"Horrors" Commited By the RCC

[NiceFundamental]

Here is one from a Catholic website - again only providing this so people can determine if the quote is taken out of context or not.

newadvent.org/summa/301103.htm

Further quote…

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but “after the first and second admonition,” as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, “A little leaven,” says: “Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame.”

 

[katewithak]

NiceFundamental:

Here is one from a Catholic website - again only providing this so people can determine if the quote is taken out of context or not.

newadvent.org/summa/301103.htm

Further quote…

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but “after the first and second admonition,” as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, “A little leaven,” says: “Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame.”

Yes, most definately the quote was taken out of context. The original quote posted by allischalmers gave over attention to the concept of death to the heretic. The actual Summa speaks of the Church’s mercy in much more detail. And the reasons why death is not the preferred means of dealing with heretics. I still wonder why, though, she posted what she did?

 

[Church_Militant]

NiceFundamental:

Here is a link to Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, second part of the second part, question 11, article 3, under the heading, “Whether heretics ought to be tolerated?”

ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.SS_Q11_A3.html

From where the first quote originated from. Here one can determine context as well.So suddenly someone seems to think that Aquinas was infallible? That is wrong.

This is more like a discussion of opinions here and is without authority. In other words…an opinion. So what?

Since this didn’t come from Rome as dogma, it’s just worthwhile reading and nothing more.

I would offer something much older and more authoritative from Ignatius of Antioch in about 107 AD about 8 years after teh death of the last apostle.
CHAP. IV.–BEWARE OF THESE HERETICS.

I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that ye also hold the same opinions[as I do]. But I guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with; only you must pray to God for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance, which, however, will be very difficult. Yet Jesus Christ, who is our true life, has the power of[effecting] this.

and further:
CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

Note what he condemns as heresy in that second passage by the way. This from the bishop of the church at Antioch, who was discipled by St. John himself and who was thrown to wild animals in Rome for the faith.
Pax tecum,

 

[NiceFundamental]

allischalmers:

Pope leo Xlll (1810–1903)
“The death sentence is a necessary and efficacious means for the church to attain it’s end when rebels act against it and disturbers of the ecclesiastical unity, especially obstinate heretics and heresiarchs cannot be restrained by any other penalty from continuing to derange the ecclesiastical order and impelling others to all sorts of crime. When the perversity of one or several is calculated to bring about the ruin of many of it’s childern it is bound effectively to remove it, in such wise that if there be no other remedy for saving its people it CAN AND MUST PUT THESE WICKED MEN TO DEATH.”

It appears this is not an actual/factual quote whatsoever. Web searches link it to “Book of Canon Law” Preface, Volume 2
by M. de Luca, Society of Jesus 1901, by “suspect” websites (as I listed previously).

I cannot locate anything on “M.de Luca” nor find any reference to such a “Book”. If this is indeed a malicious attempt (not referring to you allischalmers but rather the originator of such deceit) it is indeed harmful and does beg to ask the question, “what else has been fabricated to promote the anti-Catholic agenda”? It does demonstrate one must take all things and test them for validity.

 

[Church_Militant]

NiceFundamental:

It appears this is not an actual/factual quote whatsoever. Web searches link it to “Book of Canon Law” Preface, Volume 2
by M. de Luca, Society of Jesus 1901, by “suspect” websites (as I listed previously).

I cannot locate anything on “M.de Luca” nor find any reference to such a “Book”. If this is indeed a malicious attempt (not referring to you allischalmers but rather the originator of such deceit) it is indeed harmful and does beg to ask the question, “what else has been fabricated to promote the anti-Catholic agenda”? It does demonstrate one must take all things and test them for validity.

 

[YahShuaMessiah]

Church Militant:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
Note what he condemns as heresy in that second passage by the way. This from the bishop of the church at Antioch, who was discipled by St. John himself and who was thrown to wild animals in Rome for the faith.
Pax tecum,

Now, putting this quote to the same scrutiny test, could this quote in itself be taken out of context? Is it a possibility?

 

[YahShuaMessiah]

From a discussion of which I am interested to read a rebuttal:

"It is wrong to interpret literal speech figuratively; it is equally wrong to interpret metaphorical speech literally. So, let’s see, did the early fathers believe in transubstantiation, namely the substance of the bread and wine is changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ?

Ignatius

Ignatius is arguing against the Gnostic Docetists, who denied that Jesus had a true physical existence, or that that he actually died and rose again:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.”

Ignatius states that the Eucharist is the body of Christ without given any details about the nature of the change, if any, in the elements. The problem with the Gnostics concerned the person of Christ and not the nature of the Eucharist. The heretics did not participate in the Eucharist because they do not believe in what the Eucharist represents, namely the true, physical flesh of Jesus, who actually and really suffered on the cross, and which was really resurrected from the death."

 

[Church_Militant]

YahShuaMessiah:

Now, putting this quote to the same scrutiny test, could this quote in itself be taken out of context? Is it a possibility?

That’s why the link is there…

 

[Church_Militant]

YahShuaMessiah:

From a discussion of which I am interested to read a rebuttal:

"It is wrong to interpret literal speech figuratively; it is equally wrong to interpret metaphorical speech literally. So, let’s see, did the early fathers believe in transubstantiation, namely the substance of the bread and wine is changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ?

Ignatius

Ignatius is arguing against the Gnostic Docetists, who denied that Jesus had a true physical existence, or that that he actually died and rose again:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.”

Ignatius states that the Eucharist is the body of Christ without given any details about the nature of the change, if any, in the elements. The problem with the Gnostics concerned the person of Christ and not the nature of the Eucharist. The heretics did not participate in the Eucharist because they do not believe in what the Eucharist represents, namely the true, physical flesh of Jesus, who actually and really suffered on the cross, and which was really resurrected from the death."

You need to open another thread if you wish to discuss the Eucharist instead of hijacking this one.

There are plenty of threads & articles on the Eucharist on this site that I suggest you read before you do that though.

The Eucharist IS Scriptural
Christ In The Eucharist
The Real Presence

 

[Thal59]

All of this is interesting… especially the way this thread, like many, deviate from the original proposition.

Perhaps it would be best to identify the motive of the original post which of course is to establish that: since there were bad Catholics and bad events in Church history, the RCC cannot be the Church Christ established since Christ would never inspire His church’s leaders to commit such acts… i.e. the Crusades.

I look at it this way…

When Mother Teresa died, she was given a state funeral. Think about that for a moment. India, a predominantly Hindu and Muslim country with a male dominated culture gave a state funeral and national recognition to a Catholic woman! Mother Teresa was not Hindu or Muslim, nor was she even Indian; she was Albanian by birth. Yet these religious, ethnic, cultural differences did not stop India from recognizing her holiness.

When JPII died, the world - almost literally - attended his funeral. Representatives from virtually every nation, culture, ethnicity and ,yes, even every religion attended. This constitutes a near world-wide recognition of his holiness. (They didn’t assemble merely because they considered him a famous person.)

Now, recall the original motive of this thread.

If the RCC’s claim to be the one, holy, and Apostolic church of Christ is invalid because of the more unfortunate events in its past - if the RCC, as many Protestants claim, once apostasized and lost its authority - if the RCC, as many Protestants also claim, is idolatrous, guilty of giving worship to Mary, guilty of basing its man-made traditions on ancient pagan practices etc, etc,…

Then why does God only raise up such saints as Mother Teresa and JPII through the RCC?

Give me one Protestant who was ever recognized by the world for their holiness on the same level as Mother Teresa or John Paul II.

Thal59

 

[Alfie]

Thal59:

All of this is interesting… especially the way this thread, like many, deviate from the original proposition.

Perhaps it would be best to identify the motive of the original post which of course is to establish that: since there were bad Catholics and bad events in Church history, the RCC cannot be the Church Christ established since Christ would never inspire His church’s leaders to commit such acts… i.e. the Crusades.

I look at it this way…

When Mother Teresa died, she was given a state funeral. Think about that for a moment. India, a predominantly Hindu and Muslim country with a male dominated culture gave a state funeral and national recognition to a Catholic woman! Mother Teresa was not Hindu or Muslim, nor was she even Indian; she was Albanian by birth. Yet these religious, ethnic, cultural differences did not stop India from recognizing her holiness.

When JPII died, the world - almost literally - attended his funeral. Representatives from virtually every nation, culture, ethnicity and ,yes, even every religion attended. This constitutes a near world-wide recognition of his holiness. (They didn’t assemble merely because they considered him a famous person.)

Now, recall the original motive of this thread.

If the RCC’s claim to be the one, holy, and Apostolic church of Christ is invalid because of the more unfortunate events in its past - if the RCC, as many Protestants claim, once apostasized and lost its authority - if the RCC, as many Protestants also claim, is idolatrous, guilty of giving worship to Mary, guilty of basing its man-made traditions on ancient pagan practices etc, etc,…

Then why does God only raise up such saints as Mother Teresa and JPII through the RCC?

Give me one Protestant who was ever recognized by the world for their holiness on the same level as Mother Teresa or John Paul II.

Thal59

Albert Sweitzer comes to mind. There have been protestant missionaries who have been killed in South America over the last several years.

Amy Carmichael was from a rich Irish Family. She was a missionary in India in the late 1850’s.

There probably have been more protestant missionaries in the last two hundred years than Catholic.

Why do you have to be well known in the world anyway? Do you think God cares about popularity?

Billy Graham is just as well known as the pope.

According to what I have read by the Catholics on this forum no one really knows for sure who will make it to heaven. So by that reasoning that would include Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul. No one knows for sure if either of them made it to heaven. If that is what Catholics really believe than how can you pray to your saints by name when you have no proof that any of them are in heaven?

 

[Church_Militant]

My responses within the quote are in red.

Alfie:

Albert Sweitzer comes to mind. There have been protestant missionaries who have been killed in South America over the last several years. Your point?

Amy Carmichael was from a rich Irish Family. She was a missionary in India in the late 1850’s. Who?

There probably have been more protestant missionaries in the last two hundred years than Catholic. Easily because there are THOUSANDS of differing denom that don’t feel that the gospel is preached unless THEIR specific interpretations are propounded. They can’t all be right.

Why do you have to be well known in the world anyway? Do you think God cares about popularity? Nope.

Billy Graham is just as well known as the pope.

According to what I have read by the Catholics on this forum no one really knows for sure who will make it to heaven. So by that reasoning that would include Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul. No one knows for sure if either of them made it to heaven. If that is what Catholics really believe than how can you pray to your saints by name when you have no proof that any of them are in heaven?This is about as irrelevent a post as I’ve ever seen. Especially your last paragraph which (again) if you wish to discuss the Communion of saints then you should look at the articles in the CA Ma(name removed by moderator)age Library on that and not (again) attempt to hijack this thread and run it off-topic.

BTW, Billy Graham and John Paul II had a deep respect for each other.

I see where you stated in another thread that you are Catholic…but your profile as well as your comments on the forums throw that into question.
You wouldn’t lie to us now would you?
Pax tecum,

 

[Thal59]

Alfie:

Albert Sweitzer comes to mind. There have been protestant missionaries who have been killed in South America over the last several years… <> …If that is what Catholics really believe than how can you pray to your saints by name when you have no proof that any of them are in heaven?

This is a MAGNIFICENT example of the inability of Protestants being able to carry on a pointed discussion with Catholics.

Albert Sweitzer comes to mind.<<<

Albert Schweitzer??? He may have been a fine man, but did the world turn out at his funeral out of respect and recognition of his holiness???

There have been protestant missionaries who have been killed in South America over the last several years.<<<

Very possibly true. But this has absolutely nothing to do with my post. (It is written as if i had stated that there are no Protestant missionaries, or as if I had claimed none had lost their life while performing such service.)

Amy Carmichael was from a rich Irish Family. She was a missionary in India in the late 1850’s. <<<

Never heard of her, but I’ll take your word for it. I am sure there have been many missionaries in India. But the issue is one of state or world recognized holiness. What does her rich Irish family have to do with anything? Did Amy recieve the state recognition that Mother Teresa did? What did she do that is worthy of rememberance? Where is the comparison?

There probably have been more protestant missionaries in the last two hundred years than Catholic.<<

A classic Protestant broadside based purely on unsubstantiated guesswork and wishful thinking. Catholics were living and defining the missionary role for over a thousand years before there were any Protestants at all. Since missionary zeal and devotions have always been a core characteristic of the RCC, and since there have always been more Catholics in the world than Protestants, it is a pretty good certainty that your statement is not accurate.

Why do you have to be well known in the world anyway? Do you think God cares about popularity?<<<

You are beautifully demonstrating an inability to understand the point of the post you are responding to. I made no statement whatsoever concerning fame or popularity. Michael Jackson is world famous, but what can be said of his holiness? My post focused on the “recognized holiness” of Mother Teresa and John Paul II. Mother Teresa received such recognition in spite of religious, cultural, or ethnic differences. John Paul II received it in spite of the same differences, but on a world-wide extent. No one you have nominated comes close. Since you know I have made a point that you cannot dispute, you shift the focus to a question of fame or popularity.

Billy Graham is just as well known as the pope.<<<

Another unqualified opinion. Billy Graham is indeed well-known. But I sincerely doubt he was as well known as John Paul II. But again, this is not a question of merely being “heard of.” When Billy Graham passes away, will the world attend his funeral and proclaim his holiness?

According to what I have read by the Catholics on this forum no one really knows for sure who will make it to heaven. So by that reasoning that would include Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul. No one knows for sure if either of them made it to heaven. If that is what Catholics really believe than how can you pray to your saints by name when you have no proof that any of them are in heaven?<<<

BINGO!!! A MASTERFUL example of suddenly changing the subject!!! Who ever mentioned “knowing” who has made it into heaven??? From this “Bolt Out Of The Blue” we have another subject change that questions the validity of praying to the saints!

Of the many times I have debated (and I use the term loosely) with Protestants, I cannot recall one instance where my Protestant competitor was able to address the issue at hand. They consistantly avoid answering the questions, they show an inherent inability to understand the specific points they argue against, they accuse their Catholic counterpart of making a statement they never did, and then they sally forth to disprove what was never said!

Yet, these same people who cannot accurately debate the points of a simple statement profess to be able to understand inspired scripture in its most sublime and profound level.

Magnificent.

Thal59

 

[katewithak]

Thal59:

This is a MAGNIFICENT example of the inability of Protestants being able to carry on a pointed discussion with Catholics.

Albert Sweitzer comes to mind.<<<

Albert Schweitzer??? He may have been a fine man, but did the world turn out at his funeral out of respect and recognition of his holiness???

There have been protestant missionaries who have been killed in South America over the last several years.<<<

Very possibly true. But this has absolutely nothing to do with my post. (It is written as if i had stated that there are no Protestant missionaries, or as if I had claimed none had lost their life while performing such service.)

Amy Carmichael was from a rich Irish Family. She was a missionary in India in the late 1850’s. <<<

Never heard of her, but I’ll take your word for it. I am sure there have been many missionaries in India. But the issue is one of state or world recognized holiness. What does her rich Irish family have to do with anything? Did Amy recieve the state recognition that Mother Teresa did? What did she do that is worthy of rememberance? Where is the comparison?

There probably have been more protestant missionaries in the last two hundred years than Catholic.<<

A classic Protestant broadside based purely on unsubstantiated guesswork and wishful thinking. Catholics were living and defining the missionary role for over a thousand years before there were any Protestants at all. Since missionary zeal and devotions have always been a core characteristic of the RCC, and since there have always been more Catholics in the world than Protestants, it is a pretty good certainty that your statement is not accurate.

Why do you have to be well known in the world anyway? Do you think God cares about popularity?<<<

You are beautifully demonstrating an inability to understand the point of the post you are responding to. I made no statement whatsoever concerning fame or popularity. Michael Jackson is world famous, but what can be said of his holiness? My post focused on the “recognized holiness” of Mother Teresa and John Paul II. Mother Teresa received such recognition in spite of religious, cultural, or ethnic differences. John Paul II received it in spite of the same differences, but on a world-wide extent. No one you have nominated comes close. Since you know I have made a point that you cannot dispute, you shift the focus to a question of fame or popularity.

Billy Graham is just as well known as the pope.<<<

Another unqualified opinion. Billy Graham is indeed well-known. But I sincerely doubt he was as well known as John Paul II. But again, this is not a question of merely being “heard of.” When Billy Graham passes away, will the world attend his funeral and proclaim his holiness?

According to what I have read by the Catholics on this forum no one really knows for sure who will make it to heaven. So by that reasoning that would include Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul. No one knows for sure if either of them made it to heaven. If that is what Catholics really believe than how can you pray to your saints by name when you have no proof that any of them are in heaven?<<<

BINGO!!! A MASTERFUL example of suddenly changing the subject!!! Who ever mentioned “knowing” who has made it into heaven??? From this “Bolt Out Of The Blue” we have another subject change that questions the validity of praying to the saints!

Of the many times I have debated (and I use the term loosely) with Protestants, I cannot recall one instance where my Protestant competitor was able to address the issue at hand. They consistantly avoid answering the questions, they show an inherent inability to understand the specific points they argue against, they accuse their Catholic counterpart of making a statement they never did, and then they sally forth to disprove what was never said!

Yet, these same people who cannot accurately debate the points of a simple statement profess to be able to understand inspired scripture in its most sublime and profound level.

Magnificent.

Thal59

For the most part, I agree with your statements. I wonder though about the insistence on “world recognized holiness”. How does that work? The world tells the Vatican who is holy and the Vatican canonizes them? Is that what makes up the Communion of Saints- people the world says is holy, so then the Vatican canonizes them? That makes it sound as if Heaven is a very democratic place in which we all get a vote for who makes up the Communion of Saints. Could someone explain a little better?

 

[Thal59]

katewithak:

For the most part, I agree with your statements. I wonder though about the insistence on “world recognized holiness”. How does that work? The world tells the Vatican who is holy and the Vatican canonizes them? Is that what makes up the Communion of Saints- people the world says is holy, so then the Vatican canonizes them? That makes it sound as if Heaven is a very democratic place in which we all get a vote for who makes up the Communion of Saints. Could someone explain a little better?

Its very simple. I believe that JPII canonized Maxamillian Kolbe and Sr. Faustina Kowalska. Anyone who is not a Catholic may argue whether or not such people are truly saints. They may argue that they do not accept the RCC’s authority to confer such status upon these people.

However, this cannot be argued in the case of JPII. Virtually every nation, culture, and religion “proclaimed” their belief in his personal holiness or his closeness to God as a faithful servant when they came to his funeral. To the best of my knowledge no other person on earth was so honored.

Now, remember that the point of this thread was to dredge up the past in a way that would show the RCC in a bad light. People are constantly bashing the church, or are denying its authority. Yet, it is the only church on earth that produces such holy men and women that the same people who scandalize the church are moved to acknowledge the holiness of its members.

It has nothing to do with canonization per se, or with the communion of saints.

It is about the enigma; that the church which is so assailed and whose authority is constantly denied just happens to be the only place where God raises up saints whose holiness is recognized by the same world that attacks the church and denies its authority.

Thal59

 

[DavidB]

Thal59:

Jay29, you can be sure to hear the dreaded word… Inquisition!

But recently, a study of records both civil and from the court of the inquisition in Spain covering the entire 16th century show that about only 40-50 people were put to death for various charges by the court of the inquisition. Protestant sources will claim that the court of the inquisition in Spain tortured and murdered thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions! (It all depends on how anti-Catholic the Protestant source is.)

Of course, you will never hear a Protestant decrying the deaths of almost a quarter of a million peasents in Germany during the “Peasent Wars” (1523-1527ad) due to the inciting to violence by Martin Luther.

Thal59

40-50? Could you please cite a source for that?

Recent historical work has estimated based on a partial examination of court records that there were approximately 2,000 executions during the Spanish Inquisition. That does not include the deaths that occurred as 200,000 Jews were banished from Spain. Unlike Spanish court records, which can be examined today, no one recorded deaths of people traveling because they were cast out of a nation. Spanish estimates are that tens of thousands died on the trip, but that can’t be verified or refuted.

The examination of records has also refuted the myths of mass torture being used. Legends of the iron maiden and various devices are not true. Torture did occur, but not on the scale purported.

See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inquisition_Myth for more information.

David

 

[Thal59]

40-50? Could you please cite a source for that?

Recent historical work has estimated based on a partial examination of court records that there were approximately 2,000 executions during the Spanish Inquisition. That does not include the deaths that occurred as 200,000 Jews were banished from Spain. Unlike Spanish court records, which can be examined today, no one recorded deaths of people traveling because they were cast out of a nation. Spanish estimates are that tens of thousands died on the trip, but that can’t be verified or refuted.

The examination of records has also refuted the myths of mass torture being used. Legends of the iron maiden and various devices are not true. Torture did occur, but not on the scale purported.

See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inquisition_Myth for more information.

David

There is a video presentation of the investigation, but it can only be obtained by established churches or educational offices. I believe it is a BBC production.

The best I can offer is…

Why Apologize for the Spanish Inquisition?

This is a small 30 page booklet about the BBC Documentary.
It is an acceptable source as it incorporates the conclusions of a variety of historians such as Dr. Leo Moulin (agnostic), author Vittorio Messori (Catholic), and historian William Prescott. (Protestant.)

Thal59

 

[katewithak]

Thal59:

There is a video presentation of the investigation, but it can only be obtained by established churches or educational offices. I believe it is a BBC production.

The best I can offer is…

Why Apologize for the Spanish Inquisition?

This is a small 30 page booklet about the BBC Documentary.
It is an acceptable source as it incorporates the conclusions of a variety of historians such as Dr. Leo Moulin (agnostic), author Vittorio Messori (Catholic), and historian William Prescott. (Protestant.)

Thal59

Spanish Inquisition is a red herring. If the Protestants want to talk about it, one must understand the history of “inquisition in general” first. Death through inquistion has existed since the 3rd century.

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 Poltiers (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. However, the successors of Constantine were ever persuaded that the first concern of imperial authority (Theodosius II, “Novellae”, tit. III, A.D. 438) was the protection of religion and so, with terrible regularity, issued many penal edicts against heretics. In the space of fifty seven years sixty-eight enactments were thus promulgated. All manner of heretics were affected by this legislation, and in various ways, by exile, confiscation of property, or death. A law of 407, aimed at the traitorous Donatists, asserts for the first time that these heretics ought to be put on the same plane as transgressors against the sacred majesty of the emperor, a concept to which was reserved in later times a very momentous role. The death penalty however, was only imposed for certain kinds of heresy; in their persecution of heretics the Christian emperors fell far short of the severity of Diocletian, who in 287 sentenced to the stake the leaders of the Manichaeans, and inflicted on their followers partly the death penalty by beheading, and partly forced labor in the government mines.

 

[katewithak]

The ecclesiastical ideas of the first five centuries may be summarized as follows:

the Church should for no cause shed blood (St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Leo I, and others);
other teachers, however, like Optatus of Mileve and Priscillian, believed that the State could pronounce the death penalty on heretics in case the public welfare demanded it;
the majority held that the death penalty for heresy, when not civilly criminal, was irreconcilable with the spirit of Christianity.

To read more on “Inquisistion” and the impossibility of determining how many thousand s have been killed as heretics go to this site:
newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm
This is a Catholic site and will inform both Catholic and Protestant alike.
One can also check earlier statements on the relation of Inquistion to the Old Testament. When it was required and when it was not under OT times.

 

[katewithak]

Above I gave an overview of Christian and Catholic Inquisitions.
Now let’s look at the Protestant Inquisition. I have skipped the murders Zwingli- Luther’s disciple inflicted on Catholics. We’ll get to that later.
"Many Protestants use the Inquisition as a handy stick to beat the Catholic Church, but they should not forget that from 1184 to 1517, the birth of the Reformation, both Catholics and Protestants were members of the same Church… there were not Protestants at that time!.. and they also tend to forget The Protestant Inquisition: “Reformation” Intolerance and Persecution.

Here are some statements and facts: from The Inquisition and the Church

Calvin sought to persecute heretics (particularly Roman Catholics) so as to keep Protestant believers in the lands divided by the Reformation faithful to his new teachings. He viciously persecuted the Spaniard, Michael Servetus, having him burnt alive on October 27, 1553. As early as 1545, Calvin had written, “If he [Servetus] comes to Geneva, I will never allow him to depart alive.” He kept his promise.

Martin Luther also fanned the flames of intolerance, “Whoever teaches otherwise than I teach, condemns God, and must remain a child of hell.”

King Henry VIII of England, who took upon himself the role of grand royal inquisitor, took the lives of some 72,000 Catholics, many cruelly tortured an the grand total of persons killed by the Inquisition in 331 years were an estimated 3,000 to 5,000.

Queen Elizabeth I, proved herself the former’s daughter by putting to death more people in one year than the Inquisition had done in 331 years!

Theodore of Beza wrote: “What crime can be greater or more heinous than heresy, which sets at nought the word of God and all ecclesiastic discipline? Christian magistrates, do your duty to God [speaking in Calvin’s Geneva of 1554], who has put the sword into your hands for the honor of His majesty; strike valiantly these monsters in the guise of men.” He went on to characterize those who demanded freedom of conscience “worse than the tyranny of the pope. It is better to have a tyrant, no matter how cruel he may be, than to let everyone do as he pleases.”
Source:biblia.com/christianity/inquisition.htm#Protestants
Show me our Inquisition and I’ll show you your Inquisition.
Or how about humming a few bars of “We say Inquisition, you say reformation.”