R
Reuben_J
Guest
You will probably won’t find one.
- Status
A
abucs
Guest
Just to add to the references from Rory and co. after a quick Catholic Answers search.
catholic.com/library/Inquisition.asp
C
chosen_people
Guest
May I suggest you start with March 15th 1391 with the beginning of the Catholic pogroms and work your way up to 1492. The Inquisition destroyed the 300,000 strong one thousand year old Jewish community of the Iberian peninsula.
P
puppypatrol
Guest
I really find this conversation interesting especially since I have been studing these very topics at length.
First I would like to address Indungences. I would suggest the following article that explains them expertly. scdiocese.org/DioceseofSiouxCity/Sacramentals/tabid/446/Default.aspx
That is not to say that, at times in history MEN have been known to abuse them (buying indulgences) but it was never “Church Teaching” Therefore, if you really understand “Church Teaching”, indulgences are a non-issue.
Secondly, the famous “Crusades”. I’m sure everyone is aware that there were more than one Crusade. The Pope at the time sent the crusaders to address the problem with Muslims who attached and took control of Jerusalem after slaughtering thousands of Jews. Muslims were also threatening Constantinople and, at the repeated request of the Bishop there, the Pope relented and sent soldiers to assist in protecting the Holy Land and the taking back of Jerusalem. The atrocities of legend are expansions on one incident. When the crusaders took back Jerusalem, an out of control group slaughtered those inside the walls out of anger. No where was this ordered nor was it approved of by the Holy See. These men were excommunicated for their actions and, during the times was a fate worse than death. The legends have been repeated so often, many believe them as true, which they are not.
Lastly, in regards to the “Inquisition”. As someone mentioned before, there were several and never was there, within the Church an “Office of Inquisition”. The French Inquisition was started to address the Albigensian issue (not to be confused with"Bible believing Christians" because they definitely weren’t and they believed that abortion was the only way a pregnant female could get into heaven) The point of the Inquisition was to educate them and guide them back to the church, not to execute them. The inquisitions also were the precursors to our modern day justice system. Unlike civil systems of the day, someone accused of heresy was given a written statement of the charges against him/her, was allowed to work out their defense prior to appearing before the Inquisitor, and was allowed an “attorney”.
It was the same in the Spanish Inquisition which, at the request of Ferdinand and Isabella, was allowed by the Pope to protect the new Jewish Converts to the Church. You could only be charged with heresy if you were a baptised Catholic. Jews were exempt and were protected both by the crown and by the Holy See. The issue once again were Muslims who were attempting to take over the Iberian peninsula and those MEN who wanted to misuse the Church. Again there is documentation of some already imprisoned by the state committing heresy so they could be charge in an ecclesiastical court where the proceeding were more fair and the prisons were better as far as conditions.
During the approx 350 years of the Inquisitions less than 1000 people lost their lives to execution, less than 50 during the Spanish Inquisition. According to the law of the time (civil law, not Church law) none of these were innocent. Many times that were put to death under Henry the VIII and Elizabeth and significantly more innocents than that, thousands a day, are put to death by abortion. In comparison, which is the greater evil?
Thanks to the invention of the printing press and the Protestant Reformation, misinformation, exaggerations and out and out lies have proliferated to the point of fact. Starting in the 19th century, They were even put in school books as “History” without even having the ability to examine the official documentation of these “Inquisition trials” which have only recently been studied. There are many, many documents, written down by civil scribes as our court recorders do today and they kept meticulous records.
You also cannot judge the customs of that day with our attitudes of today. I would suggest to anyone who wants a quick rundown on the Crusades and the Inquisitions get
“Fire & Sword: Crusade, Inquisition, Reformation” by Matthew Arnold. It would give you a very good synopsis of these very misunderstood times in history.
First I would like to address Indungences. I would suggest the following article that explains them expertly. scdiocese.org/DioceseofSiouxCity/Sacramentals/tabid/446/Default.aspx
That is not to say that, at times in history MEN have been known to abuse them (buying indulgences) but it was never “Church Teaching” Therefore, if you really understand “Church Teaching”, indulgences are a non-issue.
Secondly, the famous “Crusades”. I’m sure everyone is aware that there were more than one Crusade. The Pope at the time sent the crusaders to address the problem with Muslims who attached and took control of Jerusalem after slaughtering thousands of Jews. Muslims were also threatening Constantinople and, at the repeated request of the Bishop there, the Pope relented and sent soldiers to assist in protecting the Holy Land and the taking back of Jerusalem. The atrocities of legend are expansions on one incident. When the crusaders took back Jerusalem, an out of control group slaughtered those inside the walls out of anger. No where was this ordered nor was it approved of by the Holy See. These men were excommunicated for their actions and, during the times was a fate worse than death. The legends have been repeated so often, many believe them as true, which they are not.
Lastly, in regards to the “Inquisition”. As someone mentioned before, there were several and never was there, within the Church an “Office of Inquisition”. The French Inquisition was started to address the Albigensian issue (not to be confused with"Bible believing Christians" because they definitely weren’t and they believed that abortion was the only way a pregnant female could get into heaven) The point of the Inquisition was to educate them and guide them back to the church, not to execute them. The inquisitions also were the precursors to our modern day justice system. Unlike civil systems of the day, someone accused of heresy was given a written statement of the charges against him/her, was allowed to work out their defense prior to appearing before the Inquisitor, and was allowed an “attorney”.
It was the same in the Spanish Inquisition which, at the request of Ferdinand and Isabella, was allowed by the Pope to protect the new Jewish Converts to the Church. You could only be charged with heresy if you were a baptised Catholic. Jews were exempt and were protected both by the crown and by the Holy See. The issue once again were Muslims who were attempting to take over the Iberian peninsula and those MEN who wanted to misuse the Church. Again there is documentation of some already imprisoned by the state committing heresy so they could be charge in an ecclesiastical court where the proceeding were more fair and the prisons were better as far as conditions.
During the approx 350 years of the Inquisitions less than 1000 people lost their lives to execution, less than 50 during the Spanish Inquisition. According to the law of the time (civil law, not Church law) none of these were innocent. Many times that were put to death under Henry the VIII and Elizabeth and significantly more innocents than that, thousands a day, are put to death by abortion. In comparison, which is the greater evil?
Thanks to the invention of the printing press and the Protestant Reformation, misinformation, exaggerations and out and out lies have proliferated to the point of fact. Starting in the 19th century, They were even put in school books as “History” without even having the ability to examine the official documentation of these “Inquisition trials” which have only recently been studied. There are many, many documents, written down by civil scribes as our court recorders do today and they kept meticulous records.
You also cannot judge the customs of that day with our attitudes of today. I would suggest to anyone who wants a quick rundown on the Crusades and the Inquisitions get
“Fire & Sword: Crusade, Inquisition, Reformation” by Matthew Arnold. It would give you a very good synopsis of these very misunderstood times in history.
R
RoryMcKenzie56
Guest
Hi chosen people,
According to my recollection of Kamen, as the Moors were being expelled from the peninsula, there was a program of forced conversion or deportation of the Jewish communities. It is definitely not his opinion that professing Jews ever faced the Inquisition in Spain. Rather, when the Moors were finally expelled large numbers of converts, “conversos” who came from non-Catholic families and many of whom may have made sincere conversion were held up to suspicion as not being true converts. Old Catholics resented that some of their neighbors, who had recently been ideiological enemies appeared to have converted not because they believed, lbut because it was opportune politically and economically.
The alternatives for many Spanish Jews of the times in question were to convert, pretend to convert, or leave their homes for who knows where. It would seem that there was some of all three options chosen. One of the great Catholic saints of the era, St. Teresa of Avila, was from a family of conversos. This jealousy against the “new Catholics” was peculiarly tied to the politics of the day.
Jospeh O’Callaghan is Professor of Medieval History and Director of the Center for Medieval Studies at Fordham University. In his History of Medieval Spain we read asn account of events which coincides with my recollection of Henry Kamen’s work (which I have unfortunately misplaced for the time being). Published by Cornell University Press we find on p. 606 the following:
According to my recollection of Kamen, as the Moors were being expelled from the peninsula, there was a program of forced conversion or deportation of the Jewish communities. It is definitely not his opinion that professing Jews ever faced the Inquisition in Spain. Rather, when the Moors were finally expelled large numbers of converts, “conversos” who came from non-Catholic families and many of whom may have made sincere conversion were held up to suspicion as not being true converts. Old Catholics resented that some of their neighbors, who had recently been ideiological enemies appeared to have converted not because they believed, lbut because it was opportune politically and economically.
The alternatives for many Spanish Jews of the times in question were to convert, pretend to convert, or leave their homes for who knows where. It would seem that there was some of all three options chosen. One of the great Catholic saints of the era, St. Teresa of Avila, was from a family of conversos. This jealousy against the “new Catholics” was peculiarly tied to the politics of the day.
Jospeh O’Callaghan is Professor of Medieval History and Director of the Center for Medieval Studies at Fordham University. In his History of Medieval Spain we read asn account of events which coincides with my recollection of Henry Kamen’s work (which I have unfortunately misplaced for the time being). Published by Cornell University Press we find on p. 606 the following:
and on p. 670
and from p. 671:
R
RoryMcKenzie56
Guest
continued…for chosen people…
A salient point in this from a Catholic perspective is that the Inquisition was an arm of the Church solicited by the state, not for the purpose of converting non-Catholics, but exposing false converts. The policy of the Spanish government to deport professing Jews between 1391 and 1492 was not enforced because of any desires that the Jews would convert, but so that what was perceived as a possibly dangerous and seditious element of society could be eliminated.
It is not a policy or teaching of the Catholic faith that one can be legitimately forced to convert. When many did convert instead of leaving, the political problem and social problem remained, but it now also became an ecclesiastical problem, because these were professing Christians. That is how the Church became involved in the matter, long after the pogroms of 1391. Never did the Church invoke a policy of undue pressure upon non-Catholics to convert, and those Spanish Catholics, who were guilty of doing so were not acting in conformity with the Catholic faith. It is understandable if this is a distinction that might not merit a great deal of sympathy from one whose community happened to have been ravaged.
As an American Catholic over 600 years later, I am disconcerted that such events ever took place, but I am comforted to know that the perpetrators were not consulting their Catholic faith or even the guidance of Rome. It doesn’t speak against the truth claims of the Catholic Church when for political reasons, her teachings are violated. I said above that to some degree, I found the work by Kamen to be edifying. I can understand if you might have found that alarming. Allow me to explain that this is because the popular propaganda which I had imbibed was in favor of a Church sponsored system of torture that was used to force non-Catholics to accept baptism. It was a relief to see from a neutral source that non-Catholics were never subjects of the Inquisition itself and that the numbers of the victims have been exponentially exaggerated.
Does O’Callaghan’s account of events seem tilted to you? Perhaps you see my interpretation of his work as allowing the Church to be too easily exonerated?
Regards,
Rory
A salient point in this from a Catholic perspective is that the Inquisition was an arm of the Church solicited by the state, not for the purpose of converting non-Catholics, but exposing false converts. The policy of the Spanish government to deport professing Jews between 1391 and 1492 was not enforced because of any desires that the Jews would convert, but so that what was perceived as a possibly dangerous and seditious element of society could be eliminated.
It is not a policy or teaching of the Catholic faith that one can be legitimately forced to convert. When many did convert instead of leaving, the political problem and social problem remained, but it now also became an ecclesiastical problem, because these were professing Christians. That is how the Church became involved in the matter, long after the pogroms of 1391. Never did the Church invoke a policy of undue pressure upon non-Catholics to convert, and those Spanish Catholics, who were guilty of doing so were not acting in conformity with the Catholic faith. It is understandable if this is a distinction that might not merit a great deal of sympathy from one whose community happened to have been ravaged.
As an American Catholic over 600 years later, I am disconcerted that such events ever took place, but I am comforted to know that the perpetrators were not consulting their Catholic faith or even the guidance of Rome. It doesn’t speak against the truth claims of the Catholic Church when for political reasons, her teachings are violated. I said above that to some degree, I found the work by Kamen to be edifying. I can understand if you might have found that alarming. Allow me to explain that this is because the popular propaganda which I had imbibed was in favor of a Church sponsored system of torture that was used to force non-Catholics to accept baptism. It was a relief to see from a neutral source that non-Catholics were never subjects of the Inquisition itself and that the numbers of the victims have been exponentially exaggerated.
Does O’Callaghan’s account of events seem tilted to you? Perhaps you see my interpretation of his work as allowing the Church to be too easily exonerated?
Regards,
Rory
K
KathleenGee
Guest
The documents of the Spanish Inquistion were finally opened in 2003, and in fact the Church worked to exonerate many more people.
The problem was sacrilege…people receiving the Eucharist without any intention of faith…and it is the ministers’ duty to protect the sacred Body and Blood of Christ. The excesses were done by the temporal powers…who in themselves suffered greatly for 700 years under continual Moorish plunders and dhimittude.
www.pavetheway.org is a Jewish organization who were researching Pope Pius XII, and found out the truth about him scrutinizing Church documents…their only question about church document was why didn’t the Church spend more time defending itself with documented truth.
The problem was sacrilege…people receiving the Eucharist without any intention of faith…and it is the ministers’ duty to protect the sacred Body and Blood of Christ. The excesses were done by the temporal powers…who in themselves suffered greatly for 700 years under continual Moorish plunders and dhimittude.
www.pavetheway.org is a Jewish organization who were researching Pope Pius XII, and found out the truth about him scrutinizing Church documents…their only question about church document was why didn’t the Church spend more time defending itself with documented truth.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
It took the Church over 400 years to finally respond to the plea of Christians in the Holy Lands and the pilgrim routes to finally help them.
The secular media does not show what happened to the conquests of the heavy Christian populations of Egypt, Syria, and Palestine in those areas surrounding Jerusalem.
There were no Shotgun Crusades.
The secular media does not show what happened to the conquests of the heavy Christian populations of Egypt, Syria, and Palestine in those areas surrounding Jerusalem.
There were no Shotgun Crusades.
A
Arandur
Guest
Infallibility only applies under very specific conditions–only applying to matters of faith and morals, only with deliberate declaration of the Magisterium (Teaching Authority of the Church, comprising the bishops–those bearing the apostolic office) and confirmation by the Pope and the Sense of the Faithful (a wider consensus). It is thus the affirmation of the the Spirit working through the gifts of Holy Orders, the Petrine Office, and the Body of Christ to confirm truth. It is the exercise of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church into all truth, by preserving it from error (a lesser gift, actually, than that applied through Divine Inspiration of Scripture because it is a preservation from error, not a deliberate inspiration of a valuable writing).
Those instances you mention are actions or policies taken. They are fallible. They are not matters of teaching faith or morals confirmed under the conditions that confirm a working of the Spirit.
Regarding indulgences, I think they are often looked at from improper perspectives. Consider this:
- Is it good to take spiritually-beneficial actions, such as prayer and service, that enrich one’s relationship with God and service to Christ?
- Is it good to encourage such actions?
- Does the leadership body of the Church, given its mission through Holy Orders by Christ, have the authority to recommend such actions?
As to what the Church claims they effect, consider this:
- Do we know that God looks favorably on such actions?
- Is God a God of Justice as well as Mercy, who has given us Scripture stating that our impurities must be purged?
- Do prayer and devotions heal our wounded natures and bring us closer to God, if done sincerely?
What remains is the question of whether indulgences can be offered for others, those already judged worthy of heaven but who have yet to be purified “as gold tested in fire” (those in Purgatory). Since the “prayers of a righteous man availeth much,” and requests for mercy on behalf of others are a good thing, and the Body of Christ is One Body (sin affects all, and also love affects all), then even this principle makes sense.
C
chaunceygardner
Guest
Because most of what you refer to are historical events they shouldn’t have much impact on whether someone becomes Catholic. The one exception would be indulgences, but they are not part of every day Catholic life as they were years ago. The attitudes that allowed these things to occur are more of a problem, as they still exist to some extent (probably among Catholic laity more than with Catholic theologians or in the Magisterium), as does the attempts at down playing or deflecting blame for them. We can’t change history, although we often try to do so in order to feel better about it. We can see that in some of the posts on this thread. But it is history, so accept that our predecessors of hundreds of years ago were wrong or did bad things, and move on.
And if we look past the arguing over numbers and who is to blame and that others did the same thing, we can see something that existed hundreds of years ago that does not any more. And that is the close relationship between secular authority and religious authority. Crusades, religious wars between countries, and inquisitions can not occur where there is true separation of church and state and the secular powers of religion are limited. Although there are state religions in some countries today, the conditions that existed throughout Europe in the middle ages that allowed for these excesses are no longer in place.
The teaching of the Church has also developed to the point where the Church would be opposed to doing now what they allowed hundreds of years past. So I don’t see these past events as being a stumbling block to becoming a Catholic.
A
agent_grey
Guest
Is God ever quoted as saying kill’em all in the old testament(man, woman, child)? If so this makes the inquisition and the crusades a non topic.
Is Jesus quoted to give the appostles the very authority on earth that he is quoted to have held? If so this makes Indulgences a non topic.
The only other option is that the bible is packed with lies! Which by the way is a very real possibility.
Is Jesus quoted to give the appostles the very authority on earth that he is quoted to have held? If so this makes Indulgences a non topic.
The only other option is that the bible is packed with lies! Which by the way is a very real possibility.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I still say indulgences are the worst aspect left of the three. Inquisitions, unfortunately, are part of many Christian sects. We see Calvinists with witch trials and executions in Geneva. We see England during Elizabeth I and Edward VI both burning and drawing and quartering Catholic priests en mass, we see Mormons being butchered and engaging in wars, Catholics and Protestants at war, Peasants War, etc. So violence is not unique to Catholicism but pretty much was a sad given for centuries on all sides.
The Crusades again are just more violence in the name of religion.
But indulgences are still alive today, unlike the other two. And the idea that a person is not forgiven for the satisfaction of their sins in confession is troubling to many people. The idea that the penitent has to undergo more purification despite being healed and forgiven and then have recourse to lessening the time of their “sentence” with indulgences by popes is a disturbing and deal-breaking reality for many Protestants. And I know Orthodox who are former Catholics who couldn’t stomach the concept.
And it was indulgences, not inquisitions or wars, that led to the painful Reformatoin and the splintering of the West.
So my vote is still—indulgence as the theological weapon of mass destruction if I had to choose LOL
The Crusades again are just more violence in the name of religion.
But indulgences are still alive today, unlike the other two. And the idea that a person is not forgiven for the satisfaction of their sins in confession is troubling to many people. The idea that the penitent has to undergo more purification despite being healed and forgiven and then have recourse to lessening the time of their “sentence” with indulgences by popes is a disturbing and deal-breaking reality for many Protestants. And I know Orthodox who are former Catholics who couldn’t stomach the concept.
And it was indulgences, not inquisitions or wars, that led to the painful Reformatoin and the splintering of the West.
So my vote is still—indulgence as the theological weapon of mass destruction if I had to choose LOL
D
Donkey_Gong
Guest
Is Christianity the only religion where doubt and disbelief reign? No other religion seems to question its own beliefs and holy book nearly as much as Christians.
A
Arandur
Guest
Do you think sin injures the sinner and the greater Body of Christ?But indulgences are still alive today, unlike the other two. And the idea that a person is not forgiven for the satisfaction of their sins in confession is troubling to many people. The idea that the penitent has to undergo more purification despite being healed and forgiven and then have recourse to lessening the time of their “sentence” with indulgences by popes is a disturbing and deal-breaking reality for many Protestants. And I know Orthodox who are former Catholics who couldn’t stomach the concept.
And it was indulgences, not inquisitions or wars, that led to the painful Reformatoin and the splintering of the West.
So my vote is still—indulgence as the theological weapon of mass destruction if I had to choose LOL
Is injury healed instantly by forgiveness? What about something as simple as a lie? Is trust restored instantly?
No, the injury takes time to heal, the sinful habit takes time to overcome and replace with virtuous habit. How, then, is it so hard to understand that man is not instantly ready upon forgiveness to go into the full presence of the glorious and Holy God? Especially when the Scriptures refer several times to all of us, even the forgiven faithful, needing to undergo purification and have our lives/actions “tested in fire?”
Indulgences and purgatory are not about “time” in a “sentence.” It’s about a process of purification. Indulgences are an encouragement of actions of value in developing virtues and healing the injury of sin, building up righteousness. They are a recognition that these things are valuable and good. How is that wrong? Oh, and they’re not just some kind of “favor” granted by the pope. They’re actions encouraged by the Church and recognized as being efficacious.
P
peeteyg
Guest
I think we all need to look at the real understanding of Indulgences. I have slowly come to understand what it means myself. I often wonder what falls under the authority of the church as it relates to being necessary for the salvation of souls. It is the churchs’ proper role and as such it exercises this authority. If you accept that the church was instituted by Jesus as necessary for the salvation of souls and choose to stand outside of her you are in jeapordy. This is why I trust in the church. There are many instances in the bible where sin has been forgiven but yet punishment endures for this forgiven sin in this life. This is the Temporal aspect of sin that is lessened by indulgences. I read lately that because I study scripture and have recently read the entire NAB bible and Catecism of the church I have been granted an indulgence. I would think that seeking forgiveness, repenting of sin and remaining faithful would lessen the temporal aspects of sin. I think this would fall under the churches authority to be a shepherd of souls and the the pillar of truth.
C
chaunceygardner
Guest
Perhaps a “non topic” for some, but a very painful, bitter and tragic one for thousands of others.
One could say that TODAY, but the history of indulgences, especially when they were at their peak, is not quite that benign. The original intent may have been “actions of value in developing virtues” but the result was the selling of “salvation” to a poor and gullible population. Although I can see the value of prayer and reading scripture to “develop virtue”, I cannot see how anyone, including the Church, can put a numeric value on it. That is like studying for a test to pass it but with no real intent to actually learn something and to apply it in real life. It looks good on paper.
During my lifetime there has been a big de-emphasis of indulgences and most Catholics that I know pay little if any attention to them. That is a good thing.
M
Matthew_P_Muehl
Guest
Was the church that out of line with indulgences that many view the church in a bad light?
Many non-catholics i talk to always bring this up about the church. This seems to be the big reason they are anti-catholic and want nothing to do with the catholic church.
Matthew
A
Arandur
Guest
From my research into this topic, I have found, like many other issues, that the extent of this problem was an exaggeration, a distortion and propaganda piece for anti-Catholics, developed by Protestant schismatics.
Yes, there was selling of indulgences–by some (mainly one bishop, IIRC), but not condoned by the Holy See. Yes, we have also had a few scoundrel popes who looked the other way on other practices, as well, but nowhere will you find an official sanction and promotion of this abuse by the Magisterium.
You have a situation of abuse, of some corrupt leaders and sinners. You will find this in every human community. But you will not find the Divine Institution of the Church, the guidance and sanction of the Spirit to the Magisterium, implicated in this error. So how, then, do indulgences differ?
K
KathleenGee
Guest
I found it very interesting regarding the thread out right now, 'What is your objection to Catholic doctrine of indulgences?..End of day…read posts, their references…pulled out my catechism at bedtime, then shared from them…not realizing we were looking at same sources…
They were hung up on word, ‘treasury’…and their images of we buying our way to heaven, when I see ‘treasury’ as that coming from having the treasure of Christ’s kingdom…I did not see anything or any imagery in my faith culture that made it look monetary…but they did. So it is another filter non-Catholics see our faith…I ended up not quoting the catechism but drawing on my own experience.
But Gabriel12 gives good doctrinal answer today.
They were hung up on word, ‘treasury’…and their images of we buying our way to heaven, when I see ‘treasury’ as that coming from having the treasure of Christ’s kingdom…I did not see anything or any imagery in my faith culture that made it look monetary…but they did. So it is another filter non-Catholics see our faith…I ended up not quoting the catechism but drawing on my own experience.
But Gabriel12 gives good doctrinal answer today.
M
mark_a
Guest
At least that’s what ex-Catholics say when they’re not putting down Mary, the eucharist, reconciliation, etc., etc. Most also never know what an indulgence is and the truth is most ex-Catholics are spoon fed this stuff by their new “pope”.
I have seen that the real deal with hatered toward the Church with most ex-Catholics is an irregular marriage situation, poor catechesis (which is at least partially their own fault), or an unresolved abortion issue.
Of course, this is all my own non-scientific personal observation.
- Status