Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 01-04-2009, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

FYI, no one branded a "heretic" in the first five centuries of Christianity was ever executed for their teachings or their doctrinal stance. At worst, some were deposed from positions of importance in the church, and a number were forced to abandon the areas in which they had the most followers and influence. But none deemed "heretic" by "the orthodox" were ever out to death.

Dear Jeffrey,

Was Hypatia considered a heretic by Cyril?

Best wishes,

Pete

Toto · 01-04-2009, 05:17 PM

Hypatia was a pagan, not a heretic. You have to think of yourself as a Christian before you can be accused of heresy.

mountainman · 01-04-2009, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Hypatia was a pagan, not a heretic. You have to think of yourself as a Christian before you can be accused of heresy.

Dear Toto,

Jeffrey's statement verges on an apologetic style (looking at the 4th and 5th century christians as "the goodies") which is directly in contrast to the socio-political turmoil of the roman empire during the late fourth century and early fifth, and the role the christians enacted therein, characterised by persecution and intolerance. What about the "lese-majesty" laws (literally "against the majesty of the christian emperor) described by Ammianus, which viewed the emperor's views as absolute. To hold a view different from the christian emperor might well invoke the accusation of treason, to be stripped of citizenship and then tortured as a non-citizen. Antics with semantics. Have a look at the laws against pagans in the Theodosian codex.

Best wishes,

Pete

Toto · 01-04-2009, 07:41 PM

The Catholic Encyclopedia By Charles George Herbermann is available on Google Books and is out of copyright. In the section on "Tolerance" at p. 768 it is claimed:

Quote:

. . . After the Christianized Roman Empire had developed into a theocratic (religious) State, it was compelled to stamp crimes against faith (apostasy, heresy, schism) as offences against the State (cf. Cod. Justin., I, 5, de haeг.: "Quod in religionem divinam committitur, in omnium fertur injuriam"). Catholic and citizen of the State became identical terms. Consequently, crimes against, faith were high treason, and as such were punishable with death. This was the universal opinion in the Middle Apes. This idea of the execution of heretics had not the slightest connexion with the essence of the Church or her constitution, and to the primitive Church such a penalty was unknown. St. Cyprian (d. 258) disapproved of all external means of coercion, such as were customary in the Old Testament, and claimed for the New Testament as "spiritual weapon" (spiritualis gladius) excommunication, which was worse than death. The earliest example of the execution of a heretic was the beheading of the ringleader of the Priscillianists by the usurper Maximus at Trier (385); this called forth a protest from St. Martin of Tours, St. Ambrose, and Pope Siricius (cf. Histor. polit. Blätter, XC, 1890, pp. 330 sqq.). Even St. Augustine, who towards the end of his life favoured state reprisals against the Donatists, always opposed the execution of heretics (cf. Ер. с [alias cxxvü): "Corrigi eos cupimus, non pécari"). During the long dominion of the Merovingians and Carlovingians, heresy was never regarded as a civil crime, and was chastised with no civil penalty. A change came only in the eleventh century, . . . Influenced by the Roman code, which was rescued from oblivion, the Hohenstaufen emperor, Frederick II, who was anything but a warm supporter of the papacy, introduced the penalty of burning for heretics by imperial law of 1224 (cf. Monum. Germ., IV Leg., II, 326 sqq.). The popes, especially Gregory IX (d. 1241); favoured the execution of this imperial law, in which they saw an effective means not alone for the protection of the State, but also for the preservation of the Faith. .`.`.

Now this is a real apologetic source, so you can take some parts with a grain of salt. But you can see that the popular image of the heretic being burned at the stake belongs in a later period of history (see this thread on Pope Paul IV.)

Earlier heretics were more likely to be exiled and excommunicated, which, it was claimed, was a fate worse than death.

Toto · 01-04-2009, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...May we consider Arius and two others were anathematized? ...

Pete: does the internet in Australia allow you to search for information?

Online Dictionary

Quote:

Verb 1. anathematize - curse or declare to be evil or anathema or threaten with divine punishment

Catholic Encyclopedia

Quote:

In the New Testament anathema no longer entails death, but the loss of goods or exclusion from the society of the faithful.

. . . although during the first centuries the anathema did not seem to differ from the sentence of excommunication, beginning with the sixth century a distinction was made between the two.

What was your point here?

mountainman · 01-05-2009, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...May we consider Arius and two others were anathematized? ...

Pete: does the internet in Australia allow you to search for information?

Online Dictionary

Catholic Encyclopedia

Quote:

In the New Testament anathema no longer entails death, but the loss of goods or exclusion from the society of the faithful.

. . . although during the first centuries the anathema did not seem to differ from the sentence of excommunication, beginning with the sixth century a distinction was made between the two.

What was your point here?

Dear Toto,

In relation to a statement about the 2 or 3 dissenters at Council of Nicaea, Jeffrey asked the question

Quote:

Can you point me to what sources you found in your research that speak of them being "excommunicated".

.

My point was that the answer to that question is in the Nicaean "creed" or "oath" itself, stating the terms of disagreement with the orthodox. The penalty for disagreement was stated to be "anathematization" which according to your source above, in the fourth century, was equivalent to excommunication.

Best wishes,

Pete

Roger Pearse · 01-06-2009, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Hathaway

At the first Council of Nicea, if I recall the story correctly, there was an 'opposition' to one of the theological fine points. The opposition had been whittled down from dozens to just 2. The vote was 245 (or so) to 2, but had to be unanimous. After a month of discussion the two were excommunicated and executed for heresy (the Arian heresy of believing that God was superior to Jesus -- of a different substance -- Jesus being a created being, created by God) yielding the necessary unanimity.

There are a great number of fanciful stories doing the rounds about the events at Nicaea, and it sounds as if you've been taken in by a couple (in good faith, I'm sure). Books like the Da Vinci Code have a lot to answer for. I got fed up some years ago, and collected all the primary sources here.

There are no indications of votes such as 245 -- we don't actually have the acts of Nicaea, you see. Two bishops refused to accept the Nicene formula; Constantine exiled them after the council.

No-one was executed, tho -- very anachronistic at this time. The first such was Priscillian, 50 years later, after the state religion had become "Christianity" -- and everyone at the time was shocked, and St. Martin of Tours protested about it. All power tends to corrupt... Exile was a mild punishment -- look at the Theodosian Code --, and even then the two were allowed to return after a bit.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

George S · 01-06-2009, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

There are a great number of fanciful stories doing the rounds about the events at Nicaea, and it sounds as if you've been taken in by a couple (in good faith, I'm sure). Books like the Da Vinci Code have a lot to answer for. I got fed up some years ago, and collected all the primary sources here.

There are no indications of votes such as 245 -- we don't actually have the acts of Nicaea, you see. Two bishops refused to accept the Nicene formula; Constantine exiled them after the council.

No-one was executed, tho -- very anachronistic at this time. The first such was Priscillian, 50 years later, after the state religion had become "Christianity" -- and everyone at the time was shocked, and St. Martin of Tours protested about it. All power tends to corrupt... Exile was a mild punishment -- look at the Theodosian Code --, and even then the two were allowed to return after a bit.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

And I was taken in by a fanciful story that I had read. My error was previously pointed out. I have gone back and edited my original in case someone else stumbles upon it.

spin · 01-06-2009, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

None of this says or suggest that Eusebius and the two Egyptians mentioned were excommunicated at Nicea, does it?. Exiled, yes. But not excommunicated?

As I understand it, three people (Theodotus of the Laodicean church, Narcissus of the church in Neronia, and Eusebius from the church in Caesarea of Palestine) were specifically excommunicated at the Synod of Antioch some months before Nicea.

In fact, from what they were asked and what they asked in turn, they clearly were proven to agree completely with Arius’s party, and to hold opinions contrary to what was established by our synod. For this reason, that their hearts are so hardened, and that they have no regard for the holy synod which rejected and disapproved of their ideas in these matters, we all fellow-ministers in the synod have ruled not to practice fellowship with these men, not to consider them worthy of fellowship, since their faith is something other than that of the catholic church. from here

At least Eusebius was at Nicea, something must have happened, eg some dispensation from Constantine in an effort of conciliation.

spin

Roger Pearse · 01-06-2009, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Hathaway

And I was taken in by a fanciful story that I had read. My error was previously pointed out. I have gone back and edited my original in case someone else stumbles upon it.

It happens to us all. I just wish that there was some way to stop these bits of rubbish going around; some way, that is, that wasn't worse than the disease.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-04-2009, 05:17 PM	#12
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Hypatia was a pagan, not a heretic. You have to think of yourself as a Christian before you can be accused of heresy.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.