OR “ENEMIES” BY ROME

CHAPTER IV: THOMISM: A THEOLOGY OF DEATH FOR THOSE LABELED “HERETICS” OR “ENEMIES” BY ROME

“In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother...Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew [murdered] his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous. Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you. We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in [spiritual] death. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.” – the apostle John (1 John 3:10-15 KJV)

Next, we will consider the TEACHINGS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH KNOWN AS “THOMISM” WHICH HAVE FOR CENTURIES INCITED PERSECUTIONS AND MURDERS DIRECTED TOWARD THOSE WHO CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE HER FALSE DOCTRINES. The following excerpts are from: ST. THOMAS AQUINAS SUMMA THEOLOGICA COMPLETE ENGLISH EDITION IN FIVE VOLUMES, VOLUME THREE IIa IIae 1-148, Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province, (New York, NY, Benziger Bros.), 1948, pp. 1218-1224 *It must be noted that Thomas Aquinas, a thirteenth century Roman Catholic Dominican priest, is considered by the Roman Catholic church to be its greatest theologian and philosopher. In Roman Catholicism his writings are very influential. For centuries, he has been praised by the popes, and is regarded as the master and patron of Catholic schools. In Roman Catholicism, Thomas Aquinas is regarded as the model teacher for those studying for the priesthood. Let us examine closely what Roman Catholic priests and lay people have been taught for centuries:

“QUESTION 11 Of Heresy (In Four Articles)...(3) Whether heretics should be

tolerated?...THIRD ARTICLE Whether Heretics Ought to Be Tolerated?...On the contrary, The Apostle says (Tit. Iii, 10, 11): A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted. I answer that, With regard to heretics two

points must be observed: one, on their own side, the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even be put to death.

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but after the first and second admonition, as

52

the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated

thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. v. 9, A little leaven, says: Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame.

Reply Obj. 1. This very modesty demands that the heretic should be admonished a first and second time: and if he be unwilling to retract, he must be reckoned as already sub-verted, as we may gather from the words of the Apostle quoted above.

Reply Obj. 2. The profit that ensues from heresy is beside the intention of heretics, for it consists in the constancy of the faithful being put to the test, and makes us shake off our sluggishness, and search the Scriptures more carefully, as Augustine states (De Gen. Cont. Manich. i. 1). What they really intend is the corruption of the faith, which is to inflict very great harm indeed. Consequently we should consider what they directly intend, and expel them, rather than what is beside their inten-tion, and so, tolerate them.

Reply Obj. 3. According to Decret. xxiv. (qu. iii, can. Notandum), to be excommunicated is not to be uprooted. A man is excommunicated, as the Apostle says (I Cor. V. 5) that his spirit may be saved in the day of Our Lord. Yet if heretics be altogether uprooted by death, this is not contrary to Our Lord’s command, which is to be understood as refer-ring to the case when the cockle cannot be plucked up without plucking up the wheat, as we explained above (Q. 10, A. 8, ad 1), when treating of unbelievers in general.

FOURTH ARTICLE Whether the Church Should Receive Those Who Return from Heresy?...The other good is that which charity considers secondarily, viz. temporal good, such as life of the body, worldly possessions, good repute, ecclesiastical or secular dignity, for we are not bound by charity to wish others this good, except in relation to the eternal salvation of them and of others. Hence if the presence of one of these goods in one individual might be an obstacle to eternal salvation in many, we are not bound out of charity to wish such a good to that person, rather should we desire him to be without it, both because eternal salvation takes precedence of temporal good, and because the good of the many is to be preferred to the good of the one. Now if the heretics were always received on their return, in order to save their lives and other temporal goods, this might be prejudicial to the salvation of others if they relapsed again, and because, if they escaped without punishment, others would

feel more assured in lapsing into heresy. For it is written, (Eccles. Viii. 11): For because sentence is not speedily pronounced against the evil, the children of men commit evils without any fear.

For this reason the Church not only admits to Penance those who return from heresy for the first time, but also safeguards their lives, and sometimes by dispensation, restores them to the ecclesiastical dignities which they may have had before, should their conversion appear to be sincere: we read of this as having frequently been done for the good of peace. But when they fall

again, after having been received, this seems to prove them to be inconstant in faith, wherefore when they return again, they are admitted to Penance, but are not delivered from the pain of death.

53

Reply Obj. 1. In God’s tribunal, those who return are always received, because God is a searcher of hearts, and knows those who re-turn in sincerity. But the Church cannot imitate God in this, for

she presumes that those who relapse after being once received, are not sincere in their return; hence she does not debar them from the way of salvation, but neither does she protect them from the sentence of death...

QUESTION 12 Of Apostasy (In Two Articles)...SECOND ARTICLE Whether a Prince Forfeits His Dominion over His Subjects, on Account of Apostasy from the Faith, So That They No Longer Owe Him Allegiance?...On the contrary, Gregory VII says (Concil. Roman, v) : Holding to the institutions of our holy predecessors, we, by our apostolic authority, absolve from their oath those who through loyalty or through the sacred bond of an oath owe allegiance to excommunicated persons: and we absolutely forbid them to continue their allegiance to such persons, until these shall have made amends. Now apostates from the faith, like heretics, are excommunicated, according to the Decretal.* Therefore princes should not be obeyed when they have apostatized from the faith. I answer that, As stated above (Q. 10, A. 10), unbelief, in itself, is not inconsistent with dominion, since dominion is a device of the law of nations which is a human law: whereas the distinction between believers and unbelievers is of Divine right, which does not annul human right. Nevertheless a man who sins by unbelief may be sentenced to the loss of his right of dominion, as also, sometimes, on the account of other sins.

Now it is not within the competency of the Church to punish unbelief in those who have never received the faith, according to the saying of the Apostle (I Cor. v. 12): What have I to do to judge them that are without? She can, however, pass sentence of punishment on the unbelief of those

who have received the faith: and it is fitting that they should be punished by being deprived of the allegiance of their subjects: for this same allegiance might conduce to great corruption of the faith, since, as was stated above (A. 1, Obj. 2), a man that is an apostate...with a wicked heart deviseth evil, and ...soweth discord, in order to sever others from the faith. Consequently, as soon as sentence of excommunication is passed on a man on account of apostasy from the faith, his subjects are ipso facto absolved from his authority and the oath of allegiance whereby they were bound to him...” (70)

[How perverse are these teachings of Thomas Aquinas! They are the exact opposite of the teachings of Christ Jesus and His true apostles. And what about obedience to these verses of Scriptures that clearly reveal God’s will regarding how to treat people labeled as heretics by the Roman Catholic religion? What does God’s Word teach? In Romans 13:8-10 how are Christians instructed to treat others by the apostle Paul? “Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his

54

neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”]

The previous excerpts in English will now be presented in Latin from: S. THOMAE AQUINATIS SUMMA THEOLOGICA, TOMUS QUARTUS SECUNDA SECUNDAE: I-XCI, DILIGENTER EMENDATA NICOLAI, SYLVII, BILLUART, ET C.-J. DRIOUX, NOTIS ORNATA, IN LIBRARIIS CONSOCIATIONIS SANCTI PAULI, PARISIIS, 6, VIA DICTA CASSETTE, BARRIDUCIS, VIA DICTA DE LA BANQUE, 36, FRIBURGI HELV., VIA DICTA GRAND’RUE, 13, TRAJECTI AD MOSAM, 1885), pp. INDEX II, 88-94 “...DE VITIIS OPPOSITIS FIDEI QUANTUM AD HAERESIM. – Quaestio 11...- haeretici sint tolerandi...ARTICULUS III. – UTRUM HAERETICI SINT TOLERANDI. De his etiam Sent. IV, dist. 13, quaest. II, art. 1 corp. et quodl. X, art. 15...Sed contra est quod Apostolus dicit (Tit. III, 10): Haereticum hominem post primam et secundam correptionem devita, sciens quia subversus est qui hujusmodi est.

CONCLUSIO. – Quanquam haeretici tolerandi non sunt ipso illorum demerito, usque tamen ad secundam correptionem expectandi sunt, ut ad sanam redeant Ec-clesiae fidem; qui vero post secundam correptionem in suo errore obstinati perma-nent, non modo excommunicationis sententia, sed etiam saecularibus principibus exterminandi, tradendi sunt.

Respondeo dicendum quod circa haereticos duo sunt consideranda : unum quidem ex parte ipsorum, aliud vero ex parte Ecclesiae. Ex parte quidem ipsorum est peccatum, per quod meruerunt non solum ab Ecclesia per excommunicationem separari, sed etiam per mortem a mundo excludi. Multo enim gravius est corrumpere fidem, per quam est animae vita, quam falsare pecuniam, per quam temporali vitae subvenitur. Unde si falsarii pecuniae vel alii malefactores statim per saeculares principes juste morti traduntur, multo magis haeretici statim ex quo de haeresi convincuntur, possunt non solum excommunicari, sed et juste occidi. – Ex parte autem Ecclesiae est misericordia ad errantium conversionem ; et ideo non statim condemnat, sed post primam et secundam correptionem, ut Apostolus docet ; postmodum vero si adhuc pertinax inveniatur, Ecclesia de ejus con-versione non sperans, aliorum saluti providet, eum ab Ecclesia separando per ecommunicationis sententiam ; et ulterius relinquit eum judicio sae-culari a mundo exterminandum per mortum. Dicit enim Hieronymus (sup. Illud Galat. V, Modicum fermentum, et habetur 24, quaest. III, cap. 16) : “Resecandae sunt putridae carnes, et scabiosa ovis a caulis repellenda, ne tota domus, massa, corpus, et pecora ardeant, corrumpantur, putres-cant, intereant. Arius in Alexandria una scintilla fuit ; sed quoniam non statim oppressus est, totum orbem ejus flamma populata est.”

Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod ad modestiam illam pertinet ut primo et secundo corripiatur; quod si redire noluerit, jam pro subverso habetur; ut patet in auctoritate Apostoli inducta (in arg. Sed cont.).

Ad secundum dicendum, quod utilitas quae ex haeresibus provenit, est praeter intentionem haereticorum, dum scilicet constantia fidelium com-probatur, ut Apostolus dicit ; et “ut excutiamus pigritiam, divinas Scrip-turas sollicitius intuentes,” sicut Augustinus dicit (De Gen. cont. Manich. Lib. I, cap. 1, circa med.). Sed ex intentione eorum est corrumpere fidem, quod est maximi nocumenti. Et ideo magis respiciendum est ad id quod est per se de eorum intentione ut excludantur, quam ad hoc quod est praeter eorum intentionem ut sustineantur.

Ad tertium dicendum, quod sicut habetur (Decr. 24, quaest. III, cap. Netandum), “aliud est excommunicatio, et aliud eradicatio.” Excommunicatur enim ad hoc aliquis, ut ait Apostolus (I

55

Cor. v, 5), ut spiritus ejus salvus fiat in die Domini. Si tamen totaliter eradicentur per mortem haeretici, non est etiam contra mandatum Domini; quod est in eo casu intelligendum, quando non possunt extirpari zizania sine extirpatione tritici, ut supra dictum est (quaest. praec. art. 8, arg. 1), cum de infidelibus in communi ageretur...

QUAESTIO XII. DE APOSTASIA, IN DUOS ARTICULOS DIVISA...2. Utrum propter apostasiam a fide subditi absolvantur a dominio praesidentium apostatarum...ARTICULUS II. – UTRUM PRINCEPS PROPTER APOSTASIAM A FIDE AMITTAT DOMINIUM IN SUBDITOS, ITA QUOD EI OBEDIRE NON TENEANTUR...Sed contra est quod Gregorius VII dicit (ut habetur caus. 4, 15, quaest. VI): “Nos sanctorum praedecessorum statuta tenentes, eos qui excommunica-tis fidelitate aut juramenti sacramanto sunt constricti, apostolica auctori-tate a sacramento absolvimus; et ne eis fidelitatem observent, omnibus modis prohibemus, quousque ad satisfactionem veniant.” Sed apostatae a fide sunt excommunicati, sicut et haeretici, ut dicit Decretalis (extra, De haereticis, cap. Ad abolendam). Ergo principibus apostatantibus a fide non est obediendum.

CONCLUSIO. - Quum quis per sententiam denuntiatur propter apostasiam excommunicatus, ipso facto, ejus subditi a dominio et juramento fideliatis ejus liberati sunt. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est (quaest. X, art. 10), infidelitas secundum seipsam non repugnat dominio : eo quod dominium introductum est de jure gentium, quod est jus humanum; distinctio autem fidelium et infidelium est secundum jus divinum, per quod non tollitur jus humanum. Sed aliquis per infidelitatem peccans potest sententialiter jus dominii amittere, sicut etiam quandoque propter alias culpas. Ad Eccle-siam autem non pertinet punire infidelitatem in illis qui nunquam fidem susceperunt, secundum illud Apostoli (I. Corinth. V, 12) : Quid mihi de his qui foris sunt judicare? Sed infidelitatem illorum qui fidem suscepe-runt, potest sententialiter punire; et convenienter in hoc puniutur quod subditis fidelibus dominari non possint; hoc enim vergere posset in ma-gnam fidei corruptionem ; quia, ut dictum est (art. praec. Arg. 2), “homo apostata pravo corde machinatur malum, et jurgia seminat,” intendens homines separare a fide. Et ideo quam cito aliquis per sententiam denun-tiatur excommunicatus propter apostasiam a fide, ipso facto ejus subditi sunt absoluti a dominio ejus et juramento fidelitatis, quo ei tenebantur...” (71)