Crusades, Inquisition, Jews

[bobzills]

The blatant lies in this are so numerous I’m not going to waste my time refuting them individually. This farrago of nonsense invented by Dutch and English protestants has been thoroughly discredited by modern historians.

I think that I recall a previous Catholic poster had recommended the book by Henry Kamen on the Spanish Inquisition as one which presented a fair and balanced view of the Inquisition. Apparently, this poster is calling Mr. Kamen a liar, since the quote and most of the information is taken directly from his book on the Inquisition. See for example, page 191 of the book. The poster is indulging in more appeal to bluff and bravado as he gives a blanket statement without any real refutation of the facts. The readers here can verify on page 191 of the book, if this poor lady was tortured for not eating pork and was not informed of the charge against her and if her statements were given exactly as I have given them I agree that this is a most embarrassing situation for someone to be hideously tortured in such a way and required to confess her offense of not eating pork, although she is not told what she is being accused of.
The tortures mentioned by Mr. Kamen in his book, ( a book judged to be fair to the Catholic view), are basically:

1. the garrucha, which involved being hung by the wrists from a pulley on the ceiling, and having heavy weights attached to the feet. The accused was then raised slowly and suddenly allowed to fall with a jerk. This dislocated his arms and legs in many cases and caused permanent damage.
2. the water torture according to which the accused was tied up and water was forced in his mouth which was forcibly held open.
3. the potro, according to which the accused was bound tightly on a rack by sharp cords, two on each arm and two on each leg, which were tightened resulting in the cords biting into the body. (see page 190 of the book).
   The records are full of torture being employed on the unsupported testimony of a single witness.

 

[Unitas]

My statement stands that Greek Orthodox were targeted by the Inquisition.

The statement by itself stands, but the context in which you first said it as well as it’s relevence to your argument has been blown away:

You said in post #323

Despite the ad hominem arguments, sarcasm and misdirection we see here, the fact is that the inquisitors tortured people to extract confessions and that torture was allowed by a papal decree. This involved several horrific methods of torture, one of which was to hang people by their wrists, slowly pull them up and then suddenly let them go in a jerk, which resulted in excruciating pain and their limbs being dislocated. There were other forms of torture also, such as waterboarding methods to simulate the sensation of drowning. People were brought before the inquisition for allegations of crimes such as being a Greek Orthodox Christian.

This was an obvious attempt to attribute such tortures perpetrated against Greek Orthodox christians in Siciliy, southern Italy, and Venice (From your post #327) to being allowed by papal mandate.

I then said that those persecutions you mentioned above were under the spanish inquisition who opperated without approval by the Holy See. They had no such papal mandate as you first accused. They were acting outside the scope of the Church, so your attempt to malign the Church by leveling this accusation against it is thoroughly refuted.

Now you’re just trying to do some damage control, and it’s obvious. But instead of concede the point, You will probably drop it like it’s hot and move on to something else, pretending the preceding never happened.

You’re right that your comment still makes sense, but since it cannot be attributed to the Church, which has been the entire drive of your posts, your point is moot. It’s dead weight.

 

[Unitas]

St. Mark’s in Venice is one such Church, where booty has remained for 800 years.

:crying:

Would Jesus make a stink over 8-century old booty?

Is it integral to anyone’s salvation?

Then why worry about it? It’s not like you can take it with you.

 

[bobzills]

The blatant lies in this are so numerous I’m not going to waste my time refuting them individually. This farrago of nonsense invented by Dutch and English protestants has been thoroughly discredited by modern historians.

I did finally track down the reference to the book by Henry Kamen:

1. See post #7, where epostle recommends the link:
   catholic.net/RCC/Periodic…6/column1.html
2. When you are there, read the article on catholic.net by the Catholic James Hitchcock, where he recommends the book by Henry Kamen (and others) as giving a “careful, relatively precise, and on the whole rather moderate image of the institution…”
   I agree that the use of torture as outlined in the book by Kamen and used to extort confessions, as we see in the case of this poor lady, who seems all to ready to confess, but is not sure what she should confess to, is pretty hideous, horrific and shocking beyond words. But the quote is taken from the book by Kamen, which, according to Hitchcock gives a “careful, relatively precise, and on the whole rather moderate image of the institution…”

 

[bobzills]

:crying:

Would Jesus make a stink over 8-century old booty?

Is it integral to anyone’s salvation?

Then why worry about it? It’s not like you can take it with you.

Why worry about it? Because I thought that according to Catholic teaching, restitution is supposed to be made in the case of stolen items?

 

[Unitas]

Why worry about it? Because I thought that according to Catholic teaching, restitution is supposed to be made in the case of stolen items?

Does that justify you harping on it for the last few pages of posts?

What it really shows is an unwillingness to let it go. I’ve had many, many things, valuable things (at least to me) stolen from me. I’ve let it go and it’s not going to bother me in the future, let alone 8 centuries from now.

If that’s all you have to level against the Church then you really need to reevaluate why you’re not in RCIA.

 

[bobzills]

Does that justify you harping on it for the last few pages of posts?

What it really shows is an unwillingness to let it go. I’ve had many, many things, valuable things (at least to me) stolen from me. I’ve let it go and it’s not going to bother me in the future, let alone 8 centuries from now.

If that’s all you have to level against the Church then you really need to reevaluate why you’re not in RCIA.

I am thinking of the statement which you posted by His Holiness Pope Innocent II: “How, indeed, is the Greek church to be brought back into ecclesiastical union and to a devotion for the Apostolic See when she has been beset with so many afflictions and persecutions that she sees in the Latins only an example of perdition and the works of darkness, so that she now, and with reason, detests the Latins more than dogs?”
Is not a certain amount of restitution in order? Is it really fair and right to keep this booty in Catholic Churches? These are questions which come to mind when I read about the Fourth Crusade.

 

[bobzills]

The statement by itself stands, but the context in which you first said it as well as it’s relevence to your argument has been blown away:

You said in post #323

This was an obvious attempt to attribute such tortures perpetrated against Greek Orthodox christians in Siciliy, southern Italy, and Venice (From your post #327) to being allowed by papal mandate.

I then said that those persecutions you mentioned above were under the spanish inquisition who opperated without approval by the Holy See. They had no such papal mandate as you first accused. They were acting outside the scope of the Church, so your attempt to malign the Church by leveling this accusation against it is thoroughly refuted.

Now you’re just trying to do some damage control, and it’s obvious. But instead of concede the point, You will probably drop it like it’s hot and move on to something else, pretending the preceding never happened.

You’re right that your comment still makes sense, but since it cannot be attributed to the Church, which has been the entire drive of your posts, your point is moot. It’s dead weight.

I didn’t see before what you were referring to, but I think I see now.
First of all, the statement I made about torture being allowed by a papal decree. The papal decree that I was referring to was Ad Extirpandam by Pope Innocent IV. You can read about it in the New Catholic Encyclopedia or online at Wikipedia:
“Ad exstirpanda is the incipit designating a papal bull issued on May 15, 1252, by Pope Innocent IV, which was confirmed by Pope Alexander IV on November 30, 1259, and by Pope Clement IV on November 3, 1265. It explicitly authorized the use of torture for eliciting confessions from heretics during the Inquisition, although it also limited its uses. Innocent IV reason in his bull that as heretics are “murderers of souls as well as robbers of God’s sacraments and of the Christian faith, … are to be coerced—as are thieves and bandits—into confessing their errors and accusing others, although one must stop short of danger to life or limb.” . The bull conceded to the State a portion of the property to be confiscated from convicted heretics. The State in return assumed the burden of carrying out the penalty.”
In the book, the Life of Don Diego, Duke of Estrada, Estrada relates that in a matter of criminal justice, he was tortured for three hours in 1612 by water torture, the mancuerda, the potro, hot irons for the feet, hot bricks for the stomach, garrotillos known as bone-breakers, the trampa to tear the legs and the bostezo to distend the mouth.
So I do not retract what I said about torture being approved by papal decree.
As far as Spanish speaking southern Italy was concerned, it was under the Spanish inquisition, which was established by papal bull Exigit Sinceras Devotionis Affectus on November 1, 1478… Then on April 18, 1482, Pope Sixtus IV protested the excesses of the Inquisition, but pressure by ferdinand of Aragon caused Pope Sixtus IV to suspend the bull and he promulgated another one naming Torquemada the General Inquisitor. And there were several “minor quarrels between crown and papacy “ after that. (see page 49, Kamen or wikipedia. However, the inquisition at Venice and northern Italy was not under the Spanish Inquisition, but the Roman Inquisition. “On June 11, 1251, [Pope] Innocent IV ordered the Frati Vicenzo of Milan and Giovanni of Vercelli to proceed to Venice and persecute heretics here with the same powers as those exercised by inquisitors elsewhere in Lombardy.” P. 393, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages, by Henry Charles Lea.
“…about 186 Fra Filippo of Mantua, the Inquisitor of Treviso, was sent by [Pope] Honorius IV with a summons to the republic to inscribe in its laws the constitutions against heresy of Frederic and of the popes. “ In 1288, Pope Nicholas IV ordered the doge to assist the Inquisitor of Treviso. P. 393, op.cit.
And I have given the reference to show that there were a a total of 22 people accused of the offense of Greek Orthodoxy in the Venetian Inquisition in the period from 1547 to 1720. . And in the Frulian inquisition, there were a total of 43 accused of the offense of Greek Orthodoxy during the period from 1611 to 1786.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I am thinking of the statement which you posted by His Holiness Pope Innocent II: “How, indeed, is the Greek church to be brought back into ecclesiastical union and to a devotion for the Apostolic See when she has been beset with so many afflictions and persecutions that she sees in the Latins only an example of perdition and the works of darkness, so that she now, and with reason, detests the Latins more than dogs?”
Is not a certain amount of restitution in order? Is it really fair and right to keep this booty in Catholic Churches? These are questions which come to mind when I read about the Fourth Crusade.

Will you acknowledge what restitution has been made?

 

[Petergee]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petergee
You imply that Innocent “did not make a serious effort” to get the Venetians to return the booty. What evidence do you have for this accusation?
St. Mark’s in Venice is one such Church, where booty has remained for 800 years.

So you expect us to regard this alleged fact as " evidence" that Innocent made no effort. This is about the same standard as the rest of your “proofs”.
And the fact that a book is described as “moderate” or that a Catholic has recommended it, does not constitute proof that everything in it is true.

 

[NotWorthy]

I am thinking of the statement which you posted by His Holiness Pope Innocent II: “How, indeed, is the Greek church to be brought back into ecclesiastical union and to a devotion for the Apostolic See when she has been beset with so many afflictions and persecutions that she sees in the Latins only an example of perdition and the works of darkness, so that she now, and with reason, detests the Latins more than dogs?”
Is not a certain amount of restitution in order? Is it really fair and right to keep this booty in Catholic Churches? These are questions which come to mind when I read about the Fourth Crusade.

I’m inclined to assume this makes the Church “up for sale”. If the Orthodox decide to rejoin the fold, it should be because we agree on theology, not because they received payment in gold and treasure.

That would certainly be the perception of many.

 

[bobzills]

Will you acknowledge what restitution has been made?

Pope John Paul II has made great and praisworthy efforts to bring about reconciliation and it included some important restitution.

 

[bobzills]

And the fact that a book is described as “moderate” or that a Catholic has recommended it, does not constitute proof that everything in it is true.

A few of the reviewers at amazon.com find Kamen’s book to be a whitewash of the inquisition and too pro-Catholic. Others however give it the highest rating. Hitchcock has listed other books in his article and the link to it is:
catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/1112-96/column1.html
From the article: “The modern historiography of the Inquisition, most of it by non-Catholic historians, has resulted in a careful, relatively precise, and on the whole rather moderate image of the institution, some of the most important works being: Edward Peters, Inquisition; Paul F. Grendler, The Roman Inquisition and the Venetian Press; John Tedeschi, The Prosecution of Heresy; and Henry Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition.”

Perhaps the standard reference and most informative books on the Inquisition are the books by Henry Charles Lea. They have a lot of references to the original source material.

1. History of the Inquisition of Spain, vol 1,2,3,4.
2. A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, vol. 1,2,3.
3. The inquisition of the middle Ages (an abridgment )

 

[Petergee]

A few of the reviewers at amazon.com find Kamen’s book to be a whitewash of the inquisition and too pro-Catholic. Others however give it the highest rating. Hitchcock has listed other books in his article and the link to it is:
catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/1112-96/column1.html
From the article: “The modern historiography of the Inquisition, most of it by non-Catholic historians, has resulted in a careful, relatively precise, and on the whole rather moderate image of the institution, some of the most important works being: Edward Peters, Inquisition; Paul F. Grendler, The Roman Inquisition and the Venetian Press; John Tedeschi, The Prosecution of Heresy; and Henry Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition.”

Perhaps the standard reference and most informative books on the Inquisition are the books by Henry Charles Lea. They have a lot of references to the original source material.

1. History of the Inquisition of Spain, vol 1,2,3,4.
2. A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, vol. 1,2,3.
3. The inquisition of the middle Ages (an abridgment )

IIRC Lea is a 19th century author notorious for viciously anti-catholic presentation. Having refernces to source material does not make what an author says true.
But whatever author you quote, your selective and out-of context quotes of the most horrific passages are irrelevant to the facts pointed out in this trhread, that the inquisitions were far, far more humane and fair to the accused persons than any other court system up to that time, and the Inquisition in fact introduced many reforms which were later adopted by other court systems, notably, in view of your obsession, the complete abolition of torture.

 

[bobzills]

But whatever author you quote, your selective and out-of context quotes of the most horrific passages are irrelevant to the facts pointed out in this trhread, that the inquisitions were far, far more humane and fair to the accused persons than any other court system up to that time, …

Oh really? Like for example, the French Inquisition was humane and fair to St. Joan of Arc? I don’t see the Inquisition process and the sentence of being burned alive at the stake as being fair and humane to St. Joan of Arc.

 

[Pier]

Oh really? Like for example, the French Inquisition was humane and fair to St. Joan of Arc? I don’t see the Inquisition process and the sentence of being burned alive at the stake as being fair and humane to St. Joan of Arc.

Wasn’t St. Joan told to turn back, or she would die?

She died a saint & martyr, but from what I understand, unnecessarily. & the way things were done back then, unfortunately, was excruciatingly barbaric.

 

[bobzills]

…the way things were done back then, unfortunately, was excruciatingly barbaric.

Thank you. That is my point. I don’t see how other people on this thread can attempt to justify the horrors of the Inquisition as humane and fair.

 

[Pier]

Thank you. That is my point. I don’t see how other people on this thread can attempt to justify the horrors of the Inquisition as humane and fair.

Have people died in more recent history due to the teachings of Luther & Calvin, among others?

Apparently not.

 

[bobzills]

Have people died in more recent history due to the teachings of Luther & Calvin, among others?

Apparently not.

Well, I am not so sure. For one thing, there is no doubt that on occasion, the followers of Luther or Calvin were pretty ruthless against some of their opponents. For more recent events, we have seen arguments from people saying that Luther’s rabid anti-semitism may have contributed to hurt the Jews in the twentieth century. Anyway, I was trying to focus in on the topic of the inquisition or the crusades. But if someone wanted to start a thread on one of the other issues brought up on this thread, I would try to contribute.

 

[First_of_9]

Oh really? Like for example, the French Inquisition was humane and fair to St. Joan of Arc? I don’t see the Inquisition process and the sentence of being burned alive at the stake as being fair and humane to St. Joan of Arc.

Joan of Arc was not condemned by an Inquisition, French or otherwise. Her condemnation and execution for “Witchcraft” came after she was captured by the English, and was entirely a political matter, witnessed by the fact that her “conviction” was overturned by the pope and she was subsequently canonized.