crusades

[Valke2]

hola,

the inquisition was very bad… but that was not the Church that was the Spanish crown… it is a vicious anti Catholic stereotype that the Church is responsible for this.

que Dios te bendiga

The Crown was a Catholic Monarchy. And the Pope issued a papal bull allowing the inquisition. It would be disingenious to suggest that Church was not responsible.

Queen Isabella was a “fervent” Christian. In 1478 she asked the Pope for permission to set up an Inquisition to weed out heresy in the Christian world. The Pope said “sure” and issued a papal bull called Exigit Sincere Devotionis. Ferdinand and Isabella followed that up with a royal decree on September 27, 1480.

The Church did nothing to recall or amend the papal bull no matter how bad things got for the Jews, It’s implicit approval of the inquisition, targeted (in the 1400s’ solely at jewish conversos, even after Spain had issued a decree expelling all jews, makes it blindingly obvious that the Church was far from innocent of the atrocities that were committed.

 

[Jayda]

The Crown was a Catholic Monarchy. And the Pope issued a papal bull allowing the inquisition. It would be disingenious to suggest that Church was not responsible.

Queen Isabella was a “fervent” Christian. In 1478 she asked the Pope for permission to set up an Inquisition to weed out heresy in the Christian world. The Pope said “sure” and issued a papal bull called Exigit Sincere Devotionis. Ferdinand and Isabella followed that up with a royal decree on September 27, 1480.

The Church did nothing to recall or amend the papal bull no matter how bad things got for the Jews, It’s implicit approval of the inquisition, targeted (in the 1400s’ solely at jewish conversos, even after Spain had issued a decree expelling all jews, makes it blindingly obvious that the Church was far from innocent of the atrocities that were committed.

hola,

this is not so. the Church issued a papal bull authorizing the inquisition to come into being… but peculiar to this country he gave the authority to the monarchs of Spain making it an institution of the Spanish government and not the Catholic Church. the Pope reserved the right to approve the grand inquisitor but they were selected by the monarchs, and all other inquisitors were selected and approved by the monarchs.

furthermore the Catholic monarchs instituted physical punishments and sentences, and expanded the jurisdiction to include non Catholics… two things Church inquisitions do not do because the Church has authority over Catholics only and not non Catholics, also the Church does not thirst for blood… it is a doctrine.

also, your dates are incorrect… the Spanish monarchs approached the Church about setting up the inquisition… not the other way around.

most importantly you are wrong that the Church remained silent. Fernan and the Holy Father had many disputes about the inquisition resulting in the Pope issuing a new papal bull forbidding the practices of the inquisition and forbidding its extension to Aragon it read in part:

many true and faithful Christians, because of the testimony of enemies, rivals, slaves and other low people–and still less appropriate–without tests of any kind, have been locked up in secular prisons, tortured and condemned like relapsed heretics, deprived of their goods and properties, and given over to the secular arm to be executed, at great danger to their souls, giving a pernicious example and causing scandal to many.

but this was ignored by the Spanish crown and they continued their practice.

how can the Church be held responsible for trusting the (apparently untrustworthy) crown with independent control of an inquisition and for telling them to stop but they would not listen?

que Dios te bendiga

 

[Valke2]

hola,

also, your dates are incorrect… the Spanish monarchs approached the Church about setting up the inquisition… not the other way around.

Easily. It was obviously important to the crown that it had Church approval or it wouldn’t have asked for permission in the first place. I notice that there is nothing in the Church’s subsequent language specfically regarding conversos. The papal bull was meant to prohibit an expansion of the Inquistion to Aragon. What your post doesn’t say is that Pope Sixtus IV suspended that papal bull. And then he issued another papal bull appointing Tomas d Torquemada as the Inquisitor General of Aragon.

Like the inquisition before that, the major target were converso jews.

 

[Jayda]

Easily. It was obviously important to the crown that it had Church approval or it wouldn’t have asked for permission in the first place. I notice that there is nothing in the Church’s subsequent language specfically regarding conversos. When was that issued?

hola,

that does not make sense… if it was so important to the crown to have Church approval why did they continue with their unapproved methods and spread it into Aragon after the subsequent Papal bull directly ordered them to stop?

the second Bull was issued in 1482, only three years after the inquisition started and almost a decade before the Jews were expelled from Spain (signifying the height of Spanish oppression). inquisitions have authority only over Catholics and the original Papal Bull that the Pope gave to the crown allowed them jurisdiction over the Catholics, this is the reason they first needed Church approval. the crown later authorized their inquisitions to include muslims jews and other non Catholics.

que Dios te bendiga

 

[Jayda]

if you are still talking about the bull in “the Spanish Inquisition” what page are you looking at? i do not see anything about the second Bull being rescinded under pressure from Fernan… what is your source for this?

• nevermind, I see… you are copying this from wikipedia. the source for that is not cited, but if you continue to the next page about “inquisition revisionism” it discusses the source of that claim. the source is from “Peters” and the actual information is that:

“In 1483, Ferdinand and Isabella established a state council to administer the inquisition with the Dominican Friar Tomas de Torquemada acting as its president, even though Sixtus IV protested the activities of the inquisition in Aragon and its treatment of the conversos. Torquemada eventually assumed the title of Inquisitor-General (Peters 1988: 89)”

This does not say anything about rescinding the Papal Bull (which are not ever rescinded to my knowledge), nor that the Pope was pressured by Fernan… only that the Pope protested but the spanish did it anyway. so the paraphrasing on the previous entry has been padded with false information. i also see that this source gives more information than Kamen, noting that the Bull challenged the treatment of conversos as well (to answer your earlier question).

Again how can you say the Church is responsible for this? it is disobedience, not direction…

 

[Jayda]

it is very clear that these activities are not consistent with Church practices, were condemned by the Church and were not under the control of the Church… so why is it then okay to blame the Church?

 

[Valke2]

It wasn’t wikipedia. I’ll try to find it again.
Why is it ok to absolve the Church for actions done in the name of and for the benefit of the Church?

 

[Valke2]

… Fray Tomás Torquemada … was the true organizer of the Spanish Inquisition. At the solicitation of their Spanish Majesties … Sixtus IV bestowed on Torquemada the office of grand inquisitor, the institution of which indicates a decided advance in the development of the Spanish Inquisition. Innocent VIII approved the act of his predecessor, and under date of 11 February, 1486, and 6 February, 1487, Torquemada was given dignity of grand inquisitor for the kingdoms of Castile, Leon, Aragon, Valencia, etc…
New Advent (Roman) Catholic Encyclopedia, Inquisition

I can’t find the cite that specfically stated the papal bull criticizing the inquisition was suspended. But given that the Church subsequently appinted Tomas over the Aragon inquistion, it seems likely that my informatin was accurate.

 

[Jayda]

It wasn’t wikipedia. I’ll try to find it again.
Why is it ok to absolve the Church for actions done in the name of and for the benefit of the Church?

hola,

because the Church is not responsible for the actions of those who disobey it… your profile says you are a lawyer, are people allowed to be slandered for things they have not done even if others percieve they have benefitted from this?

and how does the Church benefit from people being tortured… i find that a little offensive, the Church doctrine is that “the Church does not thirst for blood,” the Church does not desire people to be tortured.

que Dios te bendiga

 

[Valke2]

Nevertheless, pressure by Ferdinand caused the Pope to suspend this bull, and even promulgate another one, on October 17, 1483, naming Tomás de Torquemada Inquisidor General of Aragón, Valencia and Catalonia. With it, the Inquisition became the only institution with authority throughout all the kingdoms of the Spanish monarchy, and in all of them a useful mechanism at the service of the crown. However, the cities of Aragón continued resisting, and even saw periods of revolt, like in Teruel from 1484 to 85. However, the murder of the inquisidor Pedro Arbués in Zaragoza on September 15, 1485, caused public opinion to turn against the conversos and in favor of the Inquisition. In Aragón, the inquisitorial courts were focused specifically on members of the powerful converso minority, ending their influence in the Aragonese administration.
en.allexperts.com/e/s/sp/spanish_inquisition.htm

 

[Valke2]

hola,

because the Church is not responsible for the actions of those who disobey it… your profile says you are a lawyer, are people allowed to be slandered for things they have not done even if others percieve they have benefitted from this?

and how does the Church benefit from people being tortured… i find that a little offensive, the Church doctrine is that “the Church does not thirst for blood,” the Church does not desire people to be tortured.

que Dios te bendiga

ridding the church of “heretics” benefits the Church. Otherwise, why issue the papal bull at all?

 

[Jayda]

… Fray Tomás Torquemada … was the true organizer of the Spanish Inquisition. At the solicitation of their Spanish Majesties … Sixtus IV bestowed on Torquemada the office of grand inquisitor, the institution of which indicates a decided advance in the development of the Spanish Inquisition. Innocent VIII approved the act of his predecessor, and under date of 11 February, 1486, and 6 February, 1487, Torquemada was given dignity of grand inquisitor for the kingdoms of Castile, Leon, Aragon, Valencia, etc…
New Advent (Roman) Catholic Encyclopedia, Inquisition

I can’t find the cite that specfically stated the papal bull criticizing the inquisition was suspended. But given that the Church subsequently appinted Tomas over the Aragon inquistion, it seems likely that my informatin was accurate.

hola,

how do you justify that conclusion? the original Papal Bull gave the monarchs the exclusive right to appoint inquisitors who met the following criterea (per your source):

On 1 November, 1478, Sixtus IV empowered the Catholic sovereigns to set up the Inquisition. The judges were to be at least forty years old, of unimpeachable reputation, distinguished for virtue and wisdom, masters of theology, or doctors or licentiates of canon law, and they must follow the usual ecclesiastical rules and regulations

the second Bull commanded them to stop using the tactics that they used and to stop hurting jews and moors (which is the real issue), these were against the ecclesiastic rules and regulations.

the second bull did not end the inquisition or say there would be no more inquisitors. again per your source:

Before long complaints of grievous abuses reached Rome, and were only too well founded. In a Brief of Sixtus IV of 29 January 1482, they were blamed for having, upon the alleged authority of papal Briefs, unjustly imprisoned many people, subjected them to cruel tortures, declared them false believers, and sequestrated the property of the executed. They were at first admonished to act only in conjunction with, the bishops, and finally were threatened with deposition, and would indeed have been deposed had not Their Majesties interceded for them

obviously the Pope did not approve, the lynchpin is that the crown interceded between the Papal authority and the activities of the inquisitions. whether this means they directly disobeyed the Pope, or lied to him about the activities (since clearly the Pope was against the idea of using that kind of violence) the Pope’s informed decision to remove the inquisitors and replace them with those who followed ecclesiastic law was wrongly interrupted by the Spanish crown… again the Church cannot be blaimed for this, and there is no sourced claim that indicated the Pope was “intimidated” or something like that into deliberately ignoring the plight of those affected by the inquisition.

even still, the Pope obviously had a problem with the treatment of people by the inquisitors, but did not say it should be done away with (just given new inquisitors), so his earlier papal bull was still honored, the approval of the Pope over the appointment of Tomas is just an execution of the first Papal Bull, not a repeal of his second. nor does his appointment signify a change in direction on the Popes earlier position about the rules inquisitors were not following… if anything a change in leadership seems consistent with his wishes.

que Dios te bendiga

 

[Jayda]

ridding the church of “heretics” benefits the Church. Otherwise, why issue the papal bull at all?

hola,

Jews and Muslims are not part of the Church, and using violence to question heretics is against Church law… this sounds almost like an accusation of religious fascism…

your question is like saying there is a benefit in removing traitors in the United States, which is why the United States will want to look the other way about the torture tribunals in guantanamo… it is impossible to disregard the fact that there are equally important procedures and other interests involved in these inquiries, not spilling blood is one such example. protecting these interests is why the Pope commanded them to stop using those tactics and to adhere to Church policy.

these things are just as important if not more important to the Church than quelling heresy…

que Dios te bendiga

 

[Jayda]

Nevertheless, pressure by Ferdinand caused the Pope to suspend this bull, and even promulgate another one, on October 17, 1483, naming Tomás de Torquemada Inquisidor General of Aragón, Valencia and Catalonia. With it, the Inquisition became the only institution with authority throughout all the kingdoms of the Spanish monarchy, and in all of them a useful mechanism at the service of the crown. However, the cities of Aragón continued resisting, and even saw periods of revolt, like in Teruel from 1484 to 85. However, the murder of the inquisidor Pedro Arbués in Zaragoza on September 15, 1485, caused public opinion to turn against the conversos and in favor of the Inquisition. In Aragón, the inquisitorial courts were focused specifically on members of the powerful converso minority, ending their influence in the Aragonese administration.
en.allexperts.com/e/s/sp/spanish_inquisition.htm

hola,

that is plaguerized verbatim from the wikipedia article that i demonstrated in post 45 is both unsourced and appears to be a false padded iteration of the sourced claim on the next page that says only that Tomas was instated as inquisitor… the sourced claim does not say that anything was rescinded. see for yourself…

que Dios te bendiga

 

[Valke2]

hola,

that is plaguerized verbatim from the wikipedia article that i demonstrated in post 45 is both unsourced and appears to be a false padded iteration of the sourced claim on the next page that says only that Tomas was instated as inquisitor… the sourced claim does not say that anything was rescinded. see for yourself…

que Dios te bendiga

I’m sure it is the other way around. If you really think the papal bull we were discussing was not suspended by the Church, you are free to find me the actual sources. But if we use logic, one must conclude that either: a) The inquistion was not expanded to Aragon and the Church did not appoint Tomas as the General Inquisitor re Aragon; or b) The Chuch did in fact do these things, which would contradict the prior papal bull unless it was suspended.

Just because something appears in wikipedia doesn’t make it untrue.

 

[Jayda]

I’m sure it is the other way around. If you really think the papal bull we were discussing was not suspended by the Church, you are free to find me the actual sources. But if we use logic, one must conclude that either: a) The inquistion was not expanded to Aragon and the Church did not appoint Tomas as the General Inquisitor re Aragon; or b) The Chuch did in fact do these things, which would contradict the prior papal bull unless it was suspended.

hola,

but the Pope didnt rescind anything… i wish you would have read my earlier post, i demonstrated that the particular part of wikipedia you are discussing is an unsourced claim, and that the later statement with the source attached does not go so far as to say the Pope was pressured or deliberately ignored anything… i do not know if you are familiar with wikipedia but it is a free encyclopedia, anyone can freely edit the pages and sources must be provided in superscript… i think it is fairly obvious given the similarity between the first and second quotes that somebody became more liberal with their reporting of the cited facts.

and i do not see how your conclusions are logical…

Just because something appears in wikipedia doesn’t make it untrue.

i know… that was not something i said… i do not think you read my post… the thing you are quoting about political pressure is an unsourced claim in wikipedia… but if you go to the next page the same information with the exception of the part about the Pope being pressured is presented as a sourced claim… they both say the Pope issued a condemnation, and that eventually Tomas was installed but the one which is sourced does not say that the Pope suspended his commandments or went back on what he said… unless you have a source for that part of the initial claim it is obviously an exaggeration of the true source, which is found on the next page…

if you consider that the statement about the Pope being “pressured” politically by the King and Queen, and that his statement was revoked has no source, that the sourced claim merely says Tomas was installed as inquisitor, along with the Catholic encyclopedia entry you provided, which says that the King and Queen interceded, which carries no such sinister connotation… I think there is far stronger evidence that the Pope did not change his mind about the abuses of the inquisitors, but instead he was either decieved or his orders were disobeyed.

considering that the original bull gives complete authority to the crown, with the Pope retaining the right to approve crown appointed inquisitors, and considering that the original Bull demanded they follow Church practices (which does not mean torture and death), and that the original Bull gave them authority over Catholics, and considering that the Pope objected when they broke his rules and demanded new inquisitors, and considering there is no strong evidence he revoked his statement about this or changed his mind for spurious reasons, and considering that his power over the inquision was very limited since it was an office of the Spanish government and not the Church, why is it okay to blame the Church?

i think it is unfair and prejudicial to say that the Church gained from this… like the Church is selfish and bloodthirsty, this is not an appropriate answer. the Churchs interest in correct doctrine is just as strong as her commitment to human dignity, which is why the Pope objected so strongly to the inquisitors actions. it feels like anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable form of hatred, people conjure up imaginary and fantasized evils about the Church or put things on the Church which are sins the Church condemns and does move to stop and this is met with popular applaus. this drama about the spanish inquisition as a massive Catholic conspiracy and not a uniquely spanish nationalist outbreak is just an enduring old world Dan Brown book. modern scholars have retreated from that perspective though, if you read the description of the motives and responsibility for the inquisition in the wikipedia article it is about consolidating power for the monarchs (it even says they did not want interference from the Pope).

this more historically accurate picture is not as popular though, because it does not involve a big secretive organization, people wearing strange robes and speaking in latin, and high minded political games between machiavellian Chuch leaders.

que Dios te bendiga

 

[Valke2]

I don’t think anyone is disputing the order of events.

1. Papal bull establishing courts for Spanish Inquistion, methods of appointing Inquisitor, etc…
2. Papal bull criticizing the handling of the inquistion and calling for it to cease.
3. Request to extend the Inquisition (or start a new one) in Aragon.
4. Papal Bull permitting the inquistion to include Aragon and appointing Tomas whatshisname as General Inquisitor.

How can numbers 2 and 4 co-exist?

 

[Valke2]

The interesting question has been warmly discussed, whether the Inquisition of Spain was a papal institution or an institution of the state, and the attempt has been made to lift the responsibility for its organization and administration from the supreme pontiff. The answer is, that it was predominantly an ecclesiastical institution, created by the authority of Sixtus IV. and continuously supported by pontifical sanction. On the other hand, its establishment was sought after by Ferdinand and Isabella, and its operations, after the papal authorization had been secured, was under the control of the Spanish sovereign. So far as we know, the popes never uttered a word in protest against the inhuman measures which were practised by the Spanish tribunals. Their only dissent arose from the persistence with which Ferdinand kept the administrative agency in his own hands and refused to allow any interference with his disposition of the sequestrated estates.961
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc6.ii.viii.iv.html

 

[Jayda]

I don’t think anyone is disputing the order of events.

1. Papal bull establishing courts for Spanish Inquistion, methods of appointing Inquisitor, etc…
2. Papal bull criticizing the handling of the inquistion and calling for it to cease.
3. Request to extend the Inquisition (or start a new one) in Aragon.
4. Papal Bull permitting the inquistion to include Aragon and appointing Tomas whatshisname as General Inquisitor.

How can numbers 2 and 4 co-exist?

hola,

your charactisation of the second brief is not correct though… the Holy Father did not command the inquisition to end, that could not even be implied since he required new inquisitors to be sent… obviously if he wished to end it he would have not sent new inquisitors. he did however demand that they adhere to Church laws regarding inquisitions as the first Bull demanded.

two and four not only co-exist, they are meant to compliment each other…

que Dios te bendiga

 

[Valke2]

hola,

your charactisation of the second brief is not correct though… the Holy Father did not command the inquisition to end, that could not even be implied since he required new inquisitors to be sent… obviously if he wished to end it he would have not sent new inquisitors. he did however demand that they adhere to Church laws regarding inquisitions as the first Bull demanded.

two and four not only co-exist, they are meant to compliment each other…

que Dios te bendiga

I didn’t go back and read the text of the number 2. Perhaps I got it wrong. If that’s all the papal. bull did, then we’re talking a power/politics issue and not a moral one, despite the language.