H
holy_wood
Guest
Can someone explain the Crusades and inquisition to me? Were they sanctioned acts by the Church. What brought them about?
- Status
J
johnnykins
Guest
Frankly, these are very complicated issues. You really need more information than can reasonably be provided in a forum setting. Google both terms. Go to a library and get books on both subjects. Both the Crusades and the inquisitions took place over several hundred years and had several guises. They both constituted a variety of “acts” many of which were “sanctioned” (in some form or fashion) and many of which were not. What “brought them about” over several hundred years was a variety of religious, political and social circumstances.
Honestly, the topics are so broad that any attempt to try to convey “an” answer is necessarily inadequate.
S
Steadfast
Guest
Yes, they were sanctioned by the church and in some cases declared and initiated by Popes.
Imperial Islam’s annexation of the Holy Land brought them about.
The point was to reclaim the Holy Land for Christianity.
It got ugly.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Actually there were several crusades over several hundred years. The earliest crusades were to free the Holy Land from the invading muslims. The later crusades were to expell the invading muslims from Europe - most notably Spain which they had conquered. Were it not for the crusades, we would all be speaking Arabic and living under an Islamic theocracy. :bigyikes:
Paul
Paul
S
St_Violet
Guest
the inquision happened a little before the Reformation, there are alot of myths behind the inquision, which is why Pope John Paul the second brought all the historians together to investigate the secrete archives which people weren’t allowed in for years just to get the facts straight, our current pope was among them.
there were three inqusions I believe
the Spanish,The Portugal and the Inquision in Rome
I believe the Spanish was probably the worst and really gave the wrong impression of the Catholic Church. the Pope of that Time had nothing to do with the inquision in Spain, all he the Pope did was send a arch Bishop that the King of Spain and the Pope agreed on but it was mostly the King of Spain’s choosing.
Portugal is believed to be the worst as well, because when the people in spain started to flee to portugal to get away from the spanish inquision , Portugal then began their own inquision because of all of the spanish and jewish population and so alot of them went back to spain to face the lesser of two evils. (the Pope had nothing to do with this one either)
the Inquision in Rome began when the cathars began preaching in public, during that time you had to be licensed by the catholic church to preach, and what the Cathars were preaching was contradicting to The Church. Now understand there only church there was was a Catholic Church and the country had it’s offical Relgion as Catholic. The Church of the times main goal was to spread salvation to those countries that were still pagan. the Pope wanted to investigate these unlicensed public speakers and have them excommunicated, and to let the people know these cathars are not of the catholic church. The Pope was worried for the salvation of the people. anyways the Inquision in Rome began when the Cathars murdered a Catholic Bishop. then the Pope ordered a more extreme investigation which was alot of merciful then the Spanish and portugal inqusion, the Pope ordered that interrigation or torture was to be no more then 15 mins and and it must be stoped immediatly if blood was to be shown, so if a man was to bleed just a tiny bit, the interrigation would have to stop and the person was let go.
I should also add that it’s been awhile since I researched the Inquision, don’t recommend to take what I said as fact but something to start off with.
For my fellow Catholics, if I said anything innacurrate plz announce it
there were three inqusions I believe
the Spanish,The Portugal and the Inquision in Rome
I believe the Spanish was probably the worst and really gave the wrong impression of the Catholic Church. the Pope of that Time had nothing to do with the inquision in Spain, all he the Pope did was send a arch Bishop that the King of Spain and the Pope agreed on but it was mostly the King of Spain’s choosing.
Portugal is believed to be the worst as well, because when the people in spain started to flee to portugal to get away from the spanish inquision , Portugal then began their own inquision because of all of the spanish and jewish population and so alot of them went back to spain to face the lesser of two evils. (the Pope had nothing to do with this one either)
the Inquision in Rome began when the cathars began preaching in public, during that time you had to be licensed by the catholic church to preach, and what the Cathars were preaching was contradicting to The Church. Now understand there only church there was was a Catholic Church and the country had it’s offical Relgion as Catholic. The Church of the times main goal was to spread salvation to those countries that were still pagan. the Pope wanted to investigate these unlicensed public speakers and have them excommunicated, and to let the people know these cathars are not of the catholic church. The Pope was worried for the salvation of the people. anyways the Inquision in Rome began when the Cathars murdered a Catholic Bishop. then the Pope ordered a more extreme investigation which was alot of merciful then the Spanish and portugal inqusion, the Pope ordered that interrigation or torture was to be no more then 15 mins and and it must be stoped immediatly if blood was to be shown, so if a man was to bleed just a tiny bit, the interrigation would have to stop and the person was let go.
I should also add that it’s been awhile since I researched the Inquision, don’t recommend to take what I said as fact but something to start off with.
For my fellow Catholics, if I said anything innacurrate plz announce it
S
sterryfamily
Guest
Here’s a good article on the crusades from a Catholic perspective: crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm
As to the various inquisitions; Whatever injustices may have been done, it is important to remember that the inquisitions were basically a Church response to secular authorities who used heresy as a reason to get rid of their detractors. Essentially, under secular rulers, heresy was a crime punishable by death and until the Church stepped in, it was pretty easy for someone to be convicted of heresy and receive harsh punishments, often including the death penalty. The Church’s response was, “If you are going to try and punish someone for heresy, you should first let us make a determination as to the validity of the accusations”. Then, if the Church found one to be guilty of heresy, they would be passed on to the authorities for sentencing. Without the Church’s involvement, it was previously pretty easy for one to get a conviction of heresy imposed on an enemy.
As to the various inquisitions; Whatever injustices may have been done, it is important to remember that the inquisitions were basically a Church response to secular authorities who used heresy as a reason to get rid of their detractors. Essentially, under secular rulers, heresy was a crime punishable by death and until the Church stepped in, it was pretty easy for someone to be convicted of heresy and receive harsh punishments, often including the death penalty. The Church’s response was, “If you are going to try and punish someone for heresy, you should first let us make a determination as to the validity of the accusations”. Then, if the Church found one to be guilty of heresy, they would be passed on to the authorities for sentencing. Without the Church’s involvement, it was previously pretty easy for one to get a conviction of heresy imposed on an enemy.
R
rciadan
Guest
Here is an excellent site to get some lessons from actual credentialed Medival History experts.
turrisfortis.com/history.html
turrisfortis.com/history.html
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
It is really simple, muslim invaders took over christian lands by war, and christians came to the defense of those captured by muslims. there was even a “childrens” crusade as I recall.
M
Mirdath
Guest
Which ended with the kids being sold off into slavery, yes.
The origin of the Crusades is in a war over land – specifically the Byzantine Empire, which was warring with the Seljuqs. The Byzantines asked Rome for help, and the Pope at the time declared the first crusade. Just shy of a dozen wars later, people finally figured out fighting was a waste of time – of course, the focus by then had shifted from saving the Byzantines to ‘recovering’ Jerusalem (which area the other Arab tribes, as Semites, had just as much right to as the Israelites, let alone the Christians) to driving the Moors out of southwestern Europe. While many on both sides may have entered the war with noble intentions, the whole thing essentially fell down to ‘who gets to rape and pillage?’, even causing conflict among the ‘victors’.
There were also other Crusades, almost side-stories to the main bunch. In particular, a Crusade was declared against the Albigensians or Cathars (who were in some ways the Quakers of the day, peaceful, community-oriented believers who simply didn’t buy into the feudal system), resulting in their utter extermination. Over 20 years, The Church essentially eradicated those whom they saw as heretics far more thoroughly than the Nazis did the Jews much later on. The Albigensian Crusade was also one of the primary events which gave rise to what we generally think of when we hear the word ‘Inquisition’.
The Inquisition was a system of Church courts operating in parallel with the civil legal system of European countries. It nominally existed to try heretics; however, as with the Crusades, its scope rather expanded. Eventually it was used to maintain an absolutely rigid social order under the Church.
The Inquisitions of the southern European countries, especially Spain, give rise to the common image of kangaroo courts, torture, and autos-da-fe; and they’re pretty much right on. We have the Inquisitors to thank for many fascinating devices used in the administration of pain, and for excruciatingly detailed records of their trials.
All in all, neither is a particularly pleasant chapter in Church history. But then, nobody’s record is spotless – and we wouldn’t have that Mel Brooks musical number without the Inquisition
R
rciadan
Guest
You need to reread your history for your claims are way off the mark from anywhere near true.Which ended with the kids being sold off into slavery, yes.
The origin of the Crusades is in a war over land – specifically the Byzantine Empire, which was warring with the Seljuqs. The Byzantines asked Rome for help, and the Pope at the time declared the first crusade. Just shy of a dozen wars later, people finally figured out fighting was a waste of time – of course, the focus by then had shifted from saving the Byzantines to ‘recovering’ Jerusalem (which area the other Arab tribes, as Semites, had just as much right to as the Israelites, let alone the Christians) to driving the Moors out of southwestern Europe. While many on both sides may have entered the war with noble intentions, the whole thing essentially fell down to ‘who gets to rape and pillage?’, even causing conflict among the ‘victors’.
There were also other Crusades, almost side-stories to the main bunch. In particular, a Crusade was declared against the Albigensians or Cathars (who were in some ways the Quakers of the day, peaceful, community-oriented believers who simply didn’t buy into the feudal system), resulting in their utter extermination. Over 20 years, The Church essentially eradicated those whom they saw as heretics far more thoroughly than the Nazis did the Jews much later on. The Albigensian Crusade was also one of the primary events which gave rise to what we generally think of when we hear the word ‘Inquisition’.
The Inquisition was a system of Church courts operating in parallel with the civil legal system of European countries. It nominally existed to try heretics; however, as with the Crusades, its scope rather expanded. Eventually it was used to maintain an absolutely rigid social order under the Church.
The Inquisitions of the southern European countries, especially Spain, give rise to the common image of kangaroo courts, torture, and autos-da-fe; and they’re pretty much right on. We have the Inquisitors to thank for many fascinating devices used in the administration of pain, and for excruciatingly detailed records of their trials.
All in all, neither is a particularly pleasant chapter in Church history. But then, nobody’s record is spotless – and we wouldn’t have that Mel Brooks musical number without the Inquisition
M
Mirdath
Guest
Uh, nope. I don’t know where you’re reading your history, but that’s what happened, as far as we can tell – and as I said, records, particularly of the Inquisition, are exhaustive. Deaths to the Inquisitions may have been exaggerated in the past (for instance, the infamous Spanish Inquisition itself is now thought to have killed ‘only’ a few thousand) but it’s still not a particularly good reflection on the medieval Church. Nor is the Albigensian Crusade, which most certainly did everything I said; very few people now speak Languedoc. That war also gave us the immortal line, ‘Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius’: ‘Kill them all – God will know his own’.
Of course, things were pretty bad all over the place, not just in Rome. And as the central repository of power and wealth in Europe at that time, it of course is more focused on for its shortcomings. It’s very much to the Church’s credit that the bad times were only as short as they were. But this does not excuse many of the actions of its agents, up to and including the Popes.
I
I_A
Guest
I don’t know much about the crusades but if that is what you think of the Albenensians then you’re history is terrible.
They practiced ritual (sometimes forced) suicide and homicide: starvation, posioning, killing the sick with pillows, etc.
Sure they were vegetarians, but not because animal life was good. To them all life was debase and human life bound spirits to this evil realm. Animals were evil.
Oh they were so peaceful when they ran priests through with lances.
Blessed Pierre de Castelnau
Let’s reminice about those peaceful Quaker-like people who were so into raizing and burning villages, churches, and sparing not even widows as they plundered Albi and Toulouse.
Oh wait, its not politically benificial to remember these things about them.
M
Mirdath
Guest
Now hold on, I did say things were bad all over. They don’t call them The Dark Ages for nothing. But, the same spirit that influenced most of the Cathars (and led to both wonder and horror of all kinds - it was just how history was flowing then) wound up influencing St. Francis of Assisi and his followers, which brought great light and learning into a world in dire need of both. It’s not too far wrong to say that the hard-line Dominican friars were the balancing-act to the Franciscans, who tended to be scholars and revolutionaries. The Church was trying to keep it all together, but was also too big to turn on a dime, and was very used to taking the long view and its own sweet time - which waits for none of us. The very acceptance of the Minorite orders was a huge deal in the first place.
This was a big general question, and I’m trying to give big, general, economic/social and geopolitical answers, not write a thesis, rhetorical or otherwise. This stuff happened. Nobody’s hands were entirely clean. But the Cathars didn’t have THAT kind of brutality coming. Social rebellion was on the menu no matter what, at that place and time. Some things had to give, and as it happened, there was bending and breaking enough to go around, for the Church, for the nobility (civil authority) and for the people. The mercantile class was on the rise, the world was getting smaller (yes even then), add in plagues, invasions, the constant intriguing of various states and cities, the influx of new and rediscovered-ancient ideas, all the Guelph vs. Ghibelline stuff, the Avignon papacy-split…wow. It’s just too vast a panorama to work into a forum thread, perhaps. And that’s just the West! If you add in Byzantine/Eastern issues…forget it, it’s just too immense.
I do recommend reading Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose for a beginning of in-depth examination of attitudes and political shifting in the early 1300’s, and the whys thereof. Yes, the narrator is despairing (since he’s actually writing just as the Black Death is hitting hard, and the trauma of his experiences with William has colored his entire life – he has seen the world turned nearly literally upside-down and lost his once-sure footing in the rational), yet there is much hope on the way that Adso can’t see from his point of view and experience. Also, such big players as Michael of Cesena and Bernard Gui show up, and we hear plenty about other luminaries too, since William (of Baskerville, fictional) was a student of Bacon’s and a close friend of William of Ockham – so much learning, and so astute, and yet…life is never that simple, and neither is history. Eco’s writing is a good pointer to some fascinating key texts of the time (well, okay, maybe not Aristotle’s lost text, but oh, if only!)
Also, while I obviously have great respect for the Society of Friends, the joke about the Quaker and the chicken thief always makes me crack up. “Forgive me brother, I would not hurt thee for the world…but you’re standing exactly where I want to shoot!” And all the Quakers (some are family) I know get a kick out of that old gag too.
This was a big general question, and I’m trying to give big, general, economic/social and geopolitical answers, not write a thesis, rhetorical or otherwise. This stuff happened. Nobody’s hands were entirely clean. But the Cathars didn’t have THAT kind of brutality coming. Social rebellion was on the menu no matter what, at that place and time. Some things had to give, and as it happened, there was bending and breaking enough to go around, for the Church, for the nobility (civil authority) and for the people. The mercantile class was on the rise, the world was getting smaller (yes even then), add in plagues, invasions, the constant intriguing of various states and cities, the influx of new and rediscovered-ancient ideas, all the Guelph vs. Ghibelline stuff, the Avignon papacy-split…wow. It’s just too vast a panorama to work into a forum thread, perhaps. And that’s just the West! If you add in Byzantine/Eastern issues…forget it, it’s just too immense.
I do recommend reading Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose for a beginning of in-depth examination of attitudes and political shifting in the early 1300’s, and the whys thereof. Yes, the narrator is despairing (since he’s actually writing just as the Black Death is hitting hard, and the trauma of his experiences with William has colored his entire life – he has seen the world turned nearly literally upside-down and lost his once-sure footing in the rational), yet there is much hope on the way that Adso can’t see from his point of view and experience. Also, such big players as Michael of Cesena and Bernard Gui show up, and we hear plenty about other luminaries too, since William (of Baskerville, fictional) was a student of Bacon’s and a close friend of William of Ockham – so much learning, and so astute, and yet…life is never that simple, and neither is history. Eco’s writing is a good pointer to some fascinating key texts of the time (well, okay, maybe not Aristotle’s lost text, but oh, if only!)
Also, while I obviously have great respect for the Society of Friends, the joke about the Quaker and the chicken thief always makes me crack up. “Forgive me brother, I would not hurt thee for the world…but you’re standing exactly where I want to shoot!” And all the Quakers (some are family) I know get a kick out of that old gag too.
I
I_A
Guest
Sorry if I overreacated Mirdath.
I’ve seen so much bad history lately it’s getting on my nerves. I may have responded to harshly.
Yeah the response to the Cathars was brutal and excessive. I can not deny the blood that fell at the hands of Catholics. I’ve seen to many people rewrite history I just didn’t want the Albegenes eulogized as something they were not.
I’ve seen so much bad history lately it’s getting on my nerves. I may have responded to harshly.
Yeah the response to the Cathars was brutal and excessive. I can not deny the blood that fell at the hands of Catholics. I’ve seen to many people rewrite history I just didn’t want the Albegenes eulogized as something they were not.
S
Steadfast
Guest
Mirdath,
I don’t think you were far off the truth in your thumbnail of history.
And while I am not an expert I have read some and I have never read about the Albigensians committing ritual murder.
They were dualists with some odd ideas about sex and were, in fact, a species of Gnostic so I am not sure I’d equate them with the Quakers…
But I don’t think they deserved to be wiped out. Given the brutality of the time it is easy to understand the how of such a thing but a categorical why escapes me.
I don’t think you were far off the truth in your thumbnail of history.
And while I am not an expert I have read some and I have never read about the Albigensians committing ritual murder.
They were dualists with some odd ideas about sex and were, in fact, a species of Gnostic so I am not sure I’d equate them with the Quakers…
But I don’t think they deserved to be wiped out. Given the brutality of the time it is easy to understand the how of such a thing but a categorical why escapes me.
M
Mirdath
Guest
Many Cathars would receive consolamentum – basically becoming full members or Perfecti, much as a catechumen enters the Catholic Church – on their deathbeds and then passively euthanize themselves by refusing food and drink. Constantine I was baptized just before his death for essentially the same reason: no time to screw it up by sinning. Accusations that other members would actively kill newly-made Perfecti smack of blood libel.
And yes, they had some odd-by-Catholic-standards ideas about sex, in particular that procreation is evil and that casual relationships are preferable to marriage (although Perfecti were celibate). The first, at the very least, was hardly a new religious concept.
However, they do actually have a lot in common with the Quakers, more in their social beliefs than theological. They were generally nonviolent – Pierre de Castelnau was killed at the command of Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse, who was no Cathar but merely not unfriendly towards them as standards of the time demanded. The Catholic Encyclopedia has a rather scathing article on him. Cathars lived simply, did not swear oaths (a big issue in feudal societies), and were generally populists – all traits shared by the Society of Friends.
- Status