- Status
R
rpp
Guest
Interesting that you should draw that conclusion and choose to make such an incendiary post. At least we understand where you are coming from and the degree of your commitment to learn.
A
agangbern
Guest
Are you saying then that the Church officially ordered the Inquisition, the Inquisition whose main purpose is to execute those who go against the Church? If this is what you are saying, please show the link/on-line reference here so that I too may be able to access and study them.
What then is the so-called Inquisition? I wish it is not too heavy for you if I request here that on-line references regarding the above statements be given. I have not yet found the proof that the Church in fact officially ordered the dreaded Inquisition. The mere presence of bishop or clerics, if ever it is true, in the execution of one convicted through the inquisition is not sufficient to suppose that said bishop ordered it, and more so, it would not necessarily follow that the Church official ordered it.
The Inquisition has everything to do with the Scripture, because the Scripture is basically a message of love for life. The Church is bearer of that message. That is why I need proof of the claim that the Church officially ordered that kind of Inquisition which aims at murder.what is any of this to do with Scripture?
V
vadermanu89
Guest
newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm#IIA
Didn’t it says very clearly that the Church and various Popes did sanction the Inquisition against the Cathari Movement as they were preaching gnostic ideals that threaten to shake the foundations of Christianity and the various Kingdoms.
Didn’t it says very clearly that the Church and various Popes did sanction the Inquisition against the Cathari Movement as they were preaching gnostic ideals that threaten to shake the foundations of Christianity and the various Kingdoms.
A
agangbern
Guest
The link did not say that the Popes sanctioned the “inquisition” or murdering of the Cathari. It was the civil authorities who run after the Cathari, not the Church. It is said in that link that he Cahari Movement made suicide a duty, as a result many died by it. I could imagine the imminent danger the Cathari Movement posed upon the life of civil society at that time such that the State probably saw the necessity to act in order to defend the life of society. Nevertheless, the order to run after them did not come from the Church. On the contrary, this is what I read from that link: "*The Christian teachers of the first three centuries insisted, as was natural for them, on complete religious liberty; furthermore, they not only urged the principle that religion could not be forced on others – a principle always adhered to by the Church in her dealings with the unbaptised – but, when comparing the Mosaic Law and the Christian religion, they taught that the latter was content with a spiritual punishment of heretics (i.e. with excommunication), while Judaism necessarily proceeded against its dissidents with torture and death.
(2) However, the imperial successors of Constantine soon began to see in themselves Divinely appointed “bishops of the exterior”, i.e. masters of the temporal and material conditions of the Church. At the same time they retained the traditional authority of “Pontifex Maximus”, and in this way the civil authority inclined, frequently in league with prelates of Arian tendencies, to persecute the orthodox bishops by imprisonment and exile. But the latter, particularly St. Hilary of Poitiers (Liber contra Auxentium, c. iv), protested vigorously against any use of force in the province of religion, whether for the spread of Christianity or for preservation of the Faith. They repeatedly urged that in this respect the severe decrees of the Old Testament were abrogated by the mild and gentle laws of Christ."*
V
vadermanu89
Guest
New Advent:
The Inquisition against the Cathars heretics was launched by the Church as it was her biblical right to purge evil from our midst. There was nothing wrong with it.
M
mercygate
Guest
The idea of separation of Church and State is a modern invention. It emerged AFTER the Protestant movement as a response to the problems of attmempting to maintain a stable government in a climate of religious contention.
As for “biased” Catholic sources not admitting mistakes, my first encounter with Catholic sources was at age 16 when preparing a term paper on Dante’s Inferno for a high school lit class. I discovered the *Catholic Encyclopedia, *which outlined in painful detail all the sins and warts of Pope Alexander VI.
That was an eye-opener for me because I assumed that there would be nothing but whitewash in there.
M
mercygate
Guest
Actually, Sy, we STILL have the Inquisition. It’s called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
A
agangbern
Guest
So, it is not the same Inquisition that sought after the death of heretics. It seems to me now that there are different kinds of Inquisitions. The Inquisition authored by the Church protects life, while the Inquisition initiated by the State sought for death of heretics, am I correct?Actually, Sy, we STILL have the Inquisition. It’s called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
A
agangbern
Guest
“Fray Tomás Torquemada (b. at Valladolid in 1420, d. at Avila, 16 September, 1498) was the true organizer of the Spanish Inquisition. At the solicitation of their Spanish Majesties (Paramo, II, tit. ii, c, iii, n. 9) 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. The institution speedily ramified from Seville to Cordova, Jaén, Villareal, and Toledo, About 1538 there were nineteen courts, to which three were afterwards added in Spanish America (Mexico, Lima, and Cartagena). Attempts at introducing it into Italy failed, and the efforts to establish it in the Netherlands entailed disastrous consequences for the mother country. In Spain, however, it remained operative into the nineteenth century. Originally called into being against secret Judaism and secret Islam, it served to repel Protestantism in the sixteenth century, but was unable to expel French Rationalism and immorality of the eighteenth. King Joseph Bonaparte abrogated it in 1808, but it was reintroduced by Ferdinand VII in 1814 and approved by Pius VII on certain conditions, among others the abolition of torture. It was definitely abolished by the Revolution of 1820.”
Clearly, the Pope did not approve of murder. He even put the condition that torture be abolished.
V
vadermanu89
Guest
Wikipedia -
On torture:
On Death:
Hence in short, the Inquisition was carried out by the Church through various Inquisitors and Courts to determine whether an indiviual is an heretic. If one is deemed heretic, secular laws come into play since heresy, in secular laws, is punishable by death.
A
agangbern
Guest
So, the state had a law that imposed the penalty of death to heretics. If the state had such law, therefore the state must had also a procedural law to give effect to that law. Was Inquisition by the state part of that procedural law? Did the state have a process of Inquisition going on at the same time with, but independent from, the Inquisition conducted by the Church at that time?
V
vadermanu89
Guest
I believe it was of this formula.
a) X was preaching a ‘strange doctrine’ to the masses
b) The Inquisitor brings X to an Inquisition tribunal and tries him.
c) The Inquisition Tribunal rules him to be guilty of heresy.
d) The Tribunal will mete out punishments depending on the severity of the crime - primilgrage, jail terms etc
e) If X is unrepentant, the Tribunal declares him to be a Heretic.
f) Since in Christian Kingdoms, being a heretic is punishable by death, secular powers kills him.
Hence while the Inquisition did not mete out any death sentences, it was able to provide the stimulus for it. Generally, few people were declared to be heretics and executed. Most of those guity of heresy eventually repented and return back to the Church.
R
rpp
Guest
The purpose of the various inquisitions was not to seek the death of heretics. Such an assertion is, at best, erroneous. The purpose of an inquisitional body was ti inquire as to the faith of an individual. If that individual was not a Christian, e.g. Jew or Muslim, the inquisitional bodies had no jurisdiction. If the person claimed to be a Christian, yet clung to certain serious heresies, then attempts to bring the person to conversion were made.
In some circumstances, torture was used. However there were strict limits. Torture could only be used during the entire lifetime of a person. This single episode of torture could only last 15 minutes. Even then, torture was frowned upon by the Holy See and many inquisitors who used this were later prosecuted by the Church for excesses. Some of them, such as Torquemada, spent the rest of their life in prison for their excesses. A few others were themselves excommunicated for their unrepentant cruelty.
It is estimated that throughout all of Europe with all the various inquisitional bodies over the course for more than 400 years, fewer than 35,000 people were subjected to torture by inqusitional bodies.
During this same period, **civil **authorities in many coutries regularly tortured at least ten times that number.
Regrettably, inquisitional bodies did recommend that civil authoities execute some people. The inquisitional courts did not have the right to actually sentence someone to death nor the ability to carry out such a sentence. It has been estimated by several reliable sources that between 3,500 anf 5,000 people were executed by inquisitional bodies over the course of more than 400 years. Primarilly by the Spanish and Albigensian/Catharii/French Inquisitions. It should be noted that the number executed during the nearly 350 of the Spanish inquisition is approximately the same as the number of Catholic martyred in England during the reigns of just two monarchs, Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I. Also, it was these two from whom we get much of the popular history of the Inquisition.
The Spanish Inquisition did have it’s excesses. But nothing like what popular media leads people to believe. These excesses came about because the Spanish crown hijacked the Inquisition and began using it as a political tool.
The popular, but erroneous belief that the Spanish inquisition killed tens or hundreds of thousands of people dates back the reigns the King Henry VIII and his second daughter, Queen Elizabeth. They were at war with Spain and the Catholic Church; they needed to vilify their enemies in the eyes of the English people. On the contrary, the inquisition kept meticulous records. These records were opened a number of years ago and have been scrutinized by historians. Many of these historians, several decidedly secular, have concluded, based on these and other non-Church records, that the popular history of the inquisitions cannot be reconciled with what really happened.
It should be noted that the Italian inquisition neither tortured nor executed anyone since it’s founding. Furthermore, as one previous poster correctly pointed out, the Italian Inquisition has been transformed when it was brought into the Roman Curia proper and is now known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
In some circumstances, torture was used. However there were strict limits. Torture could only be used during the entire lifetime of a person. This single episode of torture could only last 15 minutes. Even then, torture was frowned upon by the Holy See and many inquisitors who used this were later prosecuted by the Church for excesses. Some of them, such as Torquemada, spent the rest of their life in prison for their excesses. A few others were themselves excommunicated for their unrepentant cruelty.
It is estimated that throughout all of Europe with all the various inquisitional bodies over the course for more than 400 years, fewer than 35,000 people were subjected to torture by inqusitional bodies.
During this same period, **civil **authorities in many coutries regularly tortured at least ten times that number.
Regrettably, inquisitional bodies did recommend that civil authoities execute some people. The inquisitional courts did not have the right to actually sentence someone to death nor the ability to carry out such a sentence. It has been estimated by several reliable sources that between 3,500 anf 5,000 people were executed by inquisitional bodies over the course of more than 400 years. Primarilly by the Spanish and Albigensian/Catharii/French Inquisitions. It should be noted that the number executed during the nearly 350 of the Spanish inquisition is approximately the same as the number of Catholic martyred in England during the reigns of just two monarchs, Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I. Also, it was these two from whom we get much of the popular history of the Inquisition.
The Spanish Inquisition did have it’s excesses. But nothing like what popular media leads people to believe. These excesses came about because the Spanish crown hijacked the Inquisition and began using it as a political tool.
The popular, but erroneous belief that the Spanish inquisition killed tens or hundreds of thousands of people dates back the reigns the King Henry VIII and his second daughter, Queen Elizabeth. They were at war with Spain and the Catholic Church; they needed to vilify their enemies in the eyes of the English people. On the contrary, the inquisition kept meticulous records. These records were opened a number of years ago and have been scrutinized by historians. Many of these historians, several decidedly secular, have concluded, based on these and other non-Church records, that the popular history of the inquisitions cannot be reconciled with what really happened.
It should be noted that the Italian inquisition neither tortured nor executed anyone since it’s founding. Furthermore, as one previous poster correctly pointed out, the Italian Inquisition has been transformed when it was brought into the Roman Curia proper and is now known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Yes.
Not its main purpose, but certainly one of its activities.
I don’t how what would satisfy you 
- I see there is a discussion of Ad Extirpanda. I can only suggest a reading of:
- The Inquisition from its Establishment to the Great Schism by A.L. Maycock/intro. Fr. Ronald Knox (1927)
- G. Leff, Heresy in the Later Middle Ages (Manchester, 1967).
- William Monter, Frontiers of Heresy, on the Spanish Inquisition in Spain & the Italies.
- Walter L. Wakefield & Austin P. Evans, Heresies of the High Middle Ages [Very good for texts, including some extracts from Bernard Gui]
(Among others). Much of the material is simply not available on the Net - inconvenient as that is.
If it isn’t enough by your standards of evidence to be given evidence that Popes & other bishops have been active in the repression of heresy & the execution of those convicted as heretics, then I don’t know what more there is to say - short of summoning up those responsible
Understood. I doubt it’s murder, so much as the repression of those considered to be criminals - apart from non-Inquisitorial episodes such as the massacres of French Protestants in the 1540s & of Italian Waldensians in 1655. But as Christians have a long history of massacring other Christians, those incidents are pretty much par for the course.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
I do - just as I realise that a trial being held in 1431 cannot be thought of in 1431 in the same way as it is will be thought of 1456. As far as those involved in it at the time were concerned, it was fair enough. We can’t attribute future knowledge of an event to those involved in it; the standpoint of 1456 is to that extent irrelevant.
The fact is, that her trial was staffed by ecclesiastics & theologians (70, I think - they are listed in Quicherat’s edition of the proceedigs) & not by the Duke or Bedford or any other English soldiers. It may not reflect well on the character of 15th-century Catholicism or on Catholicism, but that’s* our* problem, & no excuse for not facing facts.
B
BluesPicker
Guest
Hi,
Pray for all concerned in that dark era.
BluesPicker
Code:
The past is the past, I mean thats a long time ago. Lets just pray for all the poor people who sufferred and for those who perpetrated it. Lets move on in a positive way. There were a lot maimed and killed but the Prostestants had a large hand in this also.. Even here in the USA, the Salem Witch trials.
To return evil for good is evil.
To return less good for greater good selfishness.
To return good for evil is saintlyness.BluesPicker
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
They probably crept in by association
The capitalisation or lack of it depends on the context, & on English usage.
Granted, it’s useless history to treat the Roman Inquisition of 1542 as identical with (say) that of Venice at the same time, or with any other. They were not.So “notorious” I for one have never heard of it - could you clarify ? Thanks.
Something does not become false because it doesn’t put the CC in a good light - I’m beginning to think that Catholics can only “take” history if it’s prettified into falsity, & all the unpalatable bits left out . There will at that rate be no more historians of the likes of Cardinal Baronius: only propagandists 
For primary source material, in an ET, Wakefield & Evans are good for a start. Otherwise - become a polyglot.
D
David_Vestal
Guest
I guess the readers’ digest version of my response when someone attacks me with the inquisition is that we judge a Church by what it teaches and not by the people in it, is that good enough?
- Status