Inquisition

[guanophore]

[dcdurel] It was not the Catholic Church that persecuted heretics, it was the governments of France and Spain.
I think you are rather credulous to believe that the Church teachings which come down from Jesus mandated persecution, torture and death.

I did not mean to say that I thought the Inquisition resulted from teaching that had come down from Jesus. I meant to say that it was an activity that the church became involved in that I think was off track from what Jesus intended. I don’t think Jesus wants His followers to kill people because they are heretics, or non-believers. I find it incredulous that you think the governments engaged in the Inquisition without the leadership of the Pope!

I commend to you the article on witchcraft in the Catholic Encyclopedia which states: after the middle of the thirteenth century, the then recently-constituted Papal Inquisition began to concern itself with charges of witchcraft… It was at Toulouse, the hot-bed of Catharan infection, that we meet in 1275 the earliest example of a witch burned to death after judicial sentence of an inquisitor, who was in this case a certain Hugues de Baniol (Cauzons, “La Magic”, II, 217).
bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Witchcraft_(Catholic_Encyclopedia

I will concede that it may not have been the official teaching of the church, but one can hardly say that the Inqusition was not CAtholic!!!

[dcdurel] It is a long story, but in short, some heretical groups in France, including a lot of Catholic priests, began teaching that marriage was evil and suicide was good. These were the Illuminati, the Albigensians and others.

I hope that I did not give the impression that I thought this type of behavior was appropriate, or should not be addressed.

[dcdurel] The Pope urged the bishops to put a clamp on these teachings … these groups went outside of reason.

Herein begins the slippery slope. When one man presumes to preside over another man about what is reasonable, and what is not. We saw this in the case of Galileo too, did we not?

[dcdurel] The bishops refused to do anything, and instead protected the heretics, of whom were many Catholic priests. After many years and inaction by the bishops, the Pope urged the goverment to force the heretics out the country, to protect familes and society. Of course, the Church had always said the state had the right to use the death penalty for serious offenses, and the goverments thought being a traitor was certainly a serious offense. The Church NEVER permitted torture and never authorized such horrible methods.

Perhaps the church has never officially taught torture, but certainly the officials of the church have permitted and authorized it. What about the case of Joan of Arc? Yes, the church would cede the duty of torture and death to the State, but the State would not have been doing it except at the behest of the Church!

[dcdurel] the goverment officials … So they tortured. So others thought of using Church scholars to find out who was really a heretic, or a traitor opposing the goverment, so that innocent people would not be put to death. That was the beginnings of the inquisition in France. The govement used Church theologians to see who was really a subversive traitor, then the goverment would put them to death or torture them. Many more people were set free this way when the vast majority of the accused were found innocent. The Church could not refuse to cooperate, because then more people were put to death. The Church opposed the torture, but she could not oppose the use of the death penalty for being a traitor, because she taught that the state does have the right to use the death penalty in certain situations. All the Popes could do was urge that it be used as the last resort, as little as possible. The Popes urged the rescue of many as possible from these government thugs.

The conclusion that “the Church could not refuse to cooperate” because there would be more deaths, is absurd. The Church could have stood against the rulers. Yes, refusing to cooperate would have produced more deaths, and some people may have been martyrd for their faith. But cooperating in the process is to be part of it, and complicit with it. It is no different than the population cooperating with the Nazis. The Popes themselves employed and directed some of those thugs. And I know, that doesn’t mean that the official teaching of the Church was such. But my point is, when people bring up the wrongs of history, it is more proper to admit them, and not to pretend they did not happen. there were Popes, Bishops, and Inquisitors that were blind with greed and ambition.

 

[dcdurel]

Seems like you were selective in your quotes. Therefore I will post my whole response so everyone can read what I wrote, with one clarification about “within reason”

" It was not the Catholic Church that persecuted heretics, it was the governments of France and Spain.
I think you are rather credulous to believe that the Church teachings which come down from Jesus mandated persecution, torture and death.
It is a long story, but in short, some heretical groups in France, including a lot of Catholic priests, began teaching that marriage was evil and suicide was good. Thus, men left their families, who then were brought to poverty and starvation. Then the men lived in fornication, since that that was not marriage, and it was not evil like marriage. They also promoted suicide. These were the Illuminati, the Albigensians and others.
The Pope urged the bishops to put a clamp on these teachings since they were gravely harming society, putting the ex-families, the women and children of these men into poverty and starvation and then the men were urged to commit suicide. While the Church in Europe, as always, allowed freedom of religion, within reason, these groups went outside of reason because they were causing innocent women and children to be abandoned to poverty and starvation, and because they were promoting suicide.
The bishops refused to do anything, and instead protected the heretics, of whom were many Catholic priests. After many years and inaction by the bishops, the Pope urged the goverment to force the heretics out the country, to protect familes and society. Finally after many years, the goverments began to do this. Naturally, the heretics rebelled, and in cities where they had their strongholds, they fought against the goverments. And since they looked just llike other citizens, they infiltrated the goverment and others became traitors. The govement responded by picking up the old pagan practice of torture, to find out who the traitors were. And if the traitors were found they would be put to death. Of course, the Church had always said the state had the right to use the death penalty for serious offenses, and the goverments thought being a traitor was certainly a serious offense. The Church NEVER permitted torture and never authorized such horrible methods.
Nevertheless, the goverment officials felt they did not have to listen to the Church, they could do what they wanted. So they tortured. But of course, those tortured said anything the govement wanted to hear and they implicated lots of innocent people, who would be put to death. So others thought of using Church scholars to find out who was really a heretic, or a traitor opposing the goverment, so that innocent people would not be put to death. That was the beginnings of the inquisition in France. The govement used Church theologians to see who was really a subversive traitor, then the goverment would put them to death or torture them if they did not repent. Many more people were set free this way when the vast majority of the accused were found innocent. The Church could not refuse to cooperate, because then more accused innocent people were put to death. The Church opposed the torture, but she could not oppose the use of the death penalty for being a traitor, because she taught that the state does have the right to use the death penalty in certain situations. All the Popes could do was urge that it be used as the last resort, as little as possible. The Popes urged the rescue of many as possible from these government thugs.
But, of course, the enemies of the Church today, who are not exactly known as being bastions of the truth, simply shorted the whole story to that
“the Catholic Church, in an effort to discover heretics, tortured those who dissented and put them to death, simply because the heretics did not believe all Church teachings”.
Not exactly the truth, is it?
This is the version you believe and what others believe."

 

[guanophore]

Seems like you were selective in your quotes. Therefore I will post my whole response so everyone can read what I wrote, with one clarification about “within reason”

But, of course, the enemies of the Church today, who are not exactly known as being bastions of the truth, simply shorted the whole story to that
“the Catholic Church, in an effort to discover heretics, tortured those who dissented and put them to death, simply because the heretics did not believe all Church teachings”.
Not exactly the truth, is it?
This is the version you believe and what others believe."

Sorry, I could not fit all of the text, and it kept telling me I was over my word, so I tried to preserve the comments to which I was responding. No, I did not state that the only reason for the killings was heresy. I believe that much of the Inquisition was politically and economically motivated. It is erroneous for you to assume what I might believe, based on some comments I threw out for discussion. The point of my debate about the Inquisition in the original thread (now closed) relates to the question of the OP, about what should be done when people make outright lies about the faith. I suggested that admitting what was true was a good starting place. Mistakes have been made, and pretending they were not does not further the truth. Are you trying to justify the killings?

 

[Joseph_Mary]

The only reason this particular thread exists is because of people’s lack of understanding of society.

Heresy isn’t just some “false belief” when looked at by the state. It is TREASON. There wasn’t a clean separation of Church and state in those places at that time. If a person was a heretic, you better believe the local authorities wanted to know who that person was, and who his friends were, because they were probably some rather dangerous menaces to society.

The best I can think of would be so-called “holocaust deniers” in Germany. If you deny the government’s official version of the murders of millions of people during The Great War, Part II (World War II), especially the Jewish people, you are put on trial for what amounts to heresy. You, by denying this Holocaust, are considered a “menace to society”. Actively work against Holocaust museums, etc., and the punishment becomes more severe, eventually to the point of capital punishment (if Germany still had it…).

Anyway, the various “inquisitions” were used by the Church to root out heresy, and those results were used by the governments to root out enemies, and other general misfits.

 

[Mannyfit75]

not this thread again… this was discuss already… twice… or not more…

 

[guanophore]

not this thread again… this was discuss already… twice… or not more…

Really? Ok, I will try to find them. It came up in the context of a question asked about what a person should do when told outright lies against the faith. I suggested that it might be wise to admit that certain things had occurred.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Really? Ok, I will try to find them. It came up in the context of a question asked about what a person should do when told outright lies against the faith. I suggested that it might be wise to admit that certain things had occurred.

Those thread have been closed by the moderator. I don’t think this should be discuss any further. Many of us will be force to repeat themselves again and again…

We give a Catholic position on the inquistions…

 

[guanophore]

Those thread have been closed by the moderator. I don’t think this should be discuss any further. Many of us will be force to repeat themselves again and again…

We give a Catholic position on the inquistions…

That’s ok, I can still read them even though they are closed, and that will save everyone the trouble of having to repeat themselves!

 

[Mordocai]

Well what I want to know (which i’ve never seen figures on) is how many people did the Inquisition actually SAVE?
We know from history that there definitely weren’t thousands who died at the hands of the Inquisitions, but maybe at most hundreds? I’ve seen even lower than that.
So how many were saved I wonder.
It is easy to blame someone for not being impeccable. But the Church is HOLY, which does not mean without sin. It means “set apart”
If anything, the scandals in the Church prove it’s divine protection, since men should have long ago destroyed the Church with their stupidity and evil ways.
Not so with Catholicism.

 

[guanophore]

I wonder. It is easy to blame someone for not being impeccable. But the Church is HOLY, which does not mean without sin. It means “set apart”
If anything, the scandals in the Church prove it’s divine protection, since men should have long ago destroyed the Church with their stupidity and evil ways.
Not so with Catholicism.

I was not intending to place “blame”, which to me is a useless exercise. My point was that the Church has not been without impious behavior. I agree with you entirely, that this actually affirms the divine protection.

 

[BlestOne]

Well what I want to know (which i’ve never seen figures on) is how many people did the Inquisition actually SAVE?
We know from history that there definitely weren’t thousands who died at the hands of the Inquisitions, but maybe at most hundreds? I’ve seen even lower than that.
So how many were saved I wonder.
It is easy to blame someone for not being impeccable. But the Church is HOLY, which does not mean without sin. It means “set apart”
If anything, the scandals in the Church prove it’s divine protection, since men should have long ago destroyed the Church with their stupidity and evil ways.
Not so with Catholicism.

This is exactly why the church was involved… So it didn’t become a political witch hunt and a slaughter! The problem was man not the church. The church protected many people from false accusation and death. First… there were a couple of things going on during the Inquisition… Moslems were lying and saying they were Christian to subvert the church internally… that is a fact! Second, there were few people at that time who were catechized well so they were susceptible to false teachings by the Muslim’s. The Church did not punish or kill anyone, their first mission was to investigate claims of heresy, but they were also charged with the responsibility to educate those who wanted to know the correct teachings. It was the ones who insisted on trying to subvert the Christians that got turned over to the governments for prosecution. With as much as we would like all to repent and to be in communion with the Church, do you really think that clergy would be so apt to condemn a man?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The history that most of us have learned about the Inquisition, came from the propaganda campaigns used by protestant nations against Catholic Spain. These are known and referred to by historians as the “Black Legends.” In 1998, Pope John Paul II, opened the Vatican archives to historians for study on the subject of the Inquisitions. Since then, documents(and there are plenty) about the Inquisitions are providing a true historical account of what they were about. They are showing us that the history we were taught, is either false or exaggerated.

First off, the Inquisitions were ecclesiastical courts. This being the case, all the cases heard in the Inquisitions, were well documented and are in the Vatican archives which have been under study since 1998.

The ecclesiastical courts of the inquisitions were legal trials, to address heretical teachings by Catholics. Non-Catholics were not tried by these courts. Those non-Catholics who were brought before the inquisition courts, were released. Only Catholics could be brought into the ecclesiastical courts.

These ecclesiastical courts were the most just courts of their day. In fact, our own US judicial system is similar to those of the inquisition. The ecclesiastical courts were so fair, that criminals would attempt to have their cases heard before the Church’s court, rather than the state courts, because they got a fair trial. In the Church’s courts, they were provided with a defense lawyer, and witnesses both for and against the defendants were brought in and cross-examined. The prosecution had to reveal all of its sources to the defense before trial. In fact, these courts were so fair, that the people protested the closing of the Spanish Inquisition, because it meant that all trials would be held by the state.

The Catholic church did not execute those found guilty, but handed them over to the state. However, these cases were criminal cases in which the defendants managed to get a Church trial rather than a state trial.

As far as torture, the methods used were no greater than those used by law enforcement in the United States, back in the 1930’s. This doesn’t justify the Church’s involvement, but it wasn’t the rack and torture chambers as depicted in movies like,“Mark of the Devil.”

The title of a “Grand Inquisitor,” is a made up term by Dostoevsky in one of his novels. There was never a position or title held in the Catholic Church under this name.

There’s a lot more and books have recently come out detailing the new finds by historians.

A good book which is easy to read;

“Fire and Sword - Crusade, Inquisition and Reformation”
by Matthew Arnold.

Jim

 

[guanophore]

The Church did not punish or kill anyone… With as much as we would like all to repent and to be in communion with the Church, do you really think that clergy would be so apt to condemn a man?

I find this denial shocking. Officials of the Church most certainly did punish, torture, and kill.

I also think that there were clergy that were corrupt, power mongers, and sadistic. Some of them do not even appear to be believers, so yes, I think there were some that were apt to condemn. I am not trying to say this was the official position of the Church, but to deny these skeletons in the closet is just outrageous!

 

[El_camino]

I will concede that it may not have been the official teaching of the church, but one can hardly say that the Inqusition was not CAtholic!!!

Corrupt Catholics are not corrupt for being Catholic, but rather for being BAD CATHOLICS.

Given that you are saying that the INquisition was Catholic because Catholics practiced it, I should say, rather then, that the Inquisition WAS CHRISTIAN, because NOT only Catholics practiced but so did PROTESTANTS. So the point is that ALL CHRISTIANS, be it Catholics or protestants, practiced it during those times.

The protestants had their inquisition o’right!. In fact, some claim that the tortures protestants made people indure were worse than the Catholic inquisition because the Catholic inquisition had the rule that no blood should be spilled, whereas Protestants did not have that rule. THey spilled plenty of blood during their tortures.

History is witness that the Lutherans persecuted the anabaptists and Catholics in the territories they controlled, the Calvinists persecuted also the anabaptists and Catholics in their own territories. John Calvin is said to have sent more than 60 people to burn at the stake, including the famous physician Michael Servetus. The anabaptist as well persecuted Lutheran and Catholics in the territories they controlled, as it happened in the town of Munster in Germany.

In fact, history is also clear that the inquisition that killed more people was rather the Anglican inquisition. It is said that Henry VIII in one day sent to the stake thousands of catholic martyrs, and her daughter Elizabeth during her reign killed more catholics and other Christians than the Catholic inquisition had in 300 years.

YES, agreed, the inquisition time were crazy times, and the Catholic Church had apologized for it, but to say that it was ONLY catholic, as you put it, is a misrepresentation of history, if not a false witness from your part.

Protestants that talk about the inquisition in an accusatory way are casting the first stone and seeing the speck in their neighbor’s eye.

Many blessings,

E.C.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I find this denial shocking. Officials of the Church most certainly did punish, torture, and kill.

I also think that there were clergy that were corrupt, power mongers, and sadistic. Some of them do not even appear to be believers, so yes, I think there were some that were apt to condemn. I am not trying to say this was the official position of the Church, but to deny these skeletons in the closet is just outrageous!

Yup, there were corrupt officials of the Catholic Church, no doubt about it. They burned St. Joan of Arch at the steak, but the Pope in Rome protested the trial and the sentence and demanded that Joan be brought to Rome, and that she was under the protection of the Church. The residing Bishop, who was in bed with the British, ignored the Pope and had her executed.

Jim

 

[guanophore]

Given that you are saying that the INquisition was Catholic because Catholics practiced it, I should say, rather then, that the Inquisition WAS CHRISTIAN, because NOT only Catholics practiced but so did PROTESTANTS. So the point is that ALL CHRISTIANS, be it Catholics or protestants, practiced it during those times.

I brought this over from another thread, where someone purported that the Catholic Church did not initiate or participate in Inquisition, but that it was the secular rulers of the time. My point was that the Church did, indeed, create courts and appointed investigators and judges to work against heresy. Here is a passage from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm

"The pope did not establish the Inquisition as a distinct and separate tribunal; what he did was to appoint special but permanent judges, who executed their doctrinal functions In the name of the pope. Where they sat, there was the Inquisition. It must he carefully noted that the characteristic feature of the Inquisition was not its peculiar procedure, nor the secret examination of witnesses and consequent official indictment: this procedure was common to all courts from the time of Innocent III. Nor was it the pursuit of heretics in all places: this had been the rule since the Imperial Synod of Verona under Lucius III and Frederick Barbarossa. Nor again was it the torture, which was not prescribed or even allowed for decades after the beginning of the Inquisition, nor, finally, the various sanctions, imprisonment, confiscation, the stake, etc., all of which punishments were usual long before the Inquisition. The Inquisitor, strictly speaking, was a special but permanent judge, acting in the name of the pope and clothed by him with the right and the duty to deal legally with offences against the Faith; he had, however, to adhere to the established rules of canonical procedure and pronounce the customary penalties. "

The protestants had their inquisition o’right!. In fact, some claim that the tortures protestants made people indure were worse than the Catholic inquisition because the Catholic inquisition had the rule that no blood should be spilled, whereas Protestants did not have that rule. THey spilled plenty of blood during their tortures.

History is witness that the Lutherans persecuted the anabaptists and Catholics in the territories they controlled, the Calvinists persecuted also the anabaptists and Catholics in their own territories. John Calvin is said to have sent more than 60 people to burn at the stake, including the famous physician Michael Servetus. The anabaptist as well persecuted Lutheran and Catholics in the territories they controlled, as it happened in the town of Munster in Germany.

In fact, history is also clear that the inquisition that killed more people was rather the Anglican inquisition. It is said that Henry VIII in one day sent to the stake thousands of catholic martyrs, and her daughter Elizabeth during her reign killed more catholics and other Christians than the Catholic inquisition had in 300 years.

YES, agreed, the inquisition time were crazy times, and the Catholic Church had apologized for it, but to say that it was ONLY catholic, as you put it, is a misrepresentation of history, if not a false witness from your part.

Protestants that talk about the inquisition in an accusatory way are casting the first stone and seeing the speck in their neighbor’s eye.

Many blessings,

E.C.

I have no arguement with any of this. I think the Catholic Church set up a model for investigating heresy, based on the legal customs of the time. My complaint is that it seems to contradict Jesus teaching that we should let the wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest.

 

[guanophore]

Yup, there were corrupt officials of the Catholic Church, no doubt about it. They burned St. Joan of Arch at the steak, but the Pope in Rome protested the trial and the sentence and demanded that Joan be brought to Rome, and that she was under the protection of the Church. The residing Bishop, who was in bed with the British, ignored the Pope and had her executed.

Jim

With this, then, I will rest my case, which was that there has been corruption in the Catholic church, and to deny it when accused is not valuable for evangelization.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

With this, then, I will rest my case, which was that there has been corruption in the Catholic church, and to deny it when accused is not valuable for evangelization.

No one denies that there was corruption in the Church, but to accuse the Church as a whole as being corrupt, is also false.

Pope John Paul II even apologize for the sins of the Church. He apologized to the Jews, Muslims and Native Americans.

However, have you heard of any similar apologies for things done to Catholics? Native Americans tortured and killed Jesuit missionaries, in a most brutal manor. Muslims killed and are still killing Catholics around the world. Jews have discriminated against Catholics, and the state of Israel has put laws in place were Palestinian Catholics have been driven out of the country or into poverty.

Then lets not forget Joseph Stalins persecution of Catholics in Russia and of course we have the on going persecution in China.

But what does this all prove? It merely proves that human beings sin. But human beings also do good, and the Catholic Church is no different. Look around the world over the course of history. It was the Church who established the great learning institutions of the world. It was the Church who built hospitals and created programs to feed and clothe the poor.
Name a non-Christian religion that has done the same?

You have a right to be angry over the sins the Church committed. But how about learning about the good the Church did. I think if you do an honest study, you’ll find that there was more good than sins committed.

Jim

 

[guanophore]

No one denies that there was corruption in the Church, but to accuse the Church as a whole as being corrupt, is also false.

That is actually how it got started. Someone purporting that there was not corruption.

But what does this all prove? It merely proves that human beings sin. But human beings also do good, and the Catholic Church is no different. Look around the world over the course of history. It was the Church who established the great learning institutions of the world. It was the Church who built hospitals and created programs to feed and clothe the poor.
Name a non-Christian religion that has done the same?

You have a right to be angry over the sins the Church committed. But how about learning about the good the Church did. I think if you do an honest study, you’ll find that there was more good than sins committed.

Jim

Actually, I was not particularly angry about the offenses. WHat got to me was the denial they had occurred. I am mindful that “where sin abounds, grace abounds even more” and that God has preserved the Church in spite of corrupt officials, representatives, and poorly catechized laity. I am also mindful that the Latin Church is largely responsible for Western Civilization.

 

[El_camino]

I brought this over from another thread, where someone purported that the Catholic Church did not initiate or participate in Inquisition, but that it was the secular rulers of the time. My point was that the Church did, indeed, create courts and appointed investigators and judges to work against heresy. Here is a passage from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm

"The pope did not establish the Inquisition as a distinct and separate tribunal; what he did was to appoint special but permanent judges, who executed their doctrinal functions In the name of the pope. Where they sat, there was the Inquisition. It must he carefully noted that the characteristic feature of the Inquisition was not its peculiar procedure, nor the secret examination of witnesses and consequent official indictment: this procedure was common to all courts from the time of Innocent III. Nor was it the pursuit of heretics in all places: this had been the rule since the Imperial Synod of Verona under Lucius III and Frederick Barbarossa. Nor again was it the torture, which was not prescribed or even allowed for decades after the beginning of the Inquisition, nor, finally, the various sanctions, imprisonment, confiscation, the stake, etc., all of which punishments were usual long before the Inquisition. The Inquisitor, strictly speaking, was a special but permanent judge, acting in the name of the pope and clothed by him with the right and the duty to deal legally with offences against the Faith; he had, however, to adhere to the established rules of canonical procedure and pronounce the customary penalties. "

I have no arguement with any of this. I think the Catholic Church set up a model for investigating heresy, based on the legal customs of the time. My complaint is that it seems to contradict Jesus teaching that we should let the wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest.

YEs, no doubt, the inquisition was an organization, which had judges, known as INQUISITORS and courts… BUt SO DID the protestant inquisition!

Now, regarding this contradicting Christ’s teaching, it only might contradict it in the fact of KILLING those who were heretics rather than simply excommunicating them.

Christ did say we should excommunicate people who after JUDGING and REBUKE by the CHURCH do not change their ways:

15
"If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
16
If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’
17
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. **If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. ** (i.e., excommunicate him)
18
Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Mat 18:15-18)

Now, the problem with the INQUISITION (both protestant and catholic) is the taking of the Old Testament, as expressed in, for instance, Deuteronomy 13, where it CLEARLY says that heretics MUST be put to death, rather than the FACT that CHRIST had set all things ANEW. That was the problem. I think.

You must also, however, understand the thinking of the people of the time, who had a very fervent faith, which was everything to them. What I mean with this is that TODAY many Christians (mostly protestants) agree with Capital Punishment when someone has committed murder. So, today in many states in the US is acceptable that, when someone kills a person in what the material body is concerned, that person is PUT TO DEATH. Now imagine, how much worse it was, in the eyes of those who had such a fervent faith, to be a heretic, who, according to their beliefs, did not necessarily killed the body but killed the soul! a heretic was MURDERER of SOULS to them, much worse than a MURDERER of the body for which you are put to death TODAY.

So you have to take into account their way of thinking as well, to really understand what was going on on those days AMONG ALL CHRISTIANS!

Many blessings,

E.C.