S
Sword_Brethren
Guest
Do you mean the Iron Maiden? The Iron Maiden was not used in the Inquistition.
How often had Protestants converted people at the tip of the Sword?
- Status
R
rinnie
Guest
Isnt it funny how you continue to condem the Catholic Church, and each and every time you get shot down. So then you come back with something else, again shot down. Remember we are trying to help people, answer questions the best we can. But when you continue to attack the faith, We will protect our Church. Catholics do stick together.
R
Righteousone
Guest
Thank you Lord for the gift of your Holy Catholic church.
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
Who me? You count my mistake on the Iron Maiden as a “shot down”? har har har, its got nothing to do with my points. Its my logical arguments that you need to shoot down, not my few failed attempts at humor.
R
rtconstant
Guest
Agnos you haven’t actually made a point yet. Once a again the Crusades were not about conversion. The Inquisition was established to fight heresies within itself. The Spanish Inquisition was exceptional in its attack against those outside of the Faith, and it seemed more concerned with those who had already converted but who’s sincerity was doubted. Not a shining moment to be sure but hardly an indicator of a history of forced conversions. Finally the Conquistadors were conqueror’s to begin with (Hint: its actually in the name). They’re purpose was to take land and riches for Spain.Who me? You count my mistake on the Iron Maiden as a “shot down”? har har har, its got nothing to do with my points. Its my logical arguments that you need to shoot down, not my few failed attempts at humor.
Now no doubt missionaries did accompany the conquistadors as the Church did desire the conversion of the “New World” however, the missionaries and the conquistadors quickly found themselves at odds. Early on the missionaries protested the enslavement of natives. The Dominican Bishop Antonio Valdivieso de Nicaragua was actually assassinated for trying to force an end to Indian slavery. For the most part the conquistadors were an impediment to conversion.
To bring this back to original topic. The Church certainly has many things to be ashamed about in its long history. So do Protestants. So do all humans regardless of religion. Calvin was not at all opposed to burning those with whom he disagreed. I don’t blame this on his belief system. I blame this on his greed and desire for temporal power.
B
bengal_fan
Guest
and that is the difference between many catholics and most protestants (notice i say many catholics since not all fit into this next comment). protestants don’t ascribe to an “infallible” church and are therefore much more ready to admit their sins, ask forgiveness, and move forward. catholics are much less likely to readily admit the faults of the “infallible” church they belong to. this has just been my experience and does not encapsulate all catholics (John Paul II asked for forgiveness for many things).
M
mark_a
Guest
You have misrepresented “infallibility”. You have been on these forums long enough and I know you know better. You are too sharp to still be confused about something as simple as the infallible teachings of the Church.
Church teachings are infallible, not Church members.
I know that the Southern Baptists apologized for the racial prejudice preached from its pulpits years ago, I also know plenty of Southern Baptists who would rather die than see a Black walk through their chuch doors to worship side by side with them.
Who’s right in this case, the Southern Baptists or the individual members?
R
RabidQuaker
Guest
Mark, I understand your argument about the infallability of the Church and the fallability of Church members, and i’m sure this makes sense to someone within the church. but what would be the logical conclusion of someone not in the church?
For example i was recently reading The Alexiad by Anna Comnene (12th century) in which she describes the byzantine reaction to the crusades. She was shocked at the fact that not only did the crusaders emblazon the cross on their shields and swords, but also that priests and bishops dressed for war and participated in battle. The battle in question, according to any historian worth his meat, was the conversion of the orthodox east. (the most often cited monographs would be those of S. Runciman or J. Harris).
And of course the mission was eventually accomplished in 1204 with the sack of Constantinople, the forced conversion or exile of all Orthodox priests and bishops and the imposition of a Patriarch loyal to Pope Innocent III who had incited and blessed the crusade beforehand. To the outside eye this would seem like more than a few bad apples; rather it appears to be a top-down, organised, and deliberate effort to force non-catholics to convert. Nor does it seem to be an isolated event if we take into account some of the examples previously given, such as the forced conversions in the Americas. Of course there have been improvements recently, especially as the consensus among RC theologians (if i understand them correctly) is no longer one that condemns to eternal damnation anyone who is not in allegiance with Rome, thus removing the conversion imperative.
Obviously no church can point to its members and say “look none of them has ever sinned,” but to follow your contention i do think we need to look at the fruits of each church with an eye to figure out how some of those sins originate and how they are later justified.
For example i was recently reading The Alexiad by Anna Comnene (12th century) in which she describes the byzantine reaction to the crusades. She was shocked at the fact that not only did the crusaders emblazon the cross on their shields and swords, but also that priests and bishops dressed for war and participated in battle. The battle in question, according to any historian worth his meat, was the conversion of the orthodox east. (the most often cited monographs would be those of S. Runciman or J. Harris).
And of course the mission was eventually accomplished in 1204 with the sack of Constantinople, the forced conversion or exile of all Orthodox priests and bishops and the imposition of a Patriarch loyal to Pope Innocent III who had incited and blessed the crusade beforehand. To the outside eye this would seem like more than a few bad apples; rather it appears to be a top-down, organised, and deliberate effort to force non-catholics to convert. Nor does it seem to be an isolated event if we take into account some of the examples previously given, such as the forced conversions in the Americas. Of course there have been improvements recently, especially as the consensus among RC theologians (if i understand them correctly) is no longer one that condemns to eternal damnation anyone who is not in allegiance with Rome, thus removing the conversion imperative.
Obviously no church can point to its members and say “look none of them has ever sinned,” but to follow your contention i do think we need to look at the fruits of each church with an eye to figure out how some of those sins originate and how they are later justified.
M
MH84
Guest
The Iron Maiden, you mean, wasnt even invented until the 19th or 20th centuries.
Nice try.
uch:
V
Valke2
Guest
Being burned alive after a public sermon by a priest (they could have at least done it before)
suspending the person in the air by the arms, tied behind their back.
The rack.
The Judas chair. Basically a pointed pyramid on a stool that you would be forced to sit on, being lowered onto it by rope.
Then there was the boot, the thumb screw, the whips and the Breast Ripper (which is not as fun as it sounds).
No Iron Maiden though. Thank God we, as civilized people, no longer employ any of these tortures. That is, if we ignore those rumors about waterboarding. (Forgot to mention that one but it was also used in the Inquisition._)
suspending the person in the air by the arms, tied behind their back.
The rack.
The Judas chair. Basically a pointed pyramid on a stool that you would be forced to sit on, being lowered onto it by rope.
Then there was the boot, the thumb screw, the whips and the Breast Ripper (which is not as fun as it sounds).
No Iron Maiden though. Thank God we, as civilized people, no longer employ any of these tortures. That is, if we ignore those rumors about waterboarding. (Forgot to mention that one but it was also used in the Inquisition._)
M
MH84
Guest
Where’s proof, or are they just claims?
M
MH84
Guest
What I want to know is how could any Christian do such things as claimed by Valke etc, when Christ Himself suffered so greatly at the hands of men?
V
Valke2
Guest
They are just claims. I’m sure none of that every really happened.
M
MH84
Guest
I thought so.
V
Valke2
Guest
Of course, the Judas Chair is in the Spanish Inquisition Muesum in Lima, Peru. The museum’s curator had this to say:
True, the Inquisition court shoved rags and water down victims’ throats to create the sensation of drowning and tightened cords around arms and legs until they cut to the bone. But torture was legal and common in those days, Ayllon adds.
…The exhibit that Ayllon oversees, the only Inquisition courtroom and torture chamber in Latin America preserved as a museum, is the most popular museum in Lima. It attracts an average of 20,000 people a month, about a fifth of them foreigners.
The torture chamber was built with metre-thick stone walls so people outside wouldn’t hear victims’ screams. It is lined with recreations of life-size victims and torturers, a torture rack, water torture devices and wooden chairs where condemned heretics were strapped in and strangled.
In Latin America and Europe nearly 100,000 people were subjected to secret trials, 9,000 were tortured to make them confess their sins and 1,000 were killed, Ayllon said.
financialexpress.com/old/ie/daily/19970501/12150763.html
R
Righteousone
Guest
We are talking about the apostles here, aren’t we? Because each were martyred for the faith as well as a gazillion more Catholic Christians in this world. Each was tortured beyond belief, along with thousands of saints who were also tortured. There was the rack, being flayed alive, beheaded, hooks struck in the body, and being hung on a cross with one apostle being hung upside down and one hung in the form of an x. We are talking about the Christians here, right?
R
Righteousone
Guest
What about Queen elizabeth I of England, who treated Catholics with such barbarity. We also need to recognize that the fanaticism that drove the Dutch Calvinists to hang all the priests and vandalize all the churches that fell under their control.
The Inquisition sounded more terrible than it was. The Inquisitions job had been to establish the juridicial facts in each case, and if, as a result, an individual were judged as heretic.
Less than 3 persons a year were executed.
The governments job had been to exact punishment from that person, up to and including death.
Pope Sixtus IV defended the faith as it was their duty to do so then, and now.
I in no way support some of the things as I wasn’t born in these days, but I think it is blown way out of proportion than what it really was like.
R
Righteousone
Guest
Furthermore, I cannot trust the Associated Press on any story because it is biased.
B
bengal_fan
Guest
you only trust sources that share your own bias. maybe it’s that you are so biased that unbiased sources seem biased to you? just a thought.
R
Righteousone
Guest
ya, that’s it…:doh2:
- Status