Inquisition Questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Protestant101
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is a rather contemptuous remark concerning a papal bull issued on May 15, 1252, by Pope Innocent IV, which was confirmed by Pope Alexander IV on November 30, 1259, and by Pope Clement IV on November 3, 1265.
it wasn’t an attack on the Catholic church but rather an attack on those who blame the Pope for such words…of urging torture.

By taking away the Papal reference one is left with ‘bull’ which is what I believe is all that there is in such an attack about the Pope.

I don’t believe a Pope advocated torture as charged herein
 
The September 2007 edition of This Rock magazine has an excellent article on the inquisition. I would be interested in hearing Protestant101`s assessment of the article.

Sincerely,

Maria1212
 
The September 2007 edition of This Rock magazine has an excellent article on the inquisition. I would be interested in hearing Protestant101`s assessment of the article.

Sincerely,

Maria1212
Thankyou Maria1212; I will dig it up and comment here about it. I might need a day or three to get back though. 🙂
 
Thankyou Maria1212; I will dig it up and comment here about it. I might need a day or three to get back though. 🙂
It would be wonderful if Protestant 101 will do some honest research, and come back to us with his findings.

Up to now, I find he likes to bait us, and send us off on wild goose chases. When faced down with the truth, he usually shows his true anti-catholic feelings.

Maybe he will surprise us this time.

peace
 
It would be wonderful if Protestant 101 will do some honest research, and come back to us with his findings.

Up to now, I find he likes to bait us, and send us off on wild goose chases. When faced down with the truth, he usually shows his true anti-catholic feelings.

Maybe he will surprise us this time.

peace
LOL…I guess I could say that you are showing your dishonesty and anti-Adventist feelings; but I won’t. 🙂

I will be sure to come back here with a very dishonest evaluation. Thankyou for the vote of confidence.

The only quandary that presents right now, to me, is why on earth you would post such as above, and end it with the word “peace.” :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
 
LOL…I guess I could say that you are showing your dishonesty and anti-Adventist feelings; but I won’t. 🙂

I will be sure to come back here with a very dishonest evaluation. Thankyou for the vote of confidence.

The only quandary that presents right now, to me, is why on earth you would post such as above, and end it with the word “peace.” :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
After the St. Augustine fiasco, and several others over the past few weeks, you get to know someone, and how honest they are for the truth.

I didn’t even know you were an Adventist, so you jump to conclusions, that are unwarranted. And, I can always wish you ‘peace’. It was Jesus greeting to his Disciples.

peace
 
After the St. Augustine fiasco, and several others over the past few weeks, you get to know someone, and how honest they are for the truth.

I didn’t even know you were an Adventist, so you jump to conclusions, that are unwarranted. And, I can always wish you ‘peace’. It was Jesus greeting to his Disciples.

peace
OK. I will give you my “dishonest” answer:

“Whatever you say.” 🙂
 
The September 2007 edition of This Rock magazine has an excellent article on the inquisition.
did anyone else find this article somewhat ambiguous in its conclusions? after having read it, i wasn’t sure whether the inquisition (not the spanish inquisition which is an entirely different affair) was something we catholics should feel ashamed about or not.

on the one hand, the author acknowledges that extracting confession by torture was wrong and excessive. on the other, he asserts that the church was not persecuting simple people with unorthodox religious beliefs so much as prosecuting dangerous heretical teachers who persisted in leading souls astray despite warnings and the offer of opportunities to mend their ways. also, while the court rendered a verdict, it was the secular authorities who meted out punishment, not the church itself.

by the end of the article, i wasn’t sure whether the inquisition was a legitimate attempt to protect the community on the part of church authorities or an enterprise with noble goals that was sullied by unworthy means. did the author mean to suggest that the inquisition was a valid response to heresy that went too far? if so, what parts should have been left out? anyone else have a similar reaction?

or put another way, could the church have protected the community from heresy and not violated the rights of conscience of suspected heretics?

(i hope the original poster will share his thoughts on the article as well.)
 
did anyone else find this article somewhat ambiguous in its conclusions? after having read it, i wasn’t sure whether the inquisition (not the spanish inquisition which is an entirely different affair) was something we catholics should feel ashamed about or not.

on the one hand, the author acknowledges that extracting confession by torture was wrong and excessive. on the other, he asserts that the church was not persecuting simple people with unorthodox religious beliefs so much as prosecuting dangerous heretical teachers who persisted in leading souls astray despite warnings and providing opportunities to mend their ways. also, while the court rendered a verdict, it was the secular authorities who meted out punishment, not the church itself.

by the end of the article, i wasn’t sure whether the inquisition was a legitimate attempt to protect the community on the part of church authorities or an enterprise with noble goals that was sullied by unworthy means. i wasn’t sure if the author meant to suggest that the inquisition was a valid response to heresy that went too far, and if it did, what parts should have been left out? anyone else have a similar reaction?
There was a really good thread on this a couple of years ago. Go through it for the posts by Shiann. My contributions were lesser but dealt with Edwin’s (Contarini) point about heresy and its threat to both temporal and eternal life.
 
… the author acknowledges that extracting confession by torture was wrong and excessive.
I agree with this conclusion. It sets a bad precedent to torture people in order to extract confessions.
 
I prefer ‘no answer’ to your dishonest answer.

pax vobiscum
Tell you what, why don’t we just give Protestant101 the benefit of the doubt until he shows he “mis-evaluated” the article. I’d rather trust someone who I feel doesn’t deserve it, than to mis-trust someone that I should have trusted.
 
The September 2007 edition of This Rock magazine has an excellent article on the inquisition. I would be interested in hearing Protestant101`s assessment of the article.

Sincerely,

Maria1212
Hello Maria;

This is the only article I could find online here at Catholic Answers. But I don’t think this is the article you were referring to is it? Is this article you mentioned online yet? If so; I would appreciate the link. 🙂
 
Hello Maria;

This is the only article I could find online here at Catholic Answers. But I don’t think this is the article you were referring to is it? Is this article you mentioned online yet? If so; I would appreciate the link. 🙂
Hi Protestant 101,

It isn`t online yet to my knowledge. In fact, my hard copy just arrived in the mail, but I am overseas, so it takes awhile for it to reach me.

It is worth tracking down a hard copy though because that way, you can write to the author, and get your comments posted in the next edition!

I agree with other posters that the article is not perfect, and unlike some articles in the magazine, does not give a list of recommended reading, but it is still a worthwhile read and covers a lot of points. It is one of those articles that I needed to read a couple times.

And to the other posters, lets give Protestant 101 the benefit of the doubt. Each thread is a new beginning and we should be as charitable as possible. To Protestant 101s credit, he has stuck around longer than most Adventists, which is a good thing! Dialogue is how we learn, even when we don`t agree. I will get off my soap box now!

Sincerely,

Maria1212
 
And to the other posters, lets give Protestant 101 the benefit of the doubt. Each thread is a new beginning and we should be as charitable as possible. To Protestant 101s credit, he has stuck around longer than most Adventists, which is a good thing! Dialogue is how we learn, even when we don`t agree. I will get off my soap box now!

Sincerely,

Maria1212
He’s a:) good deal more polite than some of the others, too. :yup:
 
It’s difficult, particularly in the U.S. and now, to justify a great deal of what the Inquisition did and countenanced. But, for example, Spain, during the Inquisition, was not the U.S. and it did not enjoy the (very precarious) rights ensured by the U.S. Constitution.

Picture the U.S. having just emerged from being ruled by Al Quaeda through the military efforts of Christian dictators who had every reason to believe a substantial portion of the population would, without hesitation, aid invading armies or commit acts of terror. Picture that U.S. with no constitution and no judiciary, and picture semi-independent, victorious generals strutting about the countryside making certain that no opposition of any kind arose again, and hadn’t forgotten a single wrong, real or imagined.

Picture as well a long-suffering populace bent on revenge and looting, with nobody at all willing to stop them from exercising mob justice when and where they chose.

The Church somehow persuaded the Spanish rulers to allow the Church’s educated jurists to “inquire” into the real guilt or innocence of people who, without that inquiry, would have all been tortured, looted and killed. For the first time in history, the accused had an absolute right to be represented by a trained lawyer. It didn’t happen again until the 1970s in the U.S., and many Americans, possibly most, would do away with that right even now. Most accused were released. Very few were actually executed. Those determined to truly be guilty were simply sent back to the state, as required by the state, which would have killed them without inquiry anyway.

I am not justifying a single second of torture any of the accused went through. Nor am I justifying an uncomfortably close alliance of Church and State in such matters. But if moderns in the U.S. think the Inquisition was somehow an unprecedented atrocity perpetrated by the Church, they don’t realize what people can be like if they are not held in check by something. And they don’t know how rare a thing it is to live under the U.S. Justice System (Which nevertheless regularly imparts injustices, despite all intentions to the contrary. Likely the Inquisition did a better job.). And they don’t know how woefully thin civilization really is.

We who live in a “more enlightened” time, in which 100 million or more were murdered in the last century, mostly for no good reason, and in which millions are murdered abroad to this very moment, with almost nobody willing to lift a finger to stop it, should humbly refrain from being too judgmental about a past that does not even remotely compare in brutality to our own time.
 
It’s difficult, particularly in the U.S. and now, to justify a great deal of what the Inquisition did and countenanced. But, for example, Spain, during the Inquisition, was not the U.S. and it did not enjoy the (very precarious) rights ensured by the U.S. Constitution.
Unfortunately; these “rights” are very elusive for many right now…
The Church somehow persuaded the Spanish rulers to allow the Church’s educated jurists to “inquire” into the real guilt or innocence of people who, without that inquiry, would have all been tortured, looted and killed.
No matter which Inquisition we talk about; it is astounding what certain religious entities have persuaded the state to do; or have “collaborated” with the state in; all in the name of God, and rooting out “the heretics.” I see all such efforts as indicative of just how much truth that so many people really have or had.
I am not justifying a single second of torture any of the accused went through. Nor am I justifying an uncomfortably close alliance of Church and State in such matters.
No; I don’t believe you are trying to justify it either. You seem like you are trying to reflect the fact of Rom.8:28 that says “all things work together for good to them that love Jesus.” Certainly, God has and can use persecution as a means of spreading the gospel. It causes those who are sincere in seeking truth to study deeper into things, and to committ to what is actually right in the situation at hand.
a past that does not even remotely compare in brutality to our own time.
This is a very dubious (at best) distinction to try and make. Some of the methods for “extracting” “confessions” during the Inquisition could not have been topped even by Saddam H.
 
I am not justifying a single second of torture any of the accused went through.
And what about burnign people alive at the stake?
According to what I read, people were tortured because they did not eat pork. Once the Church had approved this form of torture for extracting confession, it set a bad precedent and we see it being used later on to break innocent people.
 
And what about burnign people alive at the stake?
According to what I read, people were tortured because they did not eat pork. Once the Church had approved this form of torture for extracting confession, it set a bad precedent and we see it being used later on to break innocent people.
So, did Catholics do that, Bob, or did Protestants do it as well?

peace
 
So, did Catholics do that, Bob, or did Protestants do it as well?

peace
In my reading, I see the case of a lady who was tortured by the Spanish Inquisiton because a witness reported that she did not eat pork. She was tortured and told to confess, but she had no idea what she was supposed to confess to. This was under the Spanish (Catholic) Inquisition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top