"Catholic"

I. "Catholic"
II. Who is Catholic?
III. What are the true teachings of the Catholic Faith?
IV. Is it necessary to be Catholic to be saved?
V. Can the Church’s Dogmatic teaching change?
VI. What must we do to be truly called Catholic?

There is a very common practice today of adding various prefixes to the wonderful title of “Catholic”.  These are not the acceptable ones such as: Roman, Greek, Melkite, Maronite, Syro-Malabar, etc which refer to the legitimate diversity of Catholic liturgies and cultures.  The ones I refer to are those such as: Traditionalist, Neo-Conservative, Liberal, etc.  This has resulted in great scandal to the world, because of these vast numbers of men and women calling themselves Catholic and dissenting from the teaching and/or the authority of the Church.  These dissenters have thus removed themselves from the Church and no longer have the right to call themselves Catholic at all, but yet to the world they are representatives of Catholicism.  It also shows only further division in Christendom, which is a great stumbling block to potential converts.  This trend is nothing new and was spoken about nearly one hundred years ago by our Holy Father Pope Benedict XV in his encyclical Ad beatissimi apostolorum of November 1^st, 1914:

 “It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: (Athanasian Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim “Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.” (Paragraph #24)

I understand, however, the position of many faithful Catholics who call themselves “Conservative” or even “Traditionalist” Catholics in order to differentiate themselves from the many dissenting Catholics who while not actually professing what the Church teachers nor in any way practicing their faith still insist upon calling themselves Catholic.  Still these appellations have often developed into a very dangerous drawing of lines, even among good Catholics who are doing their best to be faithful.  We have on one side those who suggest that the Church as it was before the Second Vatican Council is the true Church, and on the other those who would say that the Church after the council is the true Church, while rejecting what came before.  This rupture is just what our wonderful Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI (may his reign be long) has spoken of on a number of occasions:

"Certainly the results of Vatican II seem cruelly opposed to the expectations of everyone, beginning with those of Pope John XXIII and then of Pope Paul VI: expected was a new Catholic unity and instead we have been exposed to dissension which, to use the words of Pope Paul VI, seems to have gone from self-criticism to self-destruction. Expected was a new enthusiasm, and many wound up discouraged and bored. Expected was a great step forward, instead we find ourselves faced with a progressive process of decadence which has developed for the most part under the sign of a calling back to the Council, and has therefore contributed to discrediting it for many. The net result therefore seems negative. I am repeating here what I said ten years after the conclusion of the work: it is incontrovertible that this period has definitely been unfavorable for the Catholic Church."

-Cardinal Ratzinger (Now Pope Benedict XVI), L'Osservatore Romano, 24 December 1984

"The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest."

-Cardinal Ratzinger (Now Pope Benedict XVI), address to the Chilean Bishops, 13 July 1988, Santiago Chile

“How much Christ suffers in his own Church. How often is the Holy Sacrament of His real presence abused. How often must He enter empty and evil hearts. How often do we celebrate only ourselves without even realizing that He is there. How often is His word twisted and misused. What little faith is present behind so many theories and so many empty words. How much filth there is in the Church, and even among those in the priesthood who should belong entirely to Him. How much pride. How much self complacency. What little respect for the sacrament of reconciliation where He waits for us to raise us up whenever we fall. How much filth there is. How much filth.”

-Cardinal Ratzinger (Now Pope Benedict XVI), Sermon given on Good Friday of 2005 just 3 ½ weeks before being elected Supreme Pontiff

And he clearly points out the focal point of these troubles in the Church:

"I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy.”

-Cardinal Ratzinger (Now Pope Benedict XVI), "Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977" (SF, CA: Ignatius), p. 149.

"What happened at the Council was something else entirely: in the place of the liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living, process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it - as in a manufacturing process - with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product."

-Cardinal Ratzinger (Now Pope Benedict XVI), From the preface to the French edition of "Reforms of the Roman Liturgy Its Problems and Background" 1993

"The second great event at the beginning of my years in Regensburg was the publication of the Missal of Paul VI, which was accompanied by the almost total prohibition, after a transitional phase of only half a year, of using the missal we had had until then. (...) The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic."

-Cardinal Ratzinger (Now Pope Benedict XVI), "Milestones – Memoirs 1927 – 1977", Joseph Ratzinger, Ignatius, San Francisco, 1998, p. 146

Here our Holy Father has just most plainly elucidated the fundamental principal of “Lex orandi Lex credenda”, which means: the law of worship is the law of belief.  This means that the way we worship directly influences how we believe and vice versa.  And then just a few weeks ago on the Feast of Saint Francis of Assisi (10/4/11) Cardinal Piacenza, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, made the following remarks to seminarians of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles:

“Yours will probably be the first generation that will correctly interpret the Second Vatican Council, not according to the "spirit" of the Council, which has brought so much disorientation to the Church, but according to what the Conciliar Event really said, in its texts to the Church and to the world…There cannot be, nor could there be, a pre-Conciliar Church and a post-Conciliar Church! Were it thus, the second one - ours - would be historically and theologically illegitimate! There is only one Church of Christ, of which you are part, that goes from Our Lord to the Apostles, from the Blessed Virgin Mary to the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church, from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, from Romanesque to Gothic to Baroque, and thus until our days, uninterruptedly, without any dissolution of continuity, ever!”

We need to remember that we must be with the Church in what it actually teaches.  We must be faithful to what it is teaching, has taught, and will always teach: the one only truth of Jesus Christ.

“He that is not with me, is against me; and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.”

–Luke 11:23; Matt 12:30

“But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest: I am rich, and made wealthy, and have need of nothing: and knowest not, that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked. I counsel thee to buy of me gold fire tried, that thou mayest be made rich; and mayest be clothed in white garments, and that the shame of thy nakedness may not appear; and anoint thy eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. Such as I love, I rebuke and chastise. Be zealous therefore, and do penance. Behold, I stand at the gate, and knock. If any man shall hear my voice, and open to me the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that shall overcome, I will give to sit with me in my throne: as I also have overcome, and am set down with my Father in his throne. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches.”

–The Apocalypse of Saint John 3:16-22

Authority, Scripture, and Tradition

(Note: all of the scripture quotes I will be taking from the Douay-Rhiems Bible which is the oldest English translation of the Bible upon which the greater part of the King James Bible was based.)

Saint Peter says in his first Epistle: “But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you.” (1 Peter 3:15)  And how can we satisfy those who ask if we don’t take the time and effort to learn our faith.  Our dear separated brethren the Protestants have gone astray, but they are seeking the truth.  Unfortunately they often have a difficult time finding it because they don’t know where to look, and we Catholics who have the truth do not know our faith as we should in order to answer their questions.  The topic of this post deals with the most foundational issue keeping Protestants from returning to the true fold of the Catholic Church.  Upon this issue hinges every other argument Protestants can hold against Catholics.  I hope by putting forth this explanation it might help to shed some light on this very important issue.

Where does all authority derive from? 

The answer for any Christian must be our Lord Jesus Christ and rest of the Blessed and Adored Trinity.  This is explicated by the glorious Apostle Saint Paul as follows:

“Let every soul be subject to higher powers. For there is no power but from God: and those that are ordained of God.  Therefore, he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist purchase to themselves damnation.” -Romans 13:1-2

And he was merely reiterating the words of Solomon:

“Hear, therefore, ye kings, and understand, learn ye that are judges of the ends of the earth.  Give ear, you that rule the people, and that please yourselves in multitudes of nations: For power is given you by the Lord, and strength by the most High, who will examine your works: and search out your thoughts”

-Wisdom 6:2-4

The words of Iesou son of Seirach:

“The power of the earth is in the hand of God, and in his time he will raise up a profitable ruler over it.”

-Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] 10:4

And of the Prophet Daniel:

“…the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men: and he will give it to whomsoever it shall please him…” -Daniel 4:14

How is the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ manifested on earth so that we His faithful disciples might know His will and that might follow it? 

The answer again for every Christian must be that His authority is manifested in the visible Church He established before ascending into Heaven, which He established with the Apostles (the first Bishops) as its first leaders and with Saint Peter at their head.  Therefore Christ is the Head of the Church and His Vicar here on Earth was Saint Peter and has been afterwards his successors in an unbroken line of succession leading all through the following nearly 2000 years to the current Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI all the while being guided by the Holy Spirit.  This is clearly established in Sacred Scripture in the following passages:

“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” -Matthew 16:18-19

 “And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.  Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” -Matthew 28:18-20

 “And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature.  He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” -Mark 16:15-16 (Here and in the passage above Our Lord is speaking to the Apostles specifically, and not to the faithful in general, explaining to them their duties as the leaders of the Church)

 “When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.  He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.  He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.” -John 21:15-17

(His “sheep” meaning the Bishops and Priests of the Church, and His “lambs” refers to all of us.)

“And he hath subjected all things under his feet, and hath made him head over all the church, which is his body, and the fullness of him who is filled all in all.” -Ephesians 1:22-23

 “And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” -Ephesians 4:11-12

 “…Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body.  Therefore as the church is subject to Christ…” -Ephesians 5:23-24

Even if one is not convinced by this line of argument thus far, it is essential to keep it in mind in order to understand the Catholic Church and why it does what it does and in the way it does it.  One must see this truth that the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ and that the “gates of hell will not prevail against it”.  This is not to say that those who make up the Church even those in high office are not fallible, for certainly we are all human, but our Lord made a promise and He cannot but make good on it.  Even though members of the Church, even at the highest levels, have made mistakes, but the faith as give by Jesus Christ and transmitted by the Apostles, and then their successors, has never been corrupted and taught officially by the Church as such.  Even if even some high ranking members of the Church hierarchy in the past have been mistaken, the Pope himself who is the mouthpiece of Jesus Christ has never and can never officially promulgate error, even if he were to personally and privately hold to a particular error (which has happened, ie Pope John XXII).  This is the wonderful guarantee of Papal Infallibility; not that the Pope is never wrong but that he is protected from teaching error “when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, and he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church” (First Vatican Council, Session 4, Ch. 4, #9, 18 July 1870).  This is also what is called the indefectibility of the Church which is again derived from Mathew 16 and explained in much greater detail by the Church guided by the Holy Spirit throughout the last 2000 years.  Now I think this point is very important as there are many misconceptions about the Catholic Church’s teaching on Infallibility, even among Catholics:

"For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [Luke 22:32]."  -First Vatican Council, Session 4, Ch. 4, #6, 18 July 1870

It is very important that one keep this perspective as they follow this line of argument from here.  Even if one doesn’t agree, they have to understand that any question raised will ultimately come back to this point, and that this is the lens through which one must look to understand what will be said in the following paragraphs.

           

In what medium does the Sacred Deposit of the Faith reside? 

Most mainline Protestants will posit that it resides solely in Sacred Scripture as interpreted by each individual Christian.  While the Sacred Scriptures are very important as they are the Infallible Word of God, however, they are not sufficient unto themselves, nor can they stand alone.  This is because, while the Old Testament comes to us originally from the Jews, both it and the New Testament come to us thanks ultimately to the Catholic Church.  Martin Luther himself said that we owe a debt of gratitude to the Catholic Church for Sacred Scripture.  Luther knew this well as he was a Catholic Priest, before he instigated the Protestant revolt which tore apart Catholic Europe.

If the Bible was the sole rule of faith then Christians of the first four centuries after the death of Christ would have been in a difficult position since there was no such thing as “The Bible” during that time.  The last book of the New Testament (The Apocalypse of Saint John) was completed around the year 100AD, but the complete Biblical Canon was not finalized until the Synod of Rome in 382AD, and the Councils of Hippo (393AD) and Carthage (419AD).  Clearly then there must have been another way that the Faith of Jesus Christ was passed on during this time, and of course that was via Tradition.

Scripture is in fact part of what is known as Written Tradition, but there is also the very important Oral Tradition.  Tradition comes from the Latin Verb: Tradere, meaning “to hand down”.  Authentic orthodox Catholic teaching is that the Deposit of the Faith is contained in Scripture and Tradition as interpreted by the official Magisterium (from the Latin magister – teacher, meaning teaching authority) of the Church.  There are two components of Tradition: Active and Passive.  Passive Tradition is simply that which is being handed down and this is what most people think of when they think of Tradition.  Active Tradition on the other hand is the way and means by which the Passive Tradition is handed down.  Now while Tradition is either written or oral the ultimate agent of Tradition is the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. 

Unfortunately there are some Catholics today who fall into the error of Sola Traditio which is a reliance on Passive Tradition to the exclusion of Active Tradition, just as Sola Scriptura is the reliance on Sacred Scripture to the exclusion of all Active Tradition as well as all other written and oral Tradition.  But in order to have the whole faith we must have both Scripture and Tradition with the Magesterium of the Catholic Church with the Pope at its Head guided by the Holy Spirit as the sole interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Tradition.  Our Lord promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit to his Church to keep it free from officially teaching any error, and to be able to pass down His teachings without corruption for all ages.  This same promise was not given universally to individual Christians.  This is why fewer weeks have passed since Luther nailed his 95 Theses on the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church in 1517 than there are Protestant denominations currently in existence.  This is what happens when each person decides for himself what the Bible means.  Our Lord didn’t set it up that way; instead He gave us the Church.  Even Luther himself lamented the degeneration of the faith because of private interpretation of scripture: “Unfortunately, it is our daily experience that now under the Gospel [his] the people entertain greater and bitterer hatred and envy and are worse with their avarice and money-grabbing than before under the Papacy.” (Walch, XIII, 2195, as quoted in The Facts About Luther. Cincinnati: Pustet, 1916; Rockford, IL: TAN, 1987, pp. 215-255.)

One of the biggest holes in Sola Scriptura is that nowhere in the Bible does it say it is the sole rule of faith, however it does speak about the need for oral Tradition:

“Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.”

-John 20:30

“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.” -John 21:25

“Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.” -1 Corinthians 11:2
(Clearly referring to Oral Tradition as these “ordinances” he gave to the Corinthians while on his missionary journey to Corinth are not recorded in scripture.)

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” -2 Thessalonians 2:14
(Here it is explicitly referring to Tradition, and describes it as both written and oral.)

“And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.”

-2 Thessalonians 3:6

“Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me in faith, and in the love which is in Christ Jesus. Keep the good thing committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost, who dwelleth in us.”

-2 Timothy 1:13-14

“And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.” -2 Timothy 2:2

“But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them.” -2 Timothy 3:14

“As for you, let that which you have heard from the beginning, abide in you. If that abide in you, which you have heard from the beginning, you also shall abide in the Son, and in the Father.” -1 John 2:24

“But you, my dearly beloved, be mindful of the words which have been spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.” -Jude 1:17

The Bible being the sole rule of faith is found nowhere in the Bible itself, and since you can’t use any sources outside of the Bible (since it is the sole rule of faith), you are in somewhat of a difficult position.  The Bible does however actually command the following of oral Tradition.  Not to mention that 1 Timothy 3:15 says:

“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” 

So the “pillar and ground of the truth” is not the Bible, but the Church.  Our Lord Himself teaches the Apostles that we must submit to the authority of the Church:

 “And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.  Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.” -Matt. 18:17-18 

Even Sacred Scripture itself attests to its own insufficiency because of the inherent difficulty in understanding it:

“…our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.”

-2 Peter 3:16-17

 “And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man show me?” -Acts 8:30-31

“Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.” -2 Peter 1:20

And remember, the first Christians and for several Centuries into Christianity there was no such thing as “The Bible”.  The Bible was produced by the Church and for the Church, not the reverse.  The authority of the Sacred Scriptures was always based upon the authority of the Church.  The Canon of the Bible was not settled until the 4^th Century, and then only by the authority of the Catholic Church. There was the additional problem that until the 1400s the Sacred Scriptures were not available as they are today to the general public because of the difficulty in producing copies of the Bible.  So what should be the fate of those millions of Christians who lived before the Printing Press was invented?  Yet these Christians were in daily contact with the Sacred Scriptures through the Liturgy of the Catholic Church in Holy Mass and the Divine Office (the book of Psalms and prayers said by all priests, monks, and nuns each day), and thus followed sacred scripture not by reading it but hearing it: "Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the Word of Christ." (Rom. 10:17)  Additionally the whole notion of the Bible being used as the sole rule of faith was invented by the founders of Protestantism who saw it as a way of rejecting the Church.  Sacred Scripture is very important since after all it is the Infallible Word of God, but clearly it cannot be the sole rule of faith. 

We must hold fast to the successor of Saint Peter.  Submitting oneself to the Holy Father is essential in order to be a part of the Church founded by Christ upon Saint Peter and the office he was entrusted with.  The centralization of authority with Peter and his successors is not something that came about in the 1800s or even the middle ages, but it was an integral part of the Church from day one.  This is demonstrated first in scripture (provided above) and can be continued throughout the history the Church.  The following quotes will supply the continuity of this reality well into the middle ages:

"Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be; even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church''

-Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8:2 [A.D. 110], a disciple of Saint John the Evangelist

"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]"

-Clement of Alexandria, "Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved?" 21:3–5 [A.D. 200].

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church"

-Tertullian, "Modesty" 21:9–10 [A.D. 220].

"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect"

-The Letter of Clement to James, [A.D. 221].

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"

-Saint Cyprian of Carthage, "The Unity of the Catholic Church" 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251].

"[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures"

-Saint Ephraim the Syrian, Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

"The bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome, because his city is New Rome"

-Council of Constantinople I, Canon 3 [A.D. 381].

"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it"

-Pope Saint Damasus I, Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382].

"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails"

-Saint Jerome, Father and Doctor of the Church, Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396].

"There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]"

-Saint Augustine, Father and Doctor of the Church, Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5 [A.D. 397].

"In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged"

-Pope Saint Innocent I, (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).

"We enjoin upon you [my legates to the Council of Ephesus] the necessary task of guarding the authority of the Apostolic See. And if the instructions handed to you have to mention this and if you have to be present in the assembly, if it comes to controversy, it is not yours to join the fight but to judge of the opinions [on my behalf]"

-Pope Saint Celestine I, Letters 17 [A.D. 431]. (Sent Saint Patrick to Ireland)

"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members, by our holy voices, you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle. And since now [we], after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, [have] arrived, we ask that you order that there be laid before us what things were done in this holy synod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessed pope and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination’"

-The Council of Ephesus, Acts of the Council, Session 2 [A.D. 431].

"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, and from him as from the head wishes his gifts to flow to all the body, so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it"

-Pope Saint Leo the Great, Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445].

"We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome"

-Saint Peter Chrysologus, Father and Doctor of the Church(Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).

"Macedonius declared, when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, that 'such a step without an Ecumenical Synod presided over by the Pope of Rome is impossible.'"

-Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople (466-516) (Macedonius, Patr. Graec. 108: 360a (Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 234-346 seq.)

"Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches."

-The Emperor Justinian (520-533), writing to the Pope (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).

"Teaching us all orthodoxy and destroying all heresy and driving it away from the God-protected halls of our holy Catholic Church. And together with these inspired syllables and characters, I accept all his (the pope's) letters and teachings as proceeding from the mouth of Peter the Coryphaeus, and I kiss them and salute them and embrace them with all my soul ... I recognize the latter as definitions of Peter and the former as those of Mark, and besides, all the heaven-taught teachings of all the chosen mystagogues of our Catholic Church."

-Saint Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (c. 638) (Sophronius, Mansi, xi. 461)

"How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate .....even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerdotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome."

-Saint Maximus the Confessor (c. 650) (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

"Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles."

-Saint Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828) (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

"Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven."

-Saint Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826), writting to Pope Leo III (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

St. Marcellinus, St. Marcellus I, St. Anicetus, St. Telephorus, St. Evaristus

Life

An attack upon something as essential and foundational as life cannot be ignored, and it is so important that we defend all innocent human life.  This is why Blessed Pope John Paul II called out the modern culture in his Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, calling it the “Culture of Death”.    Abortion and euthanasia are two of the greatest evils ever to befall the world.  And sadly these evils are nothing new, because the devil has always been around since the beginning of mankind and has been working for our destruction from day one.

The killing of children is recorded early in sacred scripture in connection with the god worshiped by the Ammonites: Moloch.  It is important to remember here what Psalm 95:5 says: “All the gods of the Gentiles are devils”.  Thus Moloch is a demon to which the Ammonites, and later some Israelites, sacrificed their children on a regular basis (3 Kings 11:5).  This was even after God specifically forbid this practice on one occasion speaking with Moses, and clearly explained how terrible it was (Leviticus 20).  

Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich records another particularly horrifying instance of child sacrifice in the ancient world in one of her visions concerning the three wise men in her Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary:

“They took a child of one of the purest and most devout mothers amongst the followers of their religion, and she esteemed herself very fortunate to offer up her child in this way. The child was flayed and strewn with flour to absorb the blood. They ate this blood-soaked flour as a holy repast, and continued strewing the flour and eating until there was no blood left in the child’s body. Finally the child’s flesh was cut up into small pieces, which were distributed among them and eaten.  I saw them performing this gruesome ceremony with the greatest simplicity and devoutness, and I was told that they had adopted this dreadful practice as a result of misunderstanding and distorting certain prophetic and symbolical indications which they had received regarding the Holy Eucharist. I saw that this terrible sacrifice was carried on in Chaldaea, in the country of Mensor, one of the three holy kings, until he put an end to its horrors on receiving enlightenment in a vision from heaven on the day of Mary’s conception.”

Of course, one most terrible instances of ritual human sacrifice, and in particular that of children, ever recorded was during the height of the Aztec empire in Mexico during the 15^th century.  They would cut out the still beating heart of a grown man offering up his body and blood to placate the “god” (demon) they were worshiping: Huitzilopochtli.  On one particular occasion over the course of a single day 10,000 men were sacrificed in this way.  If that wasn’t terrible enough they also sacrificed many of their children, in fact one out of every five Aztec children was raised with the explicit intent of sacrificing them.  They were raised in all comfort being pampered in every way so that when it came time for their sacrifice they would cry more… in order to appease the rain “god”.  (Our Lady of Guadalupe: And the Conquest of Darkness, by Dr. Warren Carroll, founder of Christendom College)

Some believe that Moloch and Huitzilopochtli are one in the same and that this very same demon is intimately connected with the modern abortion industry.  It has been demonstrated on numerous occasions the close link between the demonic and abortion industry. Of course most are not explicitly satanic, but there are those abortion clinic nurses who would intentionally get pregnant simply in order to abort the child as part of a satanic ritual sacrifice. (Citation)

For an in depth look at the philosophical implications of this on society I recommend reading chapters Six and Seven of Part I of G.K. Chesterton's Everlasting Man.

Now many in the pro-life movement, even the Catholics, seem at some point along the way to have forgotten something very important.  Why is abortion so evil?  Most pro-lifers would answer something like: because it ends the life of an innocent baby in the womb.  This is true, but is it the worst part of abortion?  I don’t think so, because abortion is worse than homicide, suicide, euthanasia, or any other form of taking the life of an innocent human being.  Why do I say this?  Well I will let Pope Sixtus V answer for me from the first paragraph of his Apostolic Constitution Effraenatam (Against Abortionists) which was published on October 29, 1588:

“We who are placed by the Lord in the supreme throne of justice, being counseled by a most just reason, are in part renewing old laws and in part extending them in order to restrain with just punishment the monstrous and atrocious brutality of those who have no fear to kill most cruelly fetuses still hiding in the maternal viscera. Who will not detest such an abhorrent and evil act, by which are lost not only the bodies but also the souls? Who will not condemn to a most grave punishment the impiety of him who will exclude a soul created in the image of God and for which Our Lord Jesus Christ has shed His precious Blood, and which is capable of eternal happiness and is destined to be in the company of angels, from the blessed vision of God, and who has impeded as much as he could the filling up of heavenly mansions, and has taken away the service to God by His creature? who has deprived children of life before they could naturally see light or could be protected by maternal body from ferocious cruelty?”

 

You must see then that abortion is so evil because it deprives children of the possibility of baptism, and thus from the possibility of living in heaven, for which sanctifying grace is necessary, and which can only come through the “laver of regeneration” in the sacrament of Baptism.  As the Council of Trent infallibly defined: 

“If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.” (Session 7, On Baptism, Canon 5, 3 March 1547)  

The only exception might be if a baby was specifically aborted with explicit satanic intent, and thus the baby would be killed for the sake of Christ and would then merit Baptism of Blood as a martyr, maybe.  Now where do the children go if they don’t go to heaven?  Do they go to Hell?  Well that it was Saint Augustine taught, but I am inclined to follow the Church’s subsequent and far more merciful teaching of the existence of the Limbo of the Children (in addition to the Limbo of the Fathers, where the saints of the old testament resided until they were liberated by Christ after his death on the Cross).  To read the pronouncements of the Church on this important teaching please see this post on my other blog here.

It appears that many Christian pro-lifers have forgotten the words of our Lord: 

“And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matt. 10:28)  

How very important to remember that "our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places." (Ephesians 6:12)  I have been convinced even more of the deeply spiritual nature of the battle against the culture of death, and the necessity of prayer as the essential weapon in this fight, after reading the book “Unplanned” by Abby Johnson (which I highly recommend).

This forgetfulness of the spiritual and the focus on the temporal brings me to the final issue I wish to address in this post, and that is the thorny subject of capital punishment.

In my experience the common opinion among pro-lifers is that capital punishment is in the same category as abortion, euthanasia, homicide, suicide, etc.  This is a grave mistake, however, because all of the latter are clearly intrinsically evil according to the teaching of the Church, but the former most certainly is not.  Now it seems that this misconception about capital punishment derives from three main sources.

The first of these is a misunderstanding based on the translation of Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17. Most commonly it is translated in English as “Thou shalt not kill”, as it was originally in the Douay-Rhiems and (borrowing from it) the original King James.  The problem is that the English language has changed a great deal over time and the meaning of words have become different over time as well.  The word kill today is the general word of ending the life of any creature whatsoever.  This was not the meaning in the 16^th century when these translations were made.  In fact the equivalent word for them would have been “slay”, but kill had a much more specific meaning of “murder”.  To have a clear and Catholic understanding of the nature of what constitutes murder I would recommend that you read the entirety of Question 64 of the Secunda Secundae of the Summa Theologiae of Saint Thomas Aquinas, and in particular Article 2.

The second issue is that a very basic and yet vital distinction is not made by so many pro-lifers.  This is that there is a big difference between the taking of the innocent human life which is always evil, and the conviction and sentencing to death of a criminal (not innocent) by the legitimate governing authority.

Thirdly, many Catholics seem to be under the impression that Blessed Pope John Paul II condemned capital punishment as being an intrinsic evil on the level of abortion.  This is simply false and part of a common trend among many Catholics today to simply neglect to read the original sources to see what was actually said and not just repeat what they’ve heard third or fourth hand ad nauseum.  I will point you to the very same thing he does in Evangelium Vitae, and that is paragraph 2267 of the CCC:

"If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person"

Now you need to remember that the CCC actually has no binding teaching authority, but is simply an approved explanation of the binding teachings of the Catholic faith, which may yet still carry errors since it does not bear the mark of infallibility.  Be that as it may, what our late Holy Father actually said was that capital punishment ought to be a last resort, but this clearly means that it can be resorted to when necessary, and thus cannot be intrinsically evil.  Now our late Holy Father also believed (though it is important to point out that this was his opinion and not by any means infallible teaching) that it would only be necessary in rare instances today to impose the death penalty.  His reason given for this was because “today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare”, but I fear the Holy Father mistakenly put far too much faith in the prison system in the United States, which as anyone who is at all familiar with the system will know is completely broken.

This brings me to another important point.  Just as with abortion pro-lifers have completely missed the spiritual side of this issue.  What is the most important thing for condemned criminals?  Is it that we save them from capital punishment?  Or is it that we work and pray for their conversion and the salvation of their soul?  Of course the Holy Father makes an important point when discussing the centrality of the reformation of each individual criminal.  Now he believed that capital punishment denied the criminal the opportunity to reform his life, and hopefully to convert and be saved.  The problem with this is that for many criminals the prison system not only does not help to reform them and given them an opportunity for conversion, but instead buries them deeper in the darkness of evil.  Being sentenced to death, however, makes things very clear to a criminal that his days are numbered and the time for conversion is now, and if then remains obstinate in his sin then that is his choice to reject the grace of God which is always there.  This terrible punishment also is a great deterrent for other criminals.

Of course on the other hand the legal system in the United States is just as broken as the penal system.  Far too many men and women are falsely convicted and even sentenced to death for the crimes of others.  Still this does not make capital punishment intrinsically evil, or even sinful when legitimately implemented.

It is interesting to note that Pope Sixtus V actually decreed that those who perform abortions or sterilizations in the Papal States were to be punished with the death penalty.  This of course was when the Church still had the Papal States which covered most of central Italy and was ruled over by the Pope.  Sadly these lands given free to the Church by various Catholic Kings were stolen from the Church during the reign of Blessed Pope Pius IX in the late mid-19^th century.  And in fact according the Lateran Treaty of 1929 the death penalty is still in force in the Vatican City State.

This misunderstanding about the church’s teaching on this issue I believe is exemplified in these campaigns by Catholic communities to have letter writing sessions to the Governor of my home state to stay an execution that was soon to take place.  I could only see the stark contrast with what Saint Therese of Lisieux did when she heard that Pranzini was to be put to death.  She didn’t write the magistrate letters to stop the execution, but rather prayed for (and it would seem obtained) the conversion of the man.  Never once in these Catholic communities, however, was there any mention of praying for the soul of the condemned criminal we were exhorted to write letters to save his body.   And certainly if the intent was to stay the execution to obtain more time for the repentance of the criminal as Saint Thomas and Blessed Pope John Paul II speak about, then I think that would be most laudable, but it certainly did not seem to be the intent there.

I would like to conclude with a defense of the practice during the Inquisition in France and Spain in the 13^th-16^th centuries where in some cases the death penalty was applied. This defense is from Saint Robert Bellarmine who was declared a Doctor of the Church in 1931 by Pope Pius XI.  It is from his work De Laicis – On Government, and was translated from the original Latin by Fr. James Goodwin, S.J.:

Chapter XXI - Can Heretics Condemned by the Church Be Punished with Temporal Penalties and even with Death

John Huss, in the recorded article 14 of the Council of Constance, session 15, asserted that it is not permitted to hand over an incorrigible heretic to the secular power and to allow the penalty of burning. Luther held the same in article 33 and its assertion. Nor is the error new, for the Donatists also taught the same, like Parmenianus, Petilianus, and Gaudentius (as Augustine testifies, in Book I against the letter of Parmenianus, in Chapter 7, Book II against the Letters of Petilianus, in Chapter 10 of Book II, against the letter of Gaudentius, and in Chapters 17 and 26 of his Letter 50 to Boniface.)

All Catholics teach the contrary, and even some of the heretics. For Calvin, after he had publicly punished as a heretic Michael Servetus with the ultimate penalty, and after it was debated by other sectarians, published a book in which he demonstrates that it is permissible to take notice of heretics with a sword. Also Benedict Aretus, in a history of the punishment of Valentius Gentilis, argues that the same Gentilis was rightly punished by the Magistrate Bernensis. Theodore Beza, indeed, teaches the same, at greater length, in a book on the punishment of heretics by a magistrate.

We, then, will briefly show that incorrigible heretics, and especially recidivists, can and should be expelled by the Church and be punished by the secular powers with temporal punishments and even by death itself.

The first proof is from Scripture: The Scripture of the Old Testament (in Deuteronomy XIII, 12) commands most severely that false prophets who encourage the worship of false gods be put to death, and in Chapter XVII, after saying that in doubtful cases the High Priest should be consulted, soon adds: "If the person is haughty, however, and is unwilling to obey the command of the High Priest, let him die by the sentence of the judge. (Deuteronomy XVII, 12). And, again, in Chapter XVIII, the false prophet is sentenced to be killed. And, in reality, Elias (or Elijah), Josias (Josiah), Jehu, and others observed this law by killing a great many false prophets, as is clear from III Kings, XVIII, and IV Kings, X and XXIII, there is almost no difference between our heretics and the false prophets of those days. Nor did only the holy Kings and Prophets punish blasphemers with death, but even Nabuchodonosor [now more often spelled Nebuchadnezzar], as is said in Daniel III, promulgated an edict, that whoever should blaspheme the God of Daniel, that is, the true God, should be put to death and his home be destroyed; in the same edict, he performed a most worthy service to the True God, as St. Augustine remarks in his Epistle 50 and elsewhere. In the New Testament, in Matthew XVIII, we find that the Church can excommunicate and treat as aliens and tax-gatherers those who refuse to obey and to allow them to be treated by the secular powers as no longer children of the Church. We have, then, in Romans XIII, 4, that the secular power can punish criminals with sword: "It is not without purpose that the ruler carries a sword; he is God's servant, to inflict His avenging wrath upon the wrongdoer." From these two scriptural passages, it can be clearly inferred that it is permissible that heretics, who by the judgment of all are rebels against the Church and disturbers of public peace, be cut off from the Church and be punished with death by a secular judge.

Moreover, Christ and His Apostles have placed heretics in the same category as those matters that can be disposed of, without question, by fire and sword; for in Matthew VII the Lord says: "Be on your guard against false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but underneath are wolves on the prowl." In Acts 20: 29: "I know that when I am gone, savage wolves will come among you who will not spare the flock." It is certain that heretics ought to be known by the title of "wolves," as St. Ambrose explains in his commentary on the beginning of Chapter X of St. Luke. But ravenous wolves are killed for an excellent reason, if they cannot otherwise be driven away; for much more should be made of the lives of the sheep than of the deaths of wolves. Likewise, in John X, 1: "Truly, I assure you: Whoever does not enter the sheepfold through the gate but climbs in some other way is a thief and a marauder." Under the name of thief and marauder heretics are meant, and all subversives and founders of sects, as Chrysostom and Augustine explain; how thieves and marauders should be punished has been explained. Likewise, in II Timothy, II, heresy is compared to a cancer which is not cured by medications but should be excised with a knife, otherwise it will spread progressively and the whole body will be destroyed. Finally, Christ, in John, Chapter II, using a whip forces the merchants to leave the temple. Peter, in Acts V, killed Ananias and Sapphira because they had presumed to lie to the Holy Spirit; and Paul, in Acts XIII, vs. 6-12, struck with blindness the false prophet who was trying to keep Sergius Paulus, the Roman proconsular governor, from the Faith.

The matter is proved, secondly, from the sentences and laws of the Emperors which the Church regularly approved. The Emperor Constantine the First sent into exile Arius and some companions at the request of the Nicene Synod, as the author Sozomenus notes in Book I, Chapter 20 of his History; likewise, he imposed the penalty of death on the Donatists, as Augustine reports in Book I, in a letter opposed to Parmenianus, Chapter 7, and in Epistle 166, to the Donatists, wherein he enumerates many excellent Emperors who passed many very severe laws against the heretics, and only one, Julian the Apostate, favored heretics.

Then Theodosius, Valentinianus, Martianus, and other very religious Emperors passed laws against heretics by which, on occasion, they sought to punish by fines of pounds of gold, sometimes by confiscation of all their goods, sometimes by exile and scourging, sometimes by imposing the ultimate penalty, as is clear from "C. de hereticis, L. Nanichaeos, L. Ariani, L. Quicumque." by the last of these laws, which is one of Valentinian and Martian, all are to be put to death who attempt to teach perverse doctrine; those, also, who listen to these teachers are punished by fines of some pounds of gold. Justinian, as recorded by Paul the Deacon in Book XVI, by a promulgated law, banished all heretics beyond the boundaries of the entire Empire, while allowing three months for their conversion; later, the Emperor Michael, as is related in Book XXIV of the same Paul the Deacon, established the capital punishment for heretics.

A third proof is had in the laws of the Church: under the headings, "Ad abolendum," "Excommunicamus, extra de hereticis," and in "Sexto de hereticis" in the chapter ahead of it, the Church defines that incorrigible heretics are to be handed over to the secular power, so that they may be punished in a just manner. Likewise, the Council of Constance, in session XV, condemned the opinion of John Huss; and it handed over the same John and Jerome of Prague to the secular power, by whom the two were burned; finally, Leo the Tenth condemned the articles of Luther.

A fourth proof is had in the testimonies of the Fathers. Cyprian, in a book of exhortation on martyrdom, in Chapter 5, after he had recalled from Deuteronomy XIII, that pseudoprophets should be killed, he added, "If this was done under the Old Testament, much more should it be done under the New."

Jerome, in reference to the text in Galatians, Chapter 5, "A little yeast can effect the entire dough," (v. 9) says: "as soon as a spark appears, it should be extinguished, and yeast close to a batch should be removed; spoiled meat should be cut away, and a scabby animal should be driven from a sheepfold, lest the whole house, or mass, or body, or herd burn, be corrupted, spoil, or perish. Arius was one spark, but since he was not immediately extinguished, the whole earth was affected by his flame."

Augustine, in Book II of his Retractions, Chapter 5, and in Epistles 48 and 50, retracts what he had once thought, that heretics should not be forced to believe, and proves at length that it is very useful; he always rules out the punishment of death, not because he thought they did not deserve this, but both because he judged that this was unbecoming the gentleness of the Church and also because no imperial law was in existence, by which heretics were sentenced to death; for the Law, "Quicumque, C. de hereticis," was promulgated a little after the death of Augustine.

That, however, Augustine judged it to be just, if heretics were put to death, is beyond question; for, in Book I, in opposition to the letter of Parmenianus, in Chapter 7, he demonstrates that if the Donatists were punished by death, they would be justly so punished. And in tract 11, on John: "They kill souls, he says, and are afflicted in the body, those who bring about eternal deaths complain that they suffer temporal deaths," by which he says they falsely complain that they are killed by Emperors; nevertheless, even if this were true, they would be complaining unjustly. Finally, in his Letter 50, to Boniface, he writes that the Church does not want any heretic to be put to death: nevertheless, as the House of David could not enjoy peace unless Absalom were done away with and David was consoled by the peace of his realm in his grief over the death of his son: so when, from the laws of Emperors against heretics, the deaths of some follow, the sorrow of the maternal heart of the Church is assuaged by the deliverance of a multitude of people.

St. Leo, in Letter 91, to Turbius, Chapter 1: "Deservedly," he wrote, "our Fathers, in whose time this nefarious heresy broke out throughout the world, acted immediately to drive out the unholy madness from the universal Church; when, also, the Rulers of the world so detested this sacrilegious madness, that they destroyed its author and many of his disciples by the sword of public law; and this interference with Ecclesiastical lenience, which, although content with a judgment that fled from bloody punishments, was nevertheless helped by the severe laws of Christian Rulers, while they who fear corporal punishment sometimes revert to a spiritual remedy." Optatus Milevitanus, in Book III, in replying to the calumnies of heretics who were sorrowful over the death of two of theirs killed by the Prefect Macarius: "You see," he wrote, "that similar things were done by Moses, and Phineas, and Elias, and Macharia, because the punishment of the One God emanates from all of them."

St. Gregory, in Book I, Letter 72, to Gennadius, the Exarch of Africa, praises him because he persecuted heretics with weapons, and he urges him to continue.

St. Bernard in Sermon 66, on the Canticle: "They without doubt would be better coerced by the sword of him who, not without cause, carries the sword, than that they be allowed to draw many into their error; for he is a servant of the Lord and vindicator of wrath against him who does evil. Some marvel that they were not only patiently but joyfully led to death, but they scarcely recognize how great is the power of the Devil, not only over the bodies of men but even over their hearts, once he has been allowed to possess them. Is it not better for a man to take himself in hand, than for him willingly to accept force from another."

There is, finally, a proof from reason. First, heretics can be justly excommunicated, as all admit. Therefore, that they [may be] put to death. The consequence is proved from the fact that excommunication is a greater penalty than temporal death. Augustine, in Book I, contra advers. Legis et Prophetarum [against the adversaries of the Law and the Prophets], Chapter 17, says it is more terrible to be given over to Satan through excommunication, than to be struck down by the sword, be consumed by flames, or exposed to being devoured by animals.

Secondly, experience teaches that there is no other remedy; for the Church proceeded gradually, and tried all remedies; first, it fines, then exile, finally, it was driven to the penalty of death; for the heretics show contempt for excommunication and call them "cold thunderbolts;" if you threaten the penalty of fines, they neither fear God nor revere men, since they know that ignorant people will be found who will believe them and feed them. If you confine them to prison or send them into exile, they will corrupt their neighbors with their speech and those who are far away with their books. Therefore, there is only one remedy, send them timely to their place.

Thirdly, forgers, in the judgment of all, deserve death; but heretics are forgers of the Word of God.

Fourthly, by the reasoning of Augustine, in Letter 50, it is more serious for man to fail to keep faith with God, than for a women not to keep faith with a man, but this is punished by death, why not the former?

Fifthly, there are three reasons why, as reason teaches, men are to be put to death, as Galen eloquently teaches in a book whose title is: "That the habits of the soul imitate the temperaments of the body," toward the end of the book.

The first reason is, Lest the evil injure the good, or the innocent be abused by the injurious, in the judgment of all, all are to be executed who are guilty of homicide, adultery, or robbery. The second reason is: That, by the punishment of the few, the many may be corrected: and that those who are unwilling to help society by living may benefit it by dying. And hence, we also see that, in the opinion of all, certain most horrendous crimes are most justly punished by death, even though they do no injury to the neighbor, except by example: crimes like Necromancy, crimes that are abominable and contrary to nature are, therefore, most severely punished, in order that others may know they are monstrous crimes and should not dare to perpetrate the like. Thirdly, because to the very men who are killed it is beneficial to be killed, when, namely, they are becoming ever worse and it is not probable that they will ever revert to sanity of mind.

All these reasons are persuasive that heretics should be put to death; for, in the first place, they injure the neighbor more seriously than any pirate or robber, since they kill souls; even worse, they take away the foundation for all good and fill the state with the upheavals that inevitably result from the diversity of religions.