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.
Well, two things. No one has a right to error. Ever. Assuming one believes what the Catholic Church teaches about herself, then it logically follows that any disagreements with her on doctrine or morals cannot be "God-given."
But remember that the Church and the state have butted heads over the centuries, and they were not the same thing except in the Papal States. And the Church HAS often taken the side of heretics and pagans against the state--perhaps the most obvious example is Paul III forbidding, under pain of excommunication, enslaving the natives of the New World.
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.
It actually *has* to be held by Catholics, as per the Syllabus of Errors. I'm sorry it terrifies you, but it really doesn't have to be as bad as the worst examples we can cite. There are plenty of times in history when there was a state religion but that state religion did not use its full power to crush the opposition.
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.
I don't hold to the "Trail of Blood" theory vis a vis Baptist origins, but I will admit that Baptists have certainly often been on the wrong end of persecution, even here in America. And my dependence on the Church really doesn't grate against my sense of liberty anymore than having a Constitution and a Federal Government does. Liberty doesn't mean complete absence of structure...it simply means that the structures do not surpass their proper bounds.