Understandable certainly. I think we Catholics need to come to terms with the fact that the festering corruption for century upon century within the Church made it very easy for people to just say nuts to the whole thing and look for something plainer and simpler. If we believe that the Church is the spotless Bride of Christ, we darn well better live that way...and if we don't, we are feeding the fires of heresy and schism. Some of the saints at the time of the Reformation, in fact, said exactly that: we share the blame for what happened.
The history behind Church persecutions is complex. Heresy/Apostasy against the state religion have always been crimes, even in pagan times. That's why Plato was executed. That's why the Christians were persecuted for not offering a pinch of incense to Minerva or to the Emperor.
When Christianity became the religion of the state, it naturally inherited that legal framework. So Theodosius and later rulers had laws specifically outlawing heresy against Nicene Christianity. These were *state* laws, not ecclesiastical laws.
However, there was a HUGE problem giving the state the power to prosecute heresy. Officials could very easily trump up heresy charges to make false convictions....and I pretty much guarantee that if I get an interrogator to cross-examine you on the Trinity you'll say something heretical in five minutes even if you are completely orthodox. So some corrupt nobleman can bring some poor landowner in, fire a bunch of virtually incomprehensible questions at him about the modes and operations and wills of the Trinity and then...bam....looky here, a heretic! That's a shame....well, I guess I can execute him and confiscate his land then!
The Inquisition was actually an attempt to reform this process by saying to the state....no way king/duke/mayor, YOU don't have any authority to determine heresy. That's the CHURCH's job. So the Church took over the fact-finding on heresy for the state...it did all the interrogating, etc. And then it made a recommendation to the state. If the guy was an obstinate heretic and would not recant, he would, in the language of the time, "be handed over to the secular arm to be burned." But it was always the state doing the executing, and not the Church.
I actually don't have problem with a state religion...and I think Christians shouldn't generally. Heck...even though the Constitution outlawed federal establishment in this country, the states often had their own established religions until the mid-1830s.
But using the power of state religion to prosecute heresy is where it gets REAL dicey, especially given Christ's admonition to leave the tares in the wheat until the final judgment. We have a different tradition in this country with all the sects that came over--we kinda went back to the way it was in the Roman Empire when no one group was completely dominant and the state was not taking sides one way or the other.
I think Scripture and history has shown that the RCC is not the Church Militant. I don't believe any visible church on earth can make that claim.
The history behind Church persecutions is complex. Heresy/Apostasy against the state religion have always been crimes, even in pagan times.
Agreed.
When Christianity became the religion of the state, it naturally inherited that legal framework. So Theodosius and later rulers had laws specifically outlawing heresy against Nicene Christianity. These were *state* laws, not ecclesiastical laws.
I think this is a little bit of dissembling. There is no history of the RCC hierarchy trying to stop the consolidation of power. It would have been an incredible step for a church that is a part of the state to fight for others who refuse to submit to it's power. The belief that those who disagreed with it had a God given right to do so has never been a practice.
The Inquisition was actually an attempt to reform this process by saying to the state....no way king/duke/mayor, YOU don't have any authority to determine heresy.
Not from the view of the persecuted.
I actually don't have problem with a state religion...and I think Christians shouldn't generally.
Given human history, the terrible atrocities that result from this merger, and the heretical beliefs that emerge because of it the thought terrifies me. I think your opinion is held by a lot of RC's. The thinking being that it would be good as long as it's your church that's calling the shots.
I'm a Baptist. It was the non conformist Baptistic churches that suffered the worst of the persecutions from the state churches. I have no desire to see us return to that system and theology that teaches dependence on a church rather than liberty in Christ Jesus.