A Bible question!!

[Elok]

So it was merely a politcal view than it was a religious such. Fine, but that means that it doesn't nessecarily works that way today.

Huh? No, they had very distinct religious views (they were basically Gnostics). I'm just saying that the way things were back then, there was distinct overlap between the two--for example the divine right of kings. I don't quite understand your second sentence there; I sincerely hope it doesn't work that way today.

Further, it would be logical to look at the church as a political body with the implications that have (taxation, control etc).

Very true. Under such a structure, where's the line between religious deviance and rebellion? As Aquinas said, they didn't care so much if you thought the wrong things--but setting up your own church was the equivalent of secession/treason. I don't know what they did to traitors back then, but it probably was only marginally nicer than what they did to heretics. If at all. In closing, the High Middle Ages were a generally pretty ****ty time to live.

EDIT: Minor grammar and style points

[Elok]

What if Wiccan were the state religion and you had to be one or they executed you?

That would be bad, albeit IIUC a man can go to Catholic Mass regularly, receive all the sacraments, be buried with last rites and everything--and still be called a Wiccan. It seems to be a rather vague religion. I don't see where you're going with this.

[BlackCat]

Huh? No, they had very distinct religious views (they were basically Gnostics). I'm just saying that the way things were back then, there was distinct overlap between the two--for example the divine right of kings. I don't quite understand your second sentence there; I sincerely hope it doesn't work that way today.

I'm pretty sure that there were pretty serious political implications in the different religious ways.

My second point was that hopefully, politics today isn't based on religion. (yeah, I know that it isn't true, but it's a goal worth going for)

[Elok]

I'm pretty sure that there were pretty serious political implications in the different religious ways.

My second point was that hopefully, politics today isn't based on religion. (yeah, I know that it isn't true, but it's a goal worth going for)

I agree; it's a lot better for religion that way.

[Ben Kenobi]

It seems to me that he believed that the state and church, and even society as.a whole (maybe) is above the individual. Natural law doesn't protect the individual from that which is higher good.

Does he say this? Oddly no.

He states that rights are given to us by God, and that the state cannot take them away from us.

[Ben Kenobi]

Nikolai, please correct me if I have misunderstood that quote. I read it as if the church misses to convert an unbeliver, then they turn the subject to the state for execution so the church doesn't get blood on its hands. This has of course nothing to do with criminal priests that are sent to the civil courts to get their proper punishment.

Has everything to do with it.

To have this apply to you, you would have to do the following.

1. Be a baptised Christian.
2. Openly and persistantly reject the authority of the Catholic church.
3. Express this opinion.
4. Attempt to draw members of the Catholic church away from the church.
5. Reject Church discipline at least 3 times.
6. Receive excommunication.

Then, and only then would the heretic be sent to the secular authorities, by which they would determine his punishment. So really, there's no difference between what you are calling for to be done to Catholic priests, and what Aquinas is calling for here.

[BlackCat]

Very true. Under such a structure, where's the line between religious deviance and rebellion? As Aquinas said, they didn't care so much if you thought the wrong things--but setting up your own church was the equivalent of secession/treason. I don't know what they did to traitors back then, but it probably was only marginally nicer than what they did to heretics. If at all. In closing, the High Middle Ages were a generally pretty ****ty time to live.

EDIT: Minor grammar and style points

Yep, it was really a ****ty time if you were on the wrong side. If i'm not wrong, then you are somewhere in SA/Peru, so if you took a visit at some of the old spanish fortifications, you could get a glimse of the "accomodations". A visit to europe would be even scarier

[Ben Kenobi]

Very true. Under such a structure, where's the line between religious deviance and rebellion? As Aquinas said, they didn't care so much if you thought the wrong things--but setting up your own church was the equivalent of secession/treason. I don't know what they did to traitors back then, but it probably was only marginally nicer than what they did to heretics. If at all. In closing, the High Middle Ages were a generally pretty ****ty time to live.

Exactly so. The state doesn't let you set up your own state, does it?

[BlackCat]

Can anyone please explain why a secular court should have any interest in religious disputes ?

[Elok]

Why they should? No, at least not according to our notions of decency/propriety/whatever. But why they did? Tons of reasons.

[giblets]

Can anyone please explain why a secular court should have any interest in religious disputes ?

The church had political power and it was in their interest to have the state kill people who tried to undermine the church?

[Kidlicious]

The Church had more power than the states actually. It means very little that they turned jeretics over to the states.

[grumbler]

Do you think a Christian and a Muslim believe the same thing because they are part of the same generation?

No. Do you?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Exactly so. The state doesn't let you set up your own state, does it?

This presupposes that the Faith is exactly the same as a state, when, of course, it is not so (Jesus kind of harps on that).

[Ben Kenobi]

This presupposes that the Faith is exactly the same as a state, when, of course, it is not so (Jesus kind of harps on that).

Actually not the argument at all.

Aquinas makes the case that religious fraud is no different from state fraud. A state that punishes fraud with death would do so likewise with heretics.

If the church were exactly the same as the state, there would be no need to make this distinction between ecclesiastical and secular authority as Aquinas states.