Sunday, October 05, 2008

"The Pope said so"

Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, written in 1992, states:

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion… This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms.”

That's more than sufficient to show you or anyone else what the Church teaches. The pope said so. This is how our authority structure works.

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/10/dialogue-with-protestant-on.html

Let’s apply the same authority structure to another papal proclamation:

The Ad Extirpanda of Pope Innocent IV (1252)

We decree that the head of state, whatever his rank or title, in each dominion, whether he is so situated at present,or to be so in the future, in Lombardy, Riviera di Romagnola, or Marchia Tervisina must unequivocally and unhesitatingly swear that he will inviolably preserve, and during his entire term of office see to it that everybody, both in his diocese or administrative domain and the lands subject to his power, shall observe, both what is written herein, and other regulations and laws both ecclesiastical and civil,that are published against heretical wickedness. And the oaths concerning these precisely-observed regulations and laws are to be accepted by whoever succeeds to the monarchical or gubernatorial dignity. Whoever defaults in this regard shall lose the character of head of state or governor. Heads of state and rulers so acting will lose absolutely all guarantees of non-aggression from other governments. No one is obliged to offer fealty to such persons, or ought to do so, even if, afterwards, they submit by swearing the oath. If any head of state or ruler refuses to obey, each and all, these statutes, or neglects them, besides the stigma of forswearing, and the disaster of eternal infamy, he shall undergo the penalty of seeing his country lose its borders,{4} which penalty shall be imposed on him irrecoverably; the country will be converted to common use,{5}because, specifically, a man forsworn and infamous, and, in effect, a protector of heretics, his faith compromised, has usurped the dignity and honor of governmental power; nor shall another head of state or ruler from anywhere replace him, or in any way, by any means, take to himself the vacated dignity or public office.

At the commencement of his term of office,at the assembly of citizens convoked as is the custom, by the authority of the city or feudal domain, the head of state or ruler of the city or feudal domain shall accuse of criminal conduct all heretics of both sexes, no matter by what name they appear on the rolls of citizens. And he will confirm his right to the office inherited from his predecessor in this manner. And furthermore, that no heretical man or woman may dwell, sojourn, or maintain a bare subsistence in the country,or any kind of jurisdiction or district belonging to it,whoever shall find the heretical man or woman shall boldly seize, with impunity, all his or their goods, and freely carry them off, to belong to the remover with full right, unless this kind of removing is restricted to persons designated by law.

Those who are thus appointed may and should seize the heretical men and women and carry off their possessions and cause these to be carried off by others,and take the heretics,or cause them to be taken, into the custody of the Diocesan bishop or his surrogates, and see to it that these things are fully accomplished as well in the diocese as in its entire jurisdiction and district.

The head of state, or whatever ruler stands foremost in the public esteem,must cause the heretics who have been arrested in this manner to be taken to whatever jurisdiction the Diocesan, or his surrogate,is in, or whatever district, or city,or place the Diocesan bishop wishes to take them to.

When the Diocesan, or his surrogate, or the inquisitors commissioned by the Apostolic See, arrive on their missions, the head of state and his vassals and other assistants will lend aid and will faithfully perform their duty with them. Anyone, moreover, whether he is present in the country or sent for to obtain his assistance there, whether in the state or in its jurisdiction, or any district of any kind, will be bound to give the aforesaid officials and their assistants counsel and help when they are trying to arrest a male or female heretic, or seize such a person's belongings, or gather evidence; or enter a house, or a manor, or a hideaway to arrest heretics, on pain of paying 25 pounds in Imperials as a penalty or fine on their former loyalty changing, in whatever manner,to dereliction; the government of a city shall pay a hundred pounds, a manorial domain fifty imperials in coin.

Whoever shall have the audacity to arrange the escape from custody of a male or female heretic,or shall try to prevent the arrest of such a person: or shall prevent the entry of an official into any house, or tower, or any place to hinder arrest, or prevent the gathering of evidence concerning such persons, shall have all his goods,according to the law at Padua when Frederick was emperor there,{6} consigned to the state in perpetuity,and the house that was barred against the official shall be levelled with the ground and its rebuilding prohibited, and the belongings found therein shall be awarded to the officials making the arrest; and if the heretics are found as a result of this prohibition or special preventive measure, the borough shall forfeit to the state two hundred pounds; localities both of the boroughs and the state fifty Imperials, unless within three days the would-be liberator or liberators of the heretics are brought before the head of state for a personal interview.

Those convicted of heresy by the aforesaid Diocesan Bishop,surrogate or inquisitors, shall be taken in shackles to the head of state or ruler or his special representative, instantly,or at least within five days, and the latter shall apply the regulations promulgated against such persons.{7}

If at any time a non-heretical man or woman state that heretics in custody, who have already confessed, are no heretics; or if perhaps the non-heretics demand that the aforesaid fraudulent persons should be released from life imprisonment,though they are nevertheless convicted heretics and must be acknowledged such; the persons who create this snare, accordingly to the aforesaid law shall resign all their property to the state in perpetuity.

The head of state or ruler must force all the heretics whom he has in custody,{8} provided he does so without killing them or breaking their arms or legs,as actual robbers and murderers of souls and thieves of the sacraments of God and Christian faith, to confess their errors and accuse other heretics whom they know, and specify their motives, {9} and those whom they have seduced, and those who have lodged them and defended them,as thieves and robbers of material goods are made to accuse their accomplices and confess the crimes they have committed.

The head of state or ruler must send one of his aides, chosen by the Diocesan if there is one,with the aforesaid inquisitors obtained from the Apostolic See, as often as they shall wish, into the jurisdiction of the state and the district. This aide,as the aforesaid inquisitors shall have determined, will compel three men or more, reliable witnesses,or, if it seem good to them, the whole neighborhood, to testify to the aforesaid inquisitors if they have detected any heretics, or want to expose their motives,{9} whether the heretics celebrate rites in secret gatherings, or scoff at the common life of the faithful, and their customs; or if the witnesses want to expose those the heretics have seduced, or their defenders, or those who lodge them, or those who give the heretics help. The head of state shall proceed against the accused according to the laws of the Emperor Frederick when he governed Padua.

None of these sentences or punishments imposed on account of heresy, shall,either by the motion of any public gathering, the advice of counselors, or any kind of popular outcry,or the innate humanity {10}of those in authority,be in any way waived or pardoned.

Notes to the Translation

{7} I.e., he shall burn them alive. See Introduction.

_{8} Omnes haereticos quos captos habuerit. All the male heretics the state has in custody must be tortured to make them confess their crimes and reveal their accomplices. The masculine inflection appears generic, cf. omnes haereticos utriusque sexus in Law 2; ad haereticos extirpandos in Law 33. So women too were tortured.

http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~draker/history/Ad_Extirpanda.html

19 comments:

  1. What is the point of this post? "See how MEAN the Popes are??" Are you kidding me? Are you $#$#&# kidding me?

    Let it be noted that the Calvinists of Geneva put half-green wood around the feet of Servetus and a wreath strewn with sulfur on his head. It took over thirty minutes to render him lifeless in such a fire, while the people of Geneva stood around to watch him suffer and slowly die! Just before this happened, the record shows:

    "Farel walked beside the condemned man, and kept up a constant barrage of words, in complete insensitivity to what Servetus might be feeling. All he had in mind was to extort from the prisoner an acknowledgement [sic] of his theological error -- a shocking example of the soulless cure of souls. After some minutes of this, Servetus ceased making any reply and prayed quietly to himself. When they arrived at the place of execution, Farel announced to the watching crowd: 'Here you see what power Satan possesses when he has a man in his power. This man is a scholar of distinction, and he perhaps believed he was acting rightly. But now Satan possesses him completely, as he might possess you, should you fall into his traps.'

    When the executioner began his work, Servetus whispered with trembling voice: 'Oh God, Oh God!' The thwarted Farel snapped at him: 'Have you nothing else to say?' This time Servetus replied to him: 'What else might I do, but speak of God!' Thereupon he was lifted onto the pyre and chained to the stake. A wreath strewn with sulfur was placed on his head. When the faggots were ignited, a piercing cry of horror broke from him. 'Mercy, mercy!' he cried. For more than half an hour the horrible agony continued, for t

    The pyre had been made of half-green wood, which burned slowly. 'Jesus, Son of the eternal God, have mercy on me,' the tormented man cried from the midst of the flames ...."

    http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/ashes.htm

    John Calvin was as much of a pig as the inquisition popes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. James;
    I really like you comment!
    You said it all to those vipers and murderers, but the Lord will repay them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. John Calvin was as much of a pig as the inquisition popes.

    Arguably, we are all pigs. But one pig is declared to speak ex cathedra.

    Isn't that one of the points of the post?

    ReplyDelete
  4. James,

    You don't seem to make much of an effort to understand what people are saying before you reply to them, and you don't seem to give your own comments much thought. How do you get from Steve's reference to "authority structure" to wondering if he's saying "See how MEAN the Popes are"? If you're going to criticize the behavior of Protestants of past centuries, then show more concern for your own behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Do you guys think that Martin Luther was any nicer than Innocent IV? Just curious...

    ReplyDelete
  6. JAMES SAID:

    “What is the point of this post? ‘See how MEAN the Popes are??’ Are you kidding me?”

    It wouldn’t hurt you to acquire a modicum of mental discipline instead of hyperventilating all the time.

    I was merely responding to Dave Armstrong on his own grounds. Citing a test case. I didn’t attempt to characterize Innocent IV or evaluate his edict. I quoted portions of the text without offering any editorial comments of my own.

    As for Calvin, if that’s supposed to be an argument from analogy, then the analogy is invalidated by an equivocal comparison since Calvin is not to Protestantism or even Calvinism what the papacy is to Roman Catholicism. Calvin is not our magisterium—even if you happen to be a Calvinist.

    ZILCH SAID:

    “Do you guys think that Martin Luther was any nicer than Innocent IV? Just curious...”

    Did Martin Luther issue any papal bulls? Just curious…

    ReplyDelete
  7. Is this a Romanist argument?

    "Do you guys think that Martin Luther was any nicer than Innocent IV? Just curious..."

    This sounds like a tacit admission that the pope is immoral.

    No protestant thinks, "Martin Luther said so, so there!" This is a pretty brutal analogy.

    Too bad the papacy can't reign in all the Romanist politicians... one might think it was being inconsistent.

    ReplyDelete
  8. As far as I remember (correct me if I'm wrong, please) Martin Luther did not issue any Papal Bulls. I don't think he was even a Pope. But didn't he start a little thing going called the Protestant Reformation? Don't some people (who shall remain nameless) still consider him to be a somewhat important Christian?

    I'm just asking, because I saw a rather interesting exhibition here in Austria about witches and Jews, and what Luther said about them. I suppose I needn't quote him- you guys are all scholars, and you all have no problems with Middle High German, right?

    I guess this is a silly question, but I don't know whom else I could ask, except God; and we're not on speaking terms. Is Martin Luther in Heaven or Hell?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Zilch,

    See here some info on Luther and the Jews.

    If Luther believed the Gospel he preached, then he is in Heaven.

    ReplyDelete
  10. ZILCH SAID:

    "As far as I remember (correct me if I'm wrong, please) Martin Luther did not issue any Papal Bulls. I don't think he was even a Pope. But didn't he start a little thing going called the Protestant Reformation? Don't some people (who shall remain nameless) still consider him to be a somewhat important Christian?"

    Why don't you go back to the original post and try to apply your mind to the actual argument.

    Dave Armstrong attempted to validate the Catechism of the Catholic Church by a blanket appeal to papal authority.

    Protestants don't have the same authority structure, ergo, the comparisons that you and James are trying to draw between the papacy and Calvin or Luther are fallacious. Use a little logic, even if it hurts.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks rhology, but I'd rather rely on what Luther himself said, and not in English translations. I've read quite a bit, and he was a nasty old coot. For instance, from Luther's Table Talks:

    "Ein anderer erzählte viel von den Gotteslästerungen der Juden und fragte, ob es einem Privatmann erlaubt sei, einem gotteslästernden Juden einen Faustschlag zu versetzen. Er ( nämlich Luther d. V.) antwortete: Ganz gewiss! Ich wollte einem solchen eine Maulschelle geben. Wenn ich könnte, würde ich ihn zu Boden werfen und in meinem Zorn mit dem Schwert durchbohren. Da es nämlich nach menschlichem und göttlichem Recht erlaubt sei, einen Straßenräuber zu töten, viel mehr einen Gotteslästerer."

    "Another spoke a great deal about the blasphemy of the Jews and asked, if a private person was allowed to punch a blasphemous Jew. He (namely Luther) answered: "Most certainly! I would give such a one a punch in the face. If I could, I would throw him to the ground and in my wrath run him through with my sword. Because is is allowed, following human and divine rights, to kill a highwayman, the more so a blasphemer".

    My translation. Luther is also very enthusiastic about torturing witches. If he's in Heaven, then probably Hitler, who was greatly inspired by Luther, is too.

    And Steve- I agree with you about papal authority. I just don't consider the Bible to have any more authority than the Popes, though, for the same reason.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Zilch,

    Why do you persist in your total ignorance of the Christian Gospel?


    What does it take, on biblical Christianity (and Lutheran teaching), to get to Heaven? I want to hear your understanding of that.

    ReplyDelete
  13. rhology- why do I persist? You got me- no idea. That's actually a very good question.

    As far as what it takes to get to Heaven, how should I know? Do Christians agree about this? Not in my experience, and there's no knowing who's right. The Bible is not at all clear about it, as far as I can tell. Of course, as I'm an atheist, it's all academic anyway. But it does grate against my satanic, I mean secular humanistic, feelings of justice, that according to many Christians, the worst criminal in the world could get to Heaven, and the most loving and generous philanthropist could end up in Hell, based on what they believe about God. It's understandable from an evolutionary standpoint that religions make such claims, but that people swallow them is a constant source of wonder to me.

    cheers from windy autumnal Vienna, zilch

    ReplyDelete
  14. So you don't know.
    So why would you make the claim like you did about if Luther is in Heaven, then Hitler certainly is too?
    Why not just ask? Is it that hard to ask, rather than make unsubstantiated assertions?


    Do Christians agree about this? Not in my experience, and there's no knowing who's right. The Bible is not at all clear about it

    People disagree about all kinds of stuff.
    What is your evidence that the Bible is unclear about it? Have you ever read Ephesian 2:8-10?

    But it does grate against my satanic, I mean secular humanistic, feelings of justice

    So what? What is your argument that this justice applies to anyone or anything else?
    Your worldview doesn't provide for you to be grated against. You're already inconsistent with your stated worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  15. No, rhology, I don't know who is in Heaven and who is not, and I venture to guess you don't either. My guess is that no one's in Heaven, because there is no such place. And no, I don't argue that my sense of justice applies to everyone. And I've heard this argument before, that I don't have any moral standards to judge by. I will agree to some extent: I don't have any absolute standards to judge by; but nor does anyone else: life's a moving banquet, and we simply have to do as well as we can. Luckily, we do pretty well for ourselves a lot of the time, do we not? Unluckily, we sometimes end up being cruel and heartless, atheists as well as believers.

    And I know that Christians claim to have a source of absolute morality. But seeing as how they can't agree amongst themselves what that Absolute Source tells them to do, the "absoluticity" of their morals is moot. And since there's no evidence that God exists anyway, then I will continue to simply do the best I can, based on my cobbled-together rules of thumb.

    If any of you ever come to Vienna, or to the SF Bay Area most summers, the drinks are on me.

    cheers, zilch

    ReplyDelete
  16. I venture to guess you don't either

    In specific, no I don't.
    In general, yes I do. Here's what you didn't know from above. Those who died, having saving faith in Jesus are in Heaven. Luther did (if he believed his own profession). Hitler didn't. There you go.

    I don't argue that my sense of justice applies to everyone

    Good to hear. So I hope you'll be consistent with that and not condemn Martin Luther for what he said or did.
    Or anyone for that matter.
    It's an empty way to live, but no one said you have to stay an atheist.

    Luckily, we do pretty well for ourselves a lot of the time, do we not?

    Since your view leads to total inability to condemn or commend any action whatsoever, no, I'd say we ended up in pretty bad shape.


    But seeing as how they can't agree amongst themselves what that Absolute Source tells them to do, the "absoluticity" of their morals is moot.

    But our morality is based on an objective standard. The subject (me) does not determine nor change the object (the belief). I think you're a little confused.

    Thanks for the drink offer... in fact I have some friends in Prague. Maybe I'll send them your way some time. ;-) If I were in Vienna, nothing short of God Himself could stop me from spending hours on end sipping coffee.

    ReplyDelete
  17. How do you know what Hitler believed? He said all kinds of stuff at different times in his life, and was obviously a rather confused guy, but he was raised Catholic, never excommunicated, openly admired Jesus, and never repudiated his belief (as far as I know). And who knows what his last thoughts were? So Hitler could quite well be in Heaven, by your standards.

    And of course I can judge things: I probably agree with you about a lot of stuff I find good and bad. The only difference is that you claim to have divine support for your judgements, and I don't. Your saying that my "view leads to total inability to condemn or commend any action whatsoever" is just, well, parochial, and I don't belong to your parish. What you mean, I suspect, is "you don't have God telling you what is right and wrong, and therefore you have no meaning in life". Where have I heard that before? Sigh. Should I retort "you have no meaning in life because you have to be told by an imaginary being what is right and wrong?" I won't do that, because it is not an argument, and neither is yours: it's just a boring assertion of belief.

    As far as your "objective standard" goes: in what sense is it "objective" if no one agrees about exactly what it consists of, or how to follow it? I could just as well say that the "objective standard" for morality is Nature, and say that all of us fall short of natural perfection.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Raised Catholic. Strike 1.
    Never know - he could have repented and put his faith in Christ at the end of his life. If so, I'll see him in Heaven. If not, the hottest pits of Hell are reserved for him.

    He was certainly not a Christian for most of his life, and wanted to destroy the Christian church.

    And of course I can judge things

    Based on what standard?
    And more importantly, on what basis can you extend that judgment to be meaningful to anyone else?


    "you don't have God telling you what is right and wrong, and therefore you have no meaning in life"

    No, you don't have any way to know whether what is right and wrong FOR YOU is right and wrong for the next guy.
    And your own right and wrong is nothing more than personal preference, dressed up with the labels "right" and "wrong", which is meaningless without a standard.


    Should I retort "you have no meaning in life because you have to be told by an imaginary being what is right and wrong?"

    On your worldview, that would be right, b/c on your worldview there is no right and wrong, no ought at all.
    But on my view, I have definite, objective right and wrong.


    in what sense is it "objective" if no one agrees about exactly what it consists of, or how to follow it?

    I thought you were a little more sophisticated than this - you're asking me "why is it objective if people approach it subjectively?" Think about it for a moment.
    Its objectivity stems from what IT is, not from what I am. It is objective and the same no matter who believes it, no matter whether anyone believes it, it remains.


    the "objective standard" for morality is Nature, and say that all of us fall short of natural perfection.

    Let's test it, then. What morality does "Nature" "espouse"?
    How can you know it?

    ReplyDelete
  19. No one claims that Martin Luther was infallible or ruled the Church with divine authority.

    What Catholics who quote On the Jews or whatever don't get is that Protestants are allowed to disagree with our Great Men. Catholics are not. If you disagree with the pope, any pope, you are a bad Catholic. The only sort of person a Protestant are not allowed to disagree is a Prophet or apostle.

    ReplyDelete