I think those losers did a pretty good job of coming up with the Bible as we have it.
If you are someone who happens to believe the Bible, maybe you should quit reading it since it was cannonized by those losers. How could you possibly trust it - those losers were probably influenced by Satan. Or, maybe we should grudgingly thank them for doing a pretty good job. Although, personally, I would have included the Book of Enoch in the OT. He's quoted quite a bit by the NT guys - everyone from the OT and NT had read it. Although the head jews (whom Christ called the seed of Satan) destroyed it, and then the catholics later destroyed any copies they could find, God kept a couple of copies hidden until the nearing of the end times for our learning. It really puts a lot of things together.
Ever read The Confessions [diary - for us modern people] of St. Augustine? There was an early church father who was an amazing, wonderful Christian. I would have loved to have known him. His journey from aethist to church father.
It is indeed better (as no one ever could deny) that men should be led to worship God by teaching, than that they should be driven to it by fear of punishment or pain; but it does not follow that because the former course produces the better men, therefore those who do not yield to it should be neglected. For many have found advantage (as we have proved, and are daily proving by actual experiment), in being first compelled by fear or pain, so that they might afterwards be influenced by teaching, or might follow out in act what they had already learned in word.
-- Augustine, Treatise on the Correction of the Donatists
Interesting premise there. Influence them by teaching, and then when that doesn't work, use 'tough love' ie., pain. But make sure that they get the message. Whether they like it or not.
Yeah, nice guy, this Augustine. <_< Why, he even came up with this little jewel.
Women should not be enlightened or educated in any way. They should, in fact, be segregated as they are the cause of hideous and involuntary erections in holy men.
This is sorta from the outside, cuz I have no idea about all that church history ... but how do you guys feel about the King James version? I remember the thing about the intro trying to appease King James, but that the scholars or scribes, whatever, actualy were still pretty concerned about accuracy.
Yes there are things the Church Fathers did that I did not like but there are things I did like
I think we need to look for the good they wrote
and set aside the bad as being human and fleshly
I am sure some were great people and other were power hungry but do we not find that in all Ministries of the world
Now I could list the bad I saw in fellowships but that would not of made all felowships bad
And the Way had bad leaders and so did the Roman Catholic Church but that part we are talking about is past
no one of that time is here to set right it to late for the Church Fathers and all that is left to learn from the good things and try not to make the same mistakes they did
I do not know what other to write so I will stop here
I then pose this question to you, Mark. And (as your manner often is) please give me a straightforward and honest answer to this question.
Based upon what you believe to be right and true, do you find it moral, ethical, and lawful (spiritually speaking) that the church, after seperating themselves from the heretics, then sent them (the heretics) to the civil authorities to be put to death?
And despite not quoting the WHOLE letter(s) that Augustine wrote, the quotes presented here weren't "out of context" enough where enough of their meaning wasn't justly conveyed. Not enough at all.
Ie., the idea of inflicting pain upon someone in order to convince them of the Church's Doctrine where simply teaching wouldn't suffice, conveys enough of an idea, ... whereas people of sound and moral thought can reject that tactic out of hand, irrelevent of the Saint who wrote it.
... but then again, they might not be regarded by some people as 'good Catholics' either, I wager. <_<
Written by someone who _definitely_ would not be a good Catholic.
No doubt the Church Fathers (ALL of them) had many good things to write and teach. That isn't disputed here (really Mark, it isn't).
But the nice, and morally superior, thing about these days and in this society, is that we can _freely_ question, scrutinize, dispute, and walk away from said Father's Doctrine, ..... all without having to be 'turned over to the authorities' for having done so.
Which causes me to wonder, ... what 'spiritual opinion' would those Church fathers have about that aspect of our society, hmmm?
I will not arrive anywhere near first century Christian understanding without them? This ludicrous.
It is ludicrous, because I did not say "understanding" - I said "Christianity".
Is "understanding" and "Christianity" synonymous?
No, I don't believe the Church Fathers or their writings are infallible, nor are they unbiased, nor are they always reliable.
They nonetheless comprise and preserve accounts of the Christian religion from its earliest centuries, from which resources one may even glean critical information for reconstructing the views and even lost writings and canons of different Christian movements which the Church Fathers wrote against, - movements which may have even preceded that of the Church Fathers themselves, which have since then largely receded into the fog of history.
As I said from the top, one need not necessarily agree with the views of the Church Fathers themselves, to gather and weigh information from them concerning Christianity (or Christianities) descended from the first century, if indeed it actually goes back that far.
But as I also mentioned - like it or not, -the Bible which you place all your faith in as the super-duper, infallible "Word of God" is essentially the editorial production of these "losers". You hate them, yet as long as you place your complete trust in it as "The Word of God" which filtered down through their hands to you, they have you by the proverbial gonads.
So which capsule will it be - the red or the blue?
I then pose this question to you, Mark. And (as your manner often is) please give me a straightforward and honest answer to this question.
Based upon what you believe to be right and true, do you find it moral, ethical, and lawful (spiritually speaking) that the church, after seperating themselves from the heretics, then sent them (the heretics) to the civil authorities to be put to death?
I agree that it is appropriate to excommunicate heretics after multiple patient attempts to get them back on the correct path. I absolutely agree with that.
As to whether or not heresy is a capital crime, that is an issue for the civil authorities and is outside the scope of Acuinas' answer. In his days, it was. (Thus accounting for the rest of his answer) Nowadays it isn't. It's as simple as that.
As to the wisdom of heresy being a civil crime (with or without the death penalty) in these days, I'd have to ask heresy against what? Against the Catholic Church? Yeah, right. If that was the case, fully 3/4 of the people in this country (and half the Catholics) would need to be imprisoned or killed.
The only places in the modern world where heresy is a crime is in some (not all) Muslim countries (just try importing a Bible or Rosary into Saudi Arabia if you doubt me) and in (officially atheist) communist countries. In fact, just a few days ago, a Catholic bishop 'disappeared' in China...apparently for the evil crime of speaking heresy against the state religion.
The world in Thomas' time was a different world than the world is now.
Do I think that heresy should be a crime in the USA? No.
The US is not a Catholic country. Never has been. Never will be.
Do I think that heresy should be a crime in a hypothetical Catholic country (NOT the USA)? One with a stated national goal of maintaining a thoroughly "Catholic" identity? (Again, NOT the USA)
I would think that, in such a circumstance, it would be appropriate, if maintaining a Catholic identity is a stated national goal in such a hypothetical country, to have heresy as a civil crime. Do I think the death penalty would be appropriate? I think that exiling a person from such a country...removing the heretical influence...would be far more appropriate.
And despite not quoting the WHOLE letter(s) that Augustine wrote, the quotes presented here weren't "out of context" enough where enough of their meaning wasn't justly conveyed. Not enough at all.
Ie., the idea of inflicting pain upon someone in order to convince them of the Church's Doctrine where simply teaching wouldn't suffice, conveys enough of an idea, ... whereas people of sound and moral thought can reject that tactic out of hand, irrelevent of the Saint who wrote it.
However, the context of this was repairing the Donatist schism. The pain to which he was referring was the utilization of civil law to bring the Donatists back to the faith. The civil law was established by the Emperor Theodosius I (in Augustine's days). There was very little difference between Church and State in those days.
Even looking at it as a general principle, though, without the historical context, it is clear that what is being said is that it is right to have laws in place to enforce desired principles. It is better to teach the right behaviors and attitudes...and hopefully somebody behaves that way, but if they won't learn in that fashion, then fear of legal punishment may cause them to behave in the right way and may make them more receptive to more positive techniques of education.
(In saying the following I assume you're not a criminal)
You don't kill people. The reason you don't kill people is that you've been taught all your life that murder is wrong. But if you don't go by that teaching, the threat of jail or (you live down south, so...) the death penalty might deter you from doing what you'd want to do. If you do it anyway, a lengthy prison sentence might help change the way you think about things.
You don't steal. Why? Because it's just wrong. But if you wanted to do so, the security cameras and the threat of going to jail might deter you from doing so. And a stint in jail might really convince you to not do it again and might change your mind on the rightness of your actions.
------------
In these days, Church and State are not closely aligned...anywhere. If that was the case, in a hypothetical country where maintaining a Catholic identity was a national goal (clearly not the USA), then I would think that it would not be an inappropriate thing to have laws in place to help attain (or maintain) that national goal.
Of course, Garth, especially with you, YMMV.
... but then again, they might not be regarded by some people as 'good Catholics' either, I wager. <_<
Written by someone who _definitely_ would not be a good Catholic.
Very informative answer, thank you. And I'm glad to hear that you think that such 'punish the heretic' laws should not be enacted here in the U.S., altho' for different reasons that I could never agree with. And why I'm thankful that the U.S. isn't (and shouldn't be) a country that maintains a religiously specific national identity (be it Catholic, Protestant, Christian, or any other religion).
However, there is a flaw as regards your usage of your source about the Chinese priest 'disappearing' due to the 'atheist' Communist Chinese government being displeased with his supposed speaking heresy against the 'state religion', a flaw that I believe is influenced by the commonly held, but widely mistaken perspective linking/associating atheism with Communism (an association which is getting really old, OK?).
Looking at the link, and googling for some information mentioned in the article, I come to find that what the Chinese government was doing was trying to get the priest to join up with the governmental church organization 'Three-self Patriotic Movement Committee', a Protestant church organization legalized by the government (apparently the only Protestant church in China to have that distinction). Regardless of what you think of the Chinese handling of religious groups, or of Protestantism for that matter, ... this has nothing to do with atheism, supposedly state sponsored or not. (You earlier said that you just love it when someone uses a quote outside of the context of a larger work? Yeah, well I likewise love it when someone makes the oft-illogical and blind association/linking of atheism with Communism, and let me tell ya chief, some of the associations of the two, if people weren't so damned serious about it, would be f'ing comical.)
Very informative answer, thank you. And I'm glad to hear that you think that such 'punish the heretic' laws should not be enacted here in the U.S., altho' for different reasons that I could never agree with. And why I'm thankful that the U.S. isn't (and shouldn't be) a country that maintains a religiously specific national identity (be it Catholic, Protestant, Christian, or any other religion).
However, there is a flaw as regards your usage of your source about the Chinese priest 'disappearing' due to the 'atheist' Communist Chinese government being displeased with his supposed speaking heresy against the 'state religion', a flaw that I believe is influenced by the commonly held, but widely mistaken perspective linking/associating atheism with Communism (an association which is getting really old, OK?).
Garth,
I said the following:
The only places in the modern world where heresy is a crime is in some (not all) Muslim countries (just try importing a Bible or Rosary into Saudi Arabia if you doubt me) and in (officially atheist) communist countries. In fact, just a few days ago, a Catholic bishop 'disappeared' in China...apparently for the evil crime of speaking heresy against the state religion.
You'll note that I did not link atheism to communism (in principle). However, the fact of the matter is that the Soviet Union, the countries in the Soviet Bloc, China, and the satellites of China, were and (for those that are still communist) are officially atheist. There are many, many people who were imprisoned and, in fact, put to death for their religious beliefs.
Their religious beliefs threatened the material dialectic proposed by marxism.
Does that mean (or did I imply that) all atheists are marxists/maoists? No.
Does that mean (or did I imply that) all marxists/ maoists are atheists? Honestly, I am not sure how a person could be a good marxist/ maoist without being an atheist. Not saying it can't happen. But not sure how it could.
Looking at the link, and googling for some information mentioned in the article, I come to find that what the Chinese government was doing was trying to get the priest to join up with the governmental church organization 'Three-self Patriotic Movement Committee', a Protestant church organization legalized by the government (apparently the only Protestant church in China to have that distinction). Regardless of what you think of the Chinese handling of religious groups, or of Protestantism for that matter, ... this has nothing to do with atheism, supposedly state sponsored or not. (You earlier said that you just love it when someone uses a quote outside of the context of a larger work? Yeah, well I likewise love it when someone makes the oft-illogical and blind association/linking of atheism with Communism, and let me tell ya chief, some of the associations of the two, if people weren't so damned serious about it, would be f'ing comical.)
Again, this is not saying that there aren't good pious atheists who are not, in fact, very conservative. (I think of our friend, LG, of happy memory). But I believe that a rejection of a higher power is absolutely part of being a good marxist.
As to the specifics of the case, I have a good friend who is a Chinese priest. He is back home visiting his parents and will, in all likelihood hear about this. He'll be back in a couple of weeks. If you'd like, I'll try to remember to ask him about this and see if he has any first-hand information. No promises, but I'll try to remember.
No doubt the Church Fathers (ALL of them) had many good things to write and teach. That isn't disputed here (really Mark, it isn't).
But the nice, and morally superior, thing about these days and in this society, is that we can _freely_ question, scrutinize, dispute, and walk away from said Father's Doctrine, ..... all without having to be 'turned over to the authorities' for having done so.
Which causes me to wonder, ... what 'spiritual opinion' would those Church fathers have about that aspect of our society, hmmm?
;)
They would have looked at the U.S. Constitution and hunted down and killed all our forefathers of this great nation. Never anywhere did Jesus or his apostles ever kill unbelievers or command that this be done. Never. As a matter of fact, it says that even when we were his enemies, Christ died for us.
Hmmm, do you think one of the church fathers would have died for one of the heretics? That would be the love of God. Fat chance. <_<
It is God who will deal judgement for unbelief. That is not in man's responsibilities. We're called to love people and make disciples, not execute those who refuse to conform.
Their religious beliefs threatened the material dialectic proposed by marxism.
Does that mean (or did I imply that) all atheists are marxists/maoists? No.
Does that mean (or did I imply that) all marxists/ maoists are atheists? Honestly, I am not sure how a person could be a good marxist/ maoist without being an atheist. Not saying it can't happen. But not sure how it could.
First off, whether or how much the material dialectic proposed by marxism is threatened by religious beliefs doesn't have as much to do with the religious persecution of religious believers as you might suspect or are taught. For one thing, Orthodox Marxism isn't as 'near and dear' to the Communist authorities as it might first appear, as there wasn't and isn't any real Communist/Marxist state (well, except maybe Cuba and North Korea) since Lenin died, and even he allowed free enterprise on a very limited scale. Ie., they were nothing more and nothing less than totalitarian dictatorships, tolerating NO competition for power whatsoever, _irrelevent_ of whether or not someone had religious beliefs.
Classic example of this? Leon Trotsky, who once shared power with Stalin, and was with him and Lenin during the 1st days of the U.S.S.R., then broke with Stalin over issues in running the country. Very unfortunate for Trotsky. (As you are most likely well aware) Stalin banished Trotsky from the Soviet Union, and then put out a hit on Trotsky's head. Which was carried out in Mexico. With an ice pick. ... What's my point in this context? Trotsky was a solid atheist. Stalin didn't give a rat's a** whether Leon was religious or not. His only 'sin' was being imagined in Stalin's sick mind as being a competitor for power.
And that was the main reason why churches were persecuted, or at least kept on a very short leash, in the Communist countries, just like they are in any totalitarian or authoritarian dictatorships. Churches and religious organizations are seen as competitors for power. Be it real or imagined.
Look throughout history, and you will find Christians who were quite Socialistic (like the original author of the Pledge of Allegience?), and a few who even embraced Communism (I remember reading many years ago about one who even claimed that Jesus himself was a Communist. Go figure). Regardless of what you might have learned in parochial school about what Communism was all about, or that in order to believe in Communist viewpoints, one had to give up religion.
Ie., my friend MarkO, at *most*, atheism is an incidental side item to Communism, NOT either causal nor a neccessary component to Communism, irrelevent to the factor of dialectic materialism or whether Marx muttered "Religion is the opiate of the masses". Ie., All Communism was and all it will ever be is just an ecomomic/social philosophy. A bad and deluded one, but that's what it was nonetheless. And one that did not need atheism to be a central part of its philosophy. Ie., all atheism deals with is that someone doesn't believe in a god or the spiritual world. ... Period.
And lest McQuade feels left out for me not 'picking on' him, ... ;)
Never anywhere did Jesus or his apostles ever kill unbelievers or command that this be done. Never. As a matter of fact, it says that even when we were his enemies, Christ died for us.
First off, how can we be someone's enemies (from birth, according to your gospel) when we didn't even know the guy? And from birth? Please.
Two, keep in mind that the O.T. God that Jesus proclaimed did things (and this is according to the very same scriptures) that FAR exceeded what the R.C. Church did as far as having people killed/tortured/conquered lands/etc. Didn't believe in Him back then? Off you go to be killed too. ... Its all right there in the Old Testament, and in the New Testament, those who do not believe are sentenced to cook in hell at Judgement Day. Right there in the Book pal.
So who's the 'losers' now, hmmm?
P.S., and speaking of examples, remember how V.P. Wierwille would react when talking about those who deliberately disbelieved 'God and His Word'? I remember plenty of times where that old kraut would go off ripping on 'those godless unbelievers', at least as venomous as LCM. John Lynn back in those days would refer to them in the initials of Body and Soul. ... as in B.S. ... as in Bull S**t, not worthy to breath _our_ (believers) air or take up _our_ space.
Hhmmm, sounds like more 'losers' to me, ... ya think?
I guess it depends on, specifically, which "fathers" you're talking about. Foxe's Book of Martyrs lists quite a few who did die so that people could have access to the Bible.
Foxe's Book of Martyrs is a well-known account of protestants who died during the 'reformation.'
I think with a context of 'Church Fathers', though, we'd be talking over a thousand years before then.
Every week at Mass, we remember the following martyrs:John the Baptist, Stephen, Matthias, Barnabas, Ignatius, Alexander, Marcellinus, Peter, Felicity, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucy, Agnes, Cecilia, and Anastasia.
Of course, Paul and Stephen were martyred.
As to Popes who were martyred,
There is, of course, Peter (+65). After Peter, there were Linus (+79), Anacletus (+88), Clement (+98), Sixtus (+128), Telesphorus (+137), Hyginus (+140), Pius (+154), Anicetus (+167), Soter (+177), Callixtus (+222), Urban (+230), Pontian (+235), Fabian (+250), Lucius (+254), Sixtus II (+258), Felix (+274), and Marcellinus (+304).
And there are some others who are traditionally listed, but you get the idea: being Pope was a very hazardous job at one point.
Out of those whose writings are commonly held to be "Church Fathers" writings, the following are identified as martyrs: Clement of Rome, Cyprian, Hippolytus, Ignatius of Antioch, (possibly) Irenaeus, Justin, Pamphilus, Peter of Alexandria, Polycarp, and Victorinus.
First off, whether or how much the material dialectic proposed by marxism is threatened by religious beliefs doesn't have as much to do with the religious persecution of religious believers as you might suspect or are taught. For one thing, Orthodox Marxism isn't as 'near and dear' to the Communist authorities as it might first appear, as there wasn't and isn't any real Communist/Marxist state (well, except maybe Cuba and North Korea) since Lenin died, and even he allowed free enterprise on a very limited scale. Ie., they were nothing more and nothing less than totalitarian dictatorships, tolerating NO competition for power whatsoever, _irrelevent_ of whether or not someone had religious beliefs.
Classic example of this? Leon Trotsky, who once shared power with Stalin, and was with him and Lenin during the 1st days of the U.S.S.R., then broke with Stalin over issues in running the country. Very unfortunate for Trotsky. (As you are most likely well aware) Stalin banished Trotsky from the Soviet Union, and then put out a hit on Trotsky's head. Which was carried out in Mexico. With an ice pick. ... What's my point in this context? Trotsky was a solid atheist. Stalin didn't give a rat's a** whether Leon was religious or not. His only 'sin' was being imagined in Stalin's sick mind as being a competitor for power.
And that was the main reason why churches were persecuted, or at least kept on a very short leash, in the Communist countries, just like they are in any totalitarian or authoritarian dictatorships. Churches and religious organizations are seen as competitors for power. Be it real or imagined.
Look throughout history, and you will find Christians who were quite Socialistic (like the original author of the Pledge of Allegience?), and a few who even embraced Communism (I remember reading many years ago about one who even claimed that Jesus himself was a Communist. Go figure). Regardless of what you might have learned in parochial school about what Communism was all about, or that in order to believe in Communist viewpoints, one had to give up religion.
Ie., my friend MarkO, at *most*, atheism is an incidental side item to Communism, NOT either causal nor a neccessary component to Communism, irrelevent to the factor of dialectic materialism or whether Marx muttered "Religion is the opiate of the masses". Ie., All Communism was and all it will ever be is just an ecomomic/social philosophy. A bad and deluded one, but that's what it was nonetheless. And one that did not need atheism to be a central part of its philosophy. Ie., all atheism deals with is that someone doesn't believe in a god or the spiritual world. ... Period.
Apparently you don't REALLY understand Marxism then, Garth.
The foundation of irreligious criticism is this: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is indeed man's self-consciousness and self-awareness so long as he has not found himself or has already lost himself again. But, man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man -- state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, it enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
You will, I hope, take note of the last sentence, where he alludes to the fact that the criticism (and by implication the rejection) of religion is central to the struggle of the masses.
He sought to replace God with the proletariat and replace heaven with the socialist state.
Having said that, there are occasionally communist-type religious groups. Liberation Theology, preached primarily in Latin America during the second half of the 20th Century, thought to use religious symbolism to advance marxist goals. It has repeatedly been condemned by the Vatican as a perversion of Christianity.
The Catholic Worker movement, started in the first half of the 20th Century, embraced the economics of communism (calling it a voluntary poverty). Dorothy Day was, for years, an avowed communist. But she came to reject the philosophy of Marxism due to the necessity of rejection of Christ inherent in the philosophy. As she put it:
The three fundamentals of Communist belief are: 1. There is no other world than this; our last end is death and the grave, not God. 2. The ideal state is a Communist state in which there is no individual ownership but communal ownership. 3. Since there is no other way of achieving this except by violent means, then we must use those violent means. It is a cause worth dying for.
Now maybe you've studied Marxism more carefully than I have and are a subject matter expert on the topic. You certainly are more of a subject matter expert on Atheism than I am. But from what I read, Marxism is, in fact, inherently and necessarily atheist.
Without a LOT of digging into the life of any one of them, I could not even make an
EDUCATED GUESS
whether they would or not.
Well I sure can. It never happened did it?
Is there any writing or record of one of the church fathers pleading with their fellow Catholics shouting, "No brothers, let this heretic be spared and take me in his place, for he knows not what he does!".
I'll bet. <_<
Why would any of the church fathers have given their lives for a heretic? As far as the Catholics were concerned, heretics were pawns of Satan to be exterminated.
That's how I know they never would have died for a heretic.
Belle, you said...
I guess it depends on, specifically, which "fathers" you're talking about. Foxe's Book of Martyrs lists quite a few who did die so that people could have access to the Bible
.
We're speaking here of church father's who would die for a heretic, not people who would die so that others could have access to the Bible.
It seems that there is plenty of blood to be shared.
This link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catho...tyrs_of_England shows a list of 40 people who were martyred because they would not commit schism as demanded by the English government and embrace a heretical movement during the Reformation.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
7
5
12
Popular Days
May 1
17
May 2
14
May 3
9
May 4
4
Top Posters In This Topic
GarthP2000 8 posts
Lone Wolf McQuade 7 posts
year2027 5 posts
markomalley 12 posts
Popular Days
May 1 2007
17 posts
May 2 2007
14 posts
May 3 2007
9 posts
May 4 2007
4 posts
Sunesis
I think those losers did a pretty good job of coming up with the Bible as we have it.
If you are someone who happens to believe the Bible, maybe you should quit reading it since it was cannonized by those losers. How could you possibly trust it - those losers were probably influenced by Satan. Or, maybe we should grudgingly thank them for doing a pretty good job. Although, personally, I would have included the Book of Enoch in the OT. He's quoted quite a bit by the NT guys - everyone from the OT and NT had read it. Although the head jews (whom Christ called the seed of Satan) destroyed it, and then the catholics later destroyed any copies they could find, God kept a couple of copies hidden until the nearing of the end times for our learning. It really puts a lot of things together.
Ever read The Confessions [diary - for us modern people] of St. Augustine? There was an early church father who was an amazing, wonderful Christian. I would have loved to have known him. His journey from aethist to church father.
Edited by SunesisLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Interesting premise there. Influence them by teaching, and then when that doesn't work, use 'tough love' ie., pain. But make sure that they get the message. Whether they like it or not.
Yeah, nice guy, this Augustine. <_< Why, he even came up with this little jewel.
Hoo-k-a-a-y! :o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Garth,
In fact I do support what Thomas Aquinas said.
100%
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
And Garth, for the record, after reading the entire reference (love how you folks give partial citations), I also support Augustine in his statements.
100%
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
This is sorta from the outside, cuz I have no idea about all that church history ... but how do you guys feel about the King James version? I remember the thing about the intro trying to appease King James, but that the scholars or scribes, whatever, actualy were still pretty concerned about accuracy.
Comments?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved All
God loves you all my dear friends
Yes there are things the Church Fathers did that I did not like but there are things I did like
I think we need to look for the good they wrote
and set aside the bad as being human and fleshly
I am sure some were great people and other were power hungry but do we not find that in all Ministries of the world
Now I could list the bad I saw in fellowships but that would not of made all felowships bad
And the Way had bad leaders and so did the Roman Catholic Church but that part we are talking about is past
no one of that time is here to set right it to late for the Church Fathers and all that is left to learn from the good things and try not to make the same mistakes they did
I do not know what other to write so I will stop here
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I then pose this question to you, Mark. And (as your manner often is) please give me a straightforward and honest answer to this question.
Based upon what you believe to be right and true, do you find it moral, ethical, and lawful (spiritually speaking) that the church, after seperating themselves from the heretics, then sent them (the heretics) to the civil authorities to be put to death?
And despite not quoting the WHOLE letter(s) that Augustine wrote, the quotes presented here weren't "out of context" enough where enough of their meaning wasn't justly conveyed. Not enough at all.
Ie., the idea of inflicting pain upon someone in order to convince them of the Church's Doctrine where simply teaching wouldn't suffice, conveys enough of an idea, ... whereas people of sound and moral thought can reject that tactic out of hand, irrelevent of the Saint who wrote it.
... but then again, they might not be regarded by some people as 'good Catholics' either, I wager. <_<
Written by someone who _definitely_ would not be a good Catholic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Year2027,
No doubt the Church Fathers (ALL of them) had many good things to write and teach. That isn't disputed here (really Mark, it isn't).
But the nice, and morally superior, thing about these days and in this society, is that we can _freely_ question, scrutinize, dispute, and walk away from said Father's Doctrine, ..... all without having to be 'turned over to the authorities' for having done so.
Which causes me to wonder, ... what 'spiritual opinion' would those Church fathers have about that aspect of our society, hmmm?
;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Lone Wolf saith
It is ludicrous, because I did not say "understanding" - I said "Christianity".
Is "understanding" and "Christianity" synonymous?
No, I don't believe the Church Fathers or their writings are infallible, nor are they unbiased, nor are they always reliable.
They nonetheless comprise and preserve accounts of the Christian religion from its earliest centuries, from which resources one may even glean critical information for reconstructing the views and even lost writings and canons of different Christian movements which the Church Fathers wrote against, - movements which may have even preceded that of the Church Fathers themselves, which have since then largely receded into the fog of history.
As I said from the top, one need not necessarily agree with the views of the Church Fathers themselves, to gather and weigh information from them concerning Christianity (or Christianities) descended from the first century, if indeed it actually goes back that far.
But as I also mentioned - like it or not, -the Bible which you place all your faith in as the super-duper, infallible "Word of God" is essentially the editorial production of these "losers". You hate them, yet as long as you place your complete trust in it as "The Word of God" which filtered down through their hands to you, they have you by the proverbial gonads.
So which capsule will it be - the red or the blue?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I agree that it is appropriate to excommunicate heretics after multiple patient attempts to get them back on the correct path. I absolutely agree with that.
As to whether or not heresy is a capital crime, that is an issue for the civil authorities and is outside the scope of Acuinas' answer. In his days, it was. (Thus accounting for the rest of his answer) Nowadays it isn't. It's as simple as that.
As to the wisdom of heresy being a civil crime (with or without the death penalty) in these days, I'd have to ask heresy against what? Against the Catholic Church? Yeah, right. If that was the case, fully 3/4 of the people in this country (and half the Catholics) would need to be imprisoned or killed.
The only places in the modern world where heresy is a crime is in some (not all) Muslim countries (just try importing a Bible or Rosary into Saudi Arabia if you doubt me) and in (officially atheist) communist countries. In fact, just a few days ago, a Catholic bishop 'disappeared' in China...apparently for the evil crime of speaking heresy against the state religion.
The world in Thomas' time was a different world than the world is now.
Do I think that heresy should be a crime in the USA? No.
The US is not a Catholic country. Never has been. Never will be.
Do I think that heresy should be a crime in a hypothetical Catholic country (NOT the USA)? One with a stated national goal of maintaining a thoroughly "Catholic" identity? (Again, NOT the USA)
I would think that, in such a circumstance, it would be appropriate, if maintaining a Catholic identity is a stated national goal in such a hypothetical country, to have heresy as a civil crime. Do I think the death penalty would be appropriate? I think that exiling a person from such a country...removing the heretical influence...would be far more appropriate.
However, the context of this was repairing the Donatist schism. The pain to which he was referring was the utilization of civil law to bring the Donatists back to the faith. The civil law was established by the Emperor Theodosius I (in Augustine's days). There was very little difference between Church and State in those days.Even looking at it as a general principle, though, without the historical context, it is clear that what is being said is that it is right to have laws in place to enforce desired principles. It is better to teach the right behaviors and attitudes...and hopefully somebody behaves that way, but if they won't learn in that fashion, then fear of legal punishment may cause them to behave in the right way and may make them more receptive to more positive techniques of education.
(In saying the following I assume you're not a criminal)
You don't kill people. The reason you don't kill people is that you've been taught all your life that murder is wrong. But if you don't go by that teaching, the threat of jail or (you live down south, so...) the death penalty might deter you from doing what you'd want to do. If you do it anyway, a lengthy prison sentence might help change the way you think about things.
You don't steal. Why? Because it's just wrong. But if you wanted to do so, the security cameras and the threat of going to jail might deter you from doing so. And a stint in jail might really convince you to not do it again and might change your mind on the rightness of your actions.
------------
In these days, Church and State are not closely aligned...anywhere. If that was the case, in a hypothetical country where maintaining a Catholic identity was a national goal (clearly not the USA), then I would think that it would not be an inappropriate thing to have laws in place to help attain (or maintain) that national goal.
Of course, Garth, especially with you, YMMV.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The comment about a "hypothetical" Roman Catholic country got me thinking a moment.
(A dangerous habit to be sure, but still...)
Vatican City's a sovereign nation.
Is it a CRIME there to NOT be a Catholic?
Would they punish a non-Catholic who wanted to live there?
Would he be thrown in jail, forced to conform at sword-point, etc.?
I think we all disagree with zealous attempts in the PAST to convert with threat of
force, but do they do it NOW?
I know El Forehead Grande was big on the idea that they were all set to do so-
complete with an aircraft carrier-
but I would think this would be a HECK of a news story if they tried it NOW
in a European (i.e. "we don't have government approval on every story in the news")
country.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Very informative answer, thank you. And I'm glad to hear that you think that such 'punish the heretic' laws should not be enacted here in the U.S., altho' for different reasons that I could never agree with. And why I'm thankful that the U.S. isn't (and shouldn't be) a country that maintains a religiously specific national identity (be it Catholic, Protestant, Christian, or any other religion).
However, there is a flaw as regards your usage of your source about the Chinese priest 'disappearing' due to the 'atheist' Communist Chinese government being displeased with his supposed speaking heresy against the 'state religion', a flaw that I believe is influenced by the commonly held, but widely mistaken perspective linking/associating atheism with Communism (an association which is getting really old, OK?).
Looking at the link, and googling for some information mentioned in the article, I come to find that what the Chinese government was doing was trying to get the priest to join up with the governmental church organization 'Three-self Patriotic Movement Committee', a Protestant church organization legalized by the government (apparently the only Protestant church in China to have that distinction). Regardless of what you think of the Chinese handling of religious groups, or of Protestantism for that matter, ... this has nothing to do with atheism, supposedly state sponsored or not. (You earlier said that you just love it when someone uses a quote outside of the context of a larger work? Yeah, well I likewise love it when someone makes the oft-illogical and blind association/linking of atheism with Communism, and let me tell ya chief, some of the associations of the two, if people weren't so damned serious about it, would be f'ing comical.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
There is some interesting information on the subject on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_city
Apparently crime and punishment for the Vatican are handled by Italy.
The 558 citizens of the Vatican are distributed as follows:
* The Pope;
* 58 cardinals;
* 293 members of the clergy who serve as diplomatic envoys abroad;
* 62 lesser-ranking clergy members who work in the Vatican;
* 101 officers, NCOs, and men of the Papal Swiss Guard; and
* 43 lay persons.
So I don't think they have to worry about heresy, too much, with that crowd! LOL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Garth,
I said the following:
You'll note that I did not link atheism to communism (in principle). However, the fact of the matter is that the Soviet Union, the countries in the Soviet Bloc, China, and the satellites of China, were and (for those that are still communist) are officially atheist. There are many, many people who were imprisoned and, in fact, put to death for their religious beliefs.
Their religious beliefs threatened the material dialectic proposed by marxism.
Does that mean (or did I imply that) all atheists are marxists/maoists? No.
Does that mean (or did I imply that) all marxists/ maoists are atheists? Honestly, I am not sure how a person could be a good marxist/ maoist without being an atheist. Not saying it can't happen. But not sure how it could.
Again, this is not saying that there aren't good pious atheists who are not, in fact, very conservative. (I think of our friend, LG, of happy memory). But I believe that a rejection of a higher power is absolutely part of being a good marxist.
As to the specifics of the case, I have a good friend who is a Chinese priest. He is back home visiting his parents and will, in all likelihood hear about this. He'll be back in a couple of weeks. If you'd like, I'll try to remember to ask him about this and see if he has any first-hand information. No promises, but I'll try to remember.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lone Wolf McQuade
They would have looked at the U.S. Constitution and hunted down and killed all our forefathers of this great nation. Never anywhere did Jesus or his apostles ever kill unbelievers or command that this be done. Never. As a matter of fact, it says that even when we were his enemies, Christ died for us.
Hmmm, do you think one of the church fathers would have died for one of the heretics? That would be the love of God. Fat chance. <_<
It is God who will deal judgement for unbelief. That is not in man's responsibilities. We're called to love people and make disciples, not execute those who refuse to conform.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Lone Wolf McQuade
God loves you my dear friend
If the Way was around in Jesus Christ time
Jesus Christ would of been Mark and Avoided
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
MarkO,
First off, whether or how much the material dialectic proposed by marxism is threatened by religious beliefs doesn't have as much to do with the religious persecution of religious believers as you might suspect or are taught. For one thing, Orthodox Marxism isn't as 'near and dear' to the Communist authorities as it might first appear, as there wasn't and isn't any real Communist/Marxist state (well, except maybe Cuba and North Korea) since Lenin died, and even he allowed free enterprise on a very limited scale. Ie., they were nothing more and nothing less than totalitarian dictatorships, tolerating NO competition for power whatsoever, _irrelevent_ of whether or not someone had religious beliefs.Classic example of this? Leon Trotsky, who once shared power with Stalin, and was with him and Lenin during the 1st days of the U.S.S.R., then broke with Stalin over issues in running the country. Very unfortunate for Trotsky. (As you are most likely well aware) Stalin banished Trotsky from the Soviet Union, and then put out a hit on Trotsky's head. Which was carried out in Mexico. With an ice pick. ... What's my point in this context? Trotsky was a solid atheist. Stalin didn't give a rat's a** whether Leon was religious or not. His only 'sin' was being imagined in Stalin's sick mind as being a competitor for power.
And that was the main reason why churches were persecuted, or at least kept on a very short leash, in the Communist countries, just like they are in any totalitarian or authoritarian dictatorships. Churches and religious organizations are seen as competitors for power. Be it real or imagined.
Look throughout history, and you will find Christians who were quite Socialistic (like the original author of the Pledge of Allegience?), and a few who even embraced Communism (I remember reading many years ago about one who even claimed that Jesus himself was a Communist. Go figure). Regardless of what you might have learned in parochial school about what Communism was all about, or that in order to believe in Communist viewpoints, one had to give up religion.
Ie., my friend MarkO, at *most*, atheism is an incidental side item to Communism, NOT either causal nor a neccessary component to Communism, irrelevent to the factor of dialectic materialism or whether Marx muttered "Religion is the opiate of the masses". Ie., All Communism was and all it will ever be is just an ecomomic/social philosophy. A bad and deluded one, but that's what it was nonetheless. And one that did not need atheism to be a central part of its philosophy. Ie., all atheism deals with is that someone doesn't believe in a god or the spiritual world. ... Period.
And lest McQuade feels left out for me not 'picking on' him, ... ;)
First off, how can we be someone's enemies (from birth, according to your gospel) when we didn't even know the guy? And from birth? Please.
Two, keep in mind that the O.T. God that Jesus proclaimed did things (and this is according to the very same scriptures) that FAR exceeded what the R.C. Church did as far as having people killed/tortured/conquered lands/etc. Didn't believe in Him back then? Off you go to be killed too. ... Its all right there in the Old Testament, and in the New Testament, those who do not believe are sentenced to cook in hell at Judgement Day. Right there in the Book pal.
So who's the 'losers' now, hmmm?
P.S., and speaking of examples, remember how V.P. Wierwille would react when talking about those who deliberately disbelieved 'God and His Word'? I remember plenty of times where that old kraut would go off ripping on 'those godless unbelievers', at least as venomous as LCM. John Lynn back in those days would refer to them in the initials of Body and Soul. ... as in B.S. ... as in Bull S**t, not worthy to breath _our_ (believers) air or take up _our_ space.
Hhmmm, sounds like more 'losers' to me, ... ya think?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Without a LOT of digging into the life of any one of them, I could not even make an
EDUCATED GUESS
whether they would or not.
I'd say the same of you. Your guess is not an educated one.
(And even an educated guess is no guarantee.)
I think it's a good question, though.
I also think it's a good question to wonder how many of the heretics would have died for a
more orthodox Christian.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I guess it depends on, specifically, which "fathers" you're talking about. Foxe's Book of Martyrs lists quite a few who did die so that people could have access to the Bible.
http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/johnfoxe/index.html
http://dlib.lib.ohio-state.edu/foxe/
Martyrs Mirror also gives a lot of information on folks who died for their faith. It starts with the first century.
http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/contents.htm
I apologize if that's not what you're asking.
Edited by BelleLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Belle,
Foxe's Book of Martyrs is a well-known account of protestants who died during the 'reformation.'
I think with a context of 'Church Fathers', though, we'd be talking over a thousand years before then.
Every week at Mass, we remember the following martyrs:John the Baptist, Stephen, Matthias, Barnabas, Ignatius, Alexander, Marcellinus, Peter, Felicity, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucy, Agnes, Cecilia, and Anastasia.
Of course, Paul and Stephen were martyred.
As to Popes who were martyred,
There is, of course, Peter (+65). After Peter, there were Linus (+79), Anacletus (+88), Clement (+98), Sixtus (+128), Telesphorus (+137), Hyginus (+140), Pius (+154), Anicetus (+167), Soter (+177), Callixtus (+222), Urban (+230), Pontian (+235), Fabian (+250), Lucius (+254), Sixtus II (+258), Felix (+274), and Marcellinus (+304).
And there are some others who are traditionally listed, but you get the idea: being Pope was a very hazardous job at one point.
Out of those whose writings are commonly held to be "Church Fathers" writings, the following are identified as martyrs: Clement of Rome, Cyprian, Hippolytus, Ignatius of Antioch, (possibly) Irenaeus, Justin, Pamphilus, Peter of Alexandria, Polycarp, and Victorinus.
FWIW
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Lone Wolf -- The Invisible Dan knows whereof he speaks.
TAKE A LOOK AT SOME OF WHAT HE HAS TO SAY.
Church Fathers (spoken by you and I), tend to be general.
He (Invisible Dan) gets specific. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Apparently you don't REALLY understand Marxism then, Garth.
Marx, in his criticism of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, said the following:
You will, I hope, take note of the last sentence, where he alludes to the fact that the criticism (and by implication the rejection) of religion is central to the struggle of the masses.
He sought to replace God with the proletariat and replace heaven with the socialist state.
Having said that, there are occasionally communist-type religious groups. Liberation Theology, preached primarily in Latin America during the second half of the 20th Century, thought to use religious symbolism to advance marxist goals. It has repeatedly been condemned by the Vatican as a perversion of Christianity.
The Catholic Worker movement, started in the first half of the 20th Century, embraced the economics of communism (calling it a voluntary poverty). Dorothy Day was, for years, an avowed communist. But she came to reject the philosophy of Marxism due to the necessity of rejection of Christ inherent in the philosophy. As she put it:
Now maybe you've studied Marxism more carefully than I have and are a subject matter expert on the topic. You certainly are more of a subject matter expert on Atheism than I am. But from what I read, Marxism is, in fact, inherently and necessarily atheist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lone Wolf McQuade
WordWolf, you said...
Well I sure can. It never happened did it?Is there any writing or record of one of the church fathers pleading with their fellow Catholics shouting, "No brothers, let this heretic be spared and take me in his place, for he knows not what he does!".
I'll bet. <_<
Why would any of the church fathers have given their lives for a heretic? As far as the Catholics were concerned, heretics were pawns of Satan to be exterminated.
That's how I know they never would have died for a heretic.
Belle, you said...
.We're speaking here of church father's who would die for a heretic, not people who would die so that others could have access to the Bible.
Edited by Lone Wolf McQuadeLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
It seems that there is plenty of blood to be shared.
This link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catho...tyrs_of_England shows a list of 40 people who were martyred because they would not commit schism as demanded by the English government and embrace a heretical movement during the Reformation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.