Borromeo, who oversaw the volume, said that while there were some 125,000 trials of suspected heretics in Spain, researchers found that about 1 percent of the defendants were executed.
In Portugal, 5.7 percent of the more than 13,000 people tried before church tribunals in the 16th and early 17th century were condemned to death, he said. In many cases, courts ordered mannequins to be burned when the condemned escaped capture.
msnbc.msn.com/id/5218373/Many of the executions during the centuries spanned by the Inquisition were carried out by non-church tribunals — including witch hunts in Protestant countries, Borromeo said.
First, even one death is wrong. I find number of deaths argument totally irrelevant. One abortion does not make abortion any less evil than a thousand abortions.Does anyone know of any valid websites which accurately account for the number of individuals killed during the Inquisitions?
Catholic Answers has a tract which denies the claim: “95 million people died during the Inquisition”, but no where states what the actual statistic was.
In one sense, I understand your sentiment. On the other hand, quoting numbers can signify the degree of atrocity committed.First, even one death is wrong. I find number of deaths argument totally irrelevant. One abortion does not make abortion any less evil than a thousand abortions.
I agree with you in general: if one person was unjustly condemned, that is a travesty of justice and should be decried.First, even one death is wrong. I find number of deaths argument totally irrelevant. One abortion does not make abortion any less evil than a thousand abortions.
You’re right! And I have talked to many Catholics teachers and pastors who have said exactly that. Most Catholics are ashamed of what happened during the inquisition.The best Catholic response to the inquisition would be “yes we did it, we were wrong, and we don’t do it any more (and oh BTW the reformed did it also)”.
You might want to read PhilVaz’s other article on whether the Albigenses were Anabaptists(modern baptists claim the Albigenses as their descendands. This is a gross misrepresentation of history.)As PhilVas mentioned, the Albigenses were targeted (who were “anabaptists”, along with the Donatists, Waldensians, Paulicians, and many others. These groups of “nonCatholics” were around long before any Protestant Reformation, and their theology matched almost identically with the “Baptists” of today.
I am guessing you are one of the landmark baptists that claim a connection to the early church through the albigences, waldenses, and other heretics. Please do a little studying and you will see that those who were called ‘anabaptist’ before the reformation have no connection to the baptists. Baptists date back to the sixteenth century, and no earlier.BTW: the name “Baptist” is a shortened version of the scornful name “anabaptist”. We call ourselves Baptists today only because that is what we have been known as. We would rather call ourselves “baptized believers”.
This has been dismissed as an erroneous figure. If it were true, then virtually the entire population of Europe would have been wiped out.Catholic Answers has a tract which denies the claim: “95 million people died during the Inquisition”, but no where states what the actual statistic was.
Just to put the absurdity of the 95 million figure in perspective, the Black Plague killed 25 million people in Europe, and it changed European history forever, and the evidence for these figures is massive. Are we to believe that the Inquisition killed 4 times as many people with no evidence that it ever happened? For nobody, not one person, can point to legitimate historical evidence for a figure of 95 million, or 100 million, or 60 million, or any of the other preposterous figures that anti-Catholics throw around.This has been dismissed as an erroneous figure. If it were true, then virtually the entire population of Europe would have been wiped out.
Are you referring to The Vale Olchan, The Bohemians of the Hercynian Forest, Balthasar Hubmaier, Menno Simons, The Vaudois, Barthelemy Hector, Felix Manz (evidence of Baptist distinctives in 1521 but martyred in 1527 for not joining Zwingli’s protestantism), or Joan Boucher? None of which were Protestants, nor had they been influenced with the reformation, but had their background in the several Anabaptist groups which existed before the 16th century.Please do a little studying and you will see that those who were called ‘anabaptist’ before the reformation have no connection to the baptists. Baptists date back to the sixteenth century, and no earlier.
Or a Protestant (not Baptist) historian…“Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers.” (Hosius, Letters, Apua Opera, pp. 112, 113) Cardinal Hosius (Catholic; President of the Council of Trent) 1524
But of course no one is denying that the Anabaptists have existed before the 16th century. The question is… is there a connection between the Baptists of today, and the Anabaptists of yester-century.“Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay concealed in almost all the countries of Europe, particularly in Bohemia, Monrovia, Switzerland, and Germany, many persons who adhered tenaciously to the doctrine, etc., which is the true source of all the peculiarities that are to be found in the religious doctrine and discipline of the Anabaptists.” (Mosheim’s History of the Anabaptists, pp. 490, 491) Mosheim (Lutheran)
McGoldrick is asserting that certain groups of Anabaptists did have certain Baptismic distinctives, and “sometimes promoted doctrines and standards agreeable to modern Baptists”, but “not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist Church”, because they did not agree completely on all points of doctrine I suspect. But then PhilVac strays from McGoldrick’s argument to state…“It is the purpose of this book to show that, although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the seventeenth century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the Reformers.” (ibid, page 2)
The argument isn’t that there were differences… the argument lies in whether or not these so-called heretical Anabaptist groups embraced the distinctives listed above.There are many differences between the 16th century radical anabaptists attacked by Luther and Calvin, and the original baptists of the early 17th century (early 1600s).
Where does that quote indicate that the anabaptists of the 12th century have any connection to the baptists of today? Anabaptist just means re-baptizers.Or a Protestant (not Baptist) historian…
Do you honestly believe that? That takes a complete denial of rational thinking and it takes a great deal of blind faith. And this is reason to think that baptists are controled by satan.Baptists (in distinctive), have not kept stringent records througout the past 2000 years because our “Christianity” is validated biblically.
So aparently the apostles couldn’t have been baptists since none of the individual churches were seperate from them.
- Catholics view their existence as a continual existence through the Authoritative heirarchy of Popes and Bishops. Protestants refer back to Rome for their history. But, Baptists have no such continual existence can be traced because one distinctive of a “Baptist” is “independent Churches”. There is no appointment of churches or parishes, or succession of Bishops because each individual church exists independently with Christ as their Head, and refer to the doctrinal foundation of the 12 Apostles.
The Paulicians and Albigensians were in no way similar to the Baptists of today. They were Manichaean Dualists who believed that the earth (and the Old Testament) had been created by the counter-God Satan. You are so way-off on this one it is unbelievable!Mozart-250, you wrote…
As PhilVas mentioned, the Albigenses were targeted (who were “anabaptists”, along with the Donatists, Waldensians, Paulicians, and many others. These groups of “nonCatholics” were around long before any Protestant Reformation, and their theology matched almost identically with the “Baptists” of today.
"With all that said though… The Catholic Church still endorses the Inquisition and the persecution of heretics. I have proven that statement in an article I have written called…
That is why I mentioned “The Key of Truth”, a book that proved the Paulicians of 660 were not Manichaeans but held beliefs very similar to Baptists of today.The Paulicians and Albigensians were in no way similar to the Baptists of today. They were Manichaean Dualists who believed that the earth (and the Old Testament) had been created by the counter-God Satan. You are so way-off on this one it is unbelievable!
It is amazing how baptists and seventh day adventists will believe anything they read on the internet. Like this quote which you gave;
“Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers.” (Hosius, Letters, Apua Opera, pp. 112, 113) Cardinal Hosius (Catholic; President of the Council of Trent) 1524
So you reference some guy… from an internet website? Why should I believe him rather than J.M. Carroll? Do you have any information on Sean Hyland… can you verify he can interpret latin?The funny thing about this quote is that it doae not exist. The complete writings of Cardinal Hosius have been searched and that is not present in them. Here is a response to this quote.
My source is just as credible as your source. Until I see the actual source for this quote I will trust mine since mine fits the rest of the history of Christianity rather than some conspiracy that has no support.So you reference some guy… from an internet website? Why should I believe him rather than J.M. Carroll? Do you have any information on Sean Hyland… can you verify he can interpret latin?
This article could very well contain lies, or discursive truths to discredit the Baptists like the article I have refuted and proven untruthful here. "Are Catholics Born Again".
John
www.gideonsword.net
learn what Catholics teach about baptism.The “transformation” that this author is referring to is understood by Catholic teachers to be a metaphorical transformation, this is not a true transformation.
Your conspiracy theories are rediculous.The purpose of this article is two-fold; first, to convince non-Catholics (evangelicals) who truly are born-again, that Catholics also experience the “new birth”, but by a different system of events. Secondly, this article purposes to convince Catholics that they truly did experience a “new-birth”, when in fact what they experienced at their baptism and confirmation was nothing (spiritually).
So when they deny the Trinity do you agree with them?That is why I mentioned “The Key of Truth”, a book that proved the Paulicians of 660 were not Manichaeans but held beliefs very similar to Baptists of today.
John
www.gideonsword.net