronouncements is also distinct. I've also been told that these pronouncements are written in the past tense in Latin, to show that they are not new ideas, but old and everlasting ideas. Furthermore, they often explicitly say that they are "spoken from the chair of Peter." Some pronouncements written in the proper style do not directly say this, and so there may be some argument over their status. The important point about the ex cathedra style of writing is that it emphasizes that the statement is not a change and not a new doctrine, but is something that was "true from the very beginning" and now publicly defined in order to make the dogma clearer to all. People (Catholics, at least) believed the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin long before 1950, since it was a Holy Day of Obligation for centuries. Pronouncements with the attribute of infallibility are unchangeable for this reason; they are not new revelation, but clear explanations of the original deposit of Faith. The third criterion is that the statement must be binding on the entire universal Church, not a particular rite or locality. There could never be an infallible pronouncement that celibacy is required of all Latin Rite priests because of this. The words "infallible" and "ex cathedra" are often used as synonymns. The essential criterion for infallibility is the statement being ex cathedra, because no statement failing the other two requirements would ever be stated in ex cathdra style anyway. The idea of infallible pronouncements is somewhat related to the idea that the Church, as a whole, can never err in what it teaches or believes. On some ideas the Church comes to a consensus on its own, like the Assumption, and the doctrine is then defined as the common belief of the Church. On other pronouncements where there is disagreement, the Church is in a sense "defined" by the pronouncement. "He who does not believe X, let him be anathema." Those that do not accept the statement are defined out of the Church, making the pronouncement a method of "purification" for the Church. | Paul J. Kominsky --+-- paulk@caen.engin.umich.edu | |\ | /| The more noble a thing is, ---\---|- the more reprehensible is its abuse. | V | -Aloysius Biskupek, S.V.D.