Is wishing for the Holy Inquisition sinful?

[Roy5]

All attempts to defend the Inquisition are rather ridiculous. Why does any try? It was a dark period in the history of the church and to deny, twist or minimize looks quite silly. That’s what can happen when a church thinks it alone has the truth and also has the power to enforce this totalitarian idea. It’s sort of a religious version of Nazism or Communism, and we ought not to make excuses for it.

 

[puppypatrol]

Well, I don’t know what others were taught in school, but I was taught that the Church would question the defendents, and then, because the Church had no power to put people to death, would hand them over to the authorities, knowing that they would be tortured and killed. They handed over innocent as well as “guilty” people. They indeed had a very big part in the torture and death of those who refused to be in line with the Church, they just didn’t dirty their own hands by actually killing them. They should have never had that power, and thankfully they don’t today, and I hope they never will again.

That is my point. What you were taught in school is inaccurate according to court documents from the time. The Church turned over less than 50 people during the spanish inquisition for refusing to acknowledge things as the True Presence, The Divinity of Christ, etc… The church was the most fair court anyone could be tried in and they kept meticulous records. It was only in the Church court that a person was given a written copy of the complaint prior to appearing so they could work out their defense, the defendent was asked to give a list of his enemies and those people on the list were not allowed to testify against him and, if it was discovered that the accusation was knowingly false, the accuser was put in prision for a long time.

This falls under the same catagory as the civil war. Let me ask you, who freed the slaves (Matthew Arnold, don’t answer). What was the document that freed them. I’ll bet you would say the Emancipation Proclamation. This is not quite accurate. This document did not free all the slaves, only the ones in confederate states and at the surrender of Lee the only legal slaves there were the ones brought by U. S. Grant. Even the history books were written with an agenda and many people are unwilling to change their perception for the truth, no matter how bad the myth makes them look. Catholics have been apologizing for centuries for things that never happened. Even if a small portion of it were true, the events have to be looked at throught the eyes of that time, not through the eyes of today. That would be like compairing steak and bologna, the times were totally different and what was common then does not apply to what is common now.

 

[Rence]

That is my point. What you were taught in school is inaccurate according to court documents from the time.

Yeah, well that’s not how the previous Pope took it either. In Tertio Millennio Adveniente,
Pope JPII said this regarding the inquisition…(hardly an indication that the Church was innocent of any wrongdoing. In fact, the Pope seemd embarassed by it. But at least he can admit it and apologize for it, and call for Catholics to a higher standard):

1. Another painful chapter of history to which the sons and daughters of the Church must return with a spirit of repentance is that of the acquiescence given, especially in certain centuries, to intolerance and even the use of violence in the service of truth.

It is true that an accurate historical judgment cannot prescind from careful study of the cultural conditioning of the times, as a result of which many people may have held in good faith that an authentic witness to the truth could include suppressing the opinions of others or at least paying no attention to them. Many factors frequently converged to create assumptions which justified intolerance and fostered an emotional climate from which only great spirits, truly free and filled with God, were in some way able to break free. Yet the consideration of mitigating factors does not exonerate the Church from the obligation to express profound regret for the weaknesses of so many of her sons and daughters who sullied her face, preventing her from fully mirroring the image of her crucified Lord, the supreme witness of patient love and of humble meekness. From these painful moments of the past a lesson can be drawn for the future, leading all Christians to adhere fully to the sublime principle stated by the Council: “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with both gentleness and power”.(19)

The Church turned over less than 50 people during the spanish inquisition for refusing to acknowledge things as the True Presence, The Divinity of Christ, etc…

Sorry, but I don’t believe it was 50 people or less. I don’t believe it was millions, or even thousands, of course. However, even if it was 20, it was 20 too many and should be owned, not rationalized away.

Every civilization and country has its moments that bring embarassment on itself. The Church is no different. But to try to rationalize it away is just embarassing the Church even more.

 

[HickmanJosh]

All attempts to defend the Inquisition are rather ridiculous. Why does any try? It was a dark period in the history of the church and to deny, twist or minimize looks quite silly. That’s what can happen when a church thinks it alone has the truth and also has the power to enforce this totalitarian idea. It’s sort of a religious version of Nazism or Communism, and we ought not to make excuses for it.

Pope JOHN PAUL II:

The institution of the Inquisition has been abolished…the children of the Church cannot but return with a spirit of repentance to “the acquiescence given, especially in certain centuries, to intolerance and even the use of violence in the service of the truth”

This spirit of repentance, it is clear, entails a firm determination to seek in the future ways to bear witness to the truth that are in keeping with the Gospel."

The prayer I addressed to God on that occasion contains the reasons for a request for forgiveness that can also be applied to the tragedies associated with the Inquisition, as well as to the injuries to memory that result from it.

“Lord, God of all men and women, in certain periods of history. Christians have at times given in to [forms of] intolerance and have not been faithful to the great commandment of love, sullying in this way the face of the Church, your Spouse. Have mercy on your sinful children and accept our resolve to seek and promote truth in the gentleness of charity, in the firm knowledge that truth can prevail only in virtue of truth itself. We ask this through Christ Our Lord”

(Prayer for Forgiveness, Day of Pardon, 12 March, II; ORE, 22 March 2000, p.).
JOHN PAUL II, From the Vatican, 15 June 2004

 

[bingbang]

Hang on there, buddy.
You’re saying “Jesus didn’t force beliefs on anyone”, I’m saying He did.
How many times has He reprimanded and corrected those who would follow him, forcing them to either accept His sovereignty or be cast away. How’s that different from the Hl.Inquisition which seeked to reprimand and correct those Christians who would start to disregard what Christians are required to believe?

Jesus has the authority to correct people in matters of religion, something that normal men do not. Forcing people to “believe” something is stupid because you can’t force anyone to believe anything. They might act like they believe something and say they do, but they probably don’t.

Either way this thread and idea is the most morally reprehensible I have ever seen on CAF and that is saying a lot.

First of all, the idea is extremely stupid. You can’t force anyone to believe anything. That is a fact. Why didn’t the church shut down in Russia and other communist countries when religion was outlawed? Didn’t the Russians make the people give up religion? But there was still underground churches despite it being against the law. So what makes you think that someone that believes Mary wasn’t a perpetual virgin (for example) is going to change their stance because of torture? People might say they agree with you, but they won’t…and they will just hate you.

Secondly, the idea is not moral in the least.

I really hope for your sake that you are trolling. If not, I pity you.

 

[Questionhaver]

It doesn’t really matter what the Inquisition really was, the OP has stated that their idea of what goes on is that we should threaten to torture, torture, imprison for life, or burn, cafeteria Catholics, and all non-catholic Christians.

What I have stated is that I wish for the Hl.Inquisition.
What you are referring to, is my explanation as to the means earlier Inquisitions used.
I never encouraged either of these, nor do I fancy the idea.
If, however, these are the last of your options …

Umm, and Jesus sending people away who refused to fully obey him is a LOT differant than him burning at the stake. I am pretty sure Jesus never even threatened to torture someone, much less the rest of it.

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 25:41[/BIBLEDRB]
Or to say it different: Just what part of Hell isn’t a threat?

He was talking to his disciples about evangelization and about the continuity of the religion that He was establishing and leaving to his disciples, that meant heathens and heretics. You’re right in that it is the duty of the Church to ensure Catholic beliefs remain Catholic, however, not by force. They have no power to force people, and they shouldn’t force people. Though they can excommunicate people.

It’s all voluntary. The Chuch can do absolutely nothing to anyone for not “keeping the faith” except counsel and then excommunicate. Nor should they.

…]They could have just excommunicated and outcast the person …]

Could you please explain to me how you can so strongly fend off the idea of the Hl.Church lecturing those who are wrong on faith, yet would have her stand by and idly watch millions of people commit suicide?!

It seems to me (correct me if I’m wrong), that you are not just concerned about Catholics playing the ‘good Catholic’ but about all Christians being forced under one Church, the Catholic Church. Am I correct? It seem so me (correct me if I’m wrong), that you want to do away with all the other Christian religions, and have them annexed by the Catholic Church…by force?

If everything else fails, yes.

Well, I don’t know what others were taught in school, but I was taught that the Church would question the defendents, and then, because the Church had no power to put people to death, would hand them over to the authorities, knowing that they would be tortured and killed. They handed over innocent as well as “guilty” people. They indeed had a very big part in the torture and death of those who refused to be in line with the Church, they just didn’t dirty their own hands by actually killing them.

Two things wrong with the underlined part.
For one, the Church did not just hand everybody over to the worldy authorities, contrary to what your post would imply
And Two, handing a person over to worldly authorities meant death. In the rare off cases where torture was applied, torment was already over by that point.

Yes, so why did you say the “13th century” earlier?

Because the “original” Hl.Inquisition has indeed ended at the close of the 13th century.

So what you are really calling for is the return of civil authorities willing to pass laws against heresy and Church courts willing to hand people over to them, right?

It’s a requirement for a n Inquisition, what’d you expect?

All attempts to defend the Inquisition are rather ridiculous. Why does any try?

I try, because I don’t think the Hl.Inquisition was the evil most people make it up as.
The death toll was rather low (less than 2% of the people tried).
Also, the Inquisitional courts were actually improvements, at the time. Worldly courts judged by repute only. The Inquisition, however, actually investigated.

It was a dark period in the history of the church and to deny, twist or minimize looks quite silly.

I neither deny its former existance nor do I try to alter what actually happened.
In fact, describing the Hl.Inquisition as a totalitarian system bent on slaughtering all who would look at them the wrong way is what I’d consider twisting the truth.

Jesus has the authority to correct people in matters of religion, something that normal men do not. Forcing people to “believe” something is stupid because you can’t force anyone to believe anything. They might act like they believe something and say they do, but they probably don’t.

And I guess internalization is just another word psychologists came up with.

Secondly, the idea is not moral in the least.

I wasn’t expecting it to.

@all
Why is everybody insisting that the Inquisition equals torture, murder and whatnot?
Today, given the knowledge and possibilities at our disposal, don’t you think there are more subtle methods?

 

[bingbang]

Why is everybody insisting that the Inquisition equals torture, murder and whatnot?
Today, given the knowledge and possibilities at our disposal, don’t you think there are more subtle methods?

There are more subtle methods…and they are all immoral and not effective. No one will believe someone because they are threatened. It is absolutely ludicrous to think that they would. Secondly, though there are more subtle methods due to human nature these subtle methods would progress to actual physical and mental harm…just like it did back in the middle ages. Just give it up. Your idea is immoral and ridiculous.

 

[Rence]

Or to say it different: Just what part of Hell isn’t a threat?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rence
He was talking to his disciples about evangelization and about the continuity of the religion that He was establishing and leaving to his disciples, that meant heathens and heretics. You’re right in that it is the duty of the Church to ensure Catholic beliefs remain Catholic, however, not by force. They have no power to force people, and they shouldn’t force people. Though they can excommunicate people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rence
It’s all voluntary. The Chuch can do absolutely nothing to anyone for not “keeping the faith” except counsel and then excommunicate. Nor should they.

Quote:
Originally posted by Rence
…]They could have just excommunicated and outcast the person …]

Could you please explain to me how you can so strongly fend off the idea of the Hl.Church lecturing those who are wrong on faith, yet would have her stand by and idly watch millions of people commit suicide?!

I don’t care either way about the idea of the Catholic Church lecturing those who are wrong on faith beause the recipient has the freedom of choice to either listen to the person, or not listen to the person. They can talk all they want. What I have a problem with is the notion of the Church forcing people to comply wiht the Church and living by the Church’s rules. The Church would still stand by and idly watch millions of people “commit suicide” either way, because you can’t force someone to believe and follow the rules of the Church. What this implies is that it would be better for someone to fake being Catholic then to tell the truth about what they believe, and to live according to what they are inside of themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rence
It seems to me (correct me if I’m wrong), that you are not just concerned about Catholics playing the ‘good Catholic’ but about all Christians being forced under one Church, the Catholic Church. Am I correct? It seem so me (correct me if I’m wrong), that you want to do away with all the other Christian religions, and have them annexed by the Catholic Church…by force?

If everything else fails, yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rence
Well, I don’t know what others were taught in school, but I was taught that the Church would question the defendents, and then, because the Church had no power to put people to death, would hand them over to the authorities, knowing that they would be tortured and killed. They handed over innocent as well as “guilty” people. They indeed had a very big part in the torture and death of those who refused to be in line with the Church, they just didn’t dirty their own hands by actually killing them.

Two things wrong with the underlined part.
For one, the Church did not just hand everybody over to the worldy authorities, contrary to what your post would imply
And Two, handing a person over to worldly authorities meant death. In the rare off cases where torture was applied, torment was already over by that point.

Yes, the Church did hand those they judged to be guilty to the wordly authorities. They had to because the Church and State were intertwined and it was against civil law to be in conflict with the Catholic Church. Therefore, the interogators, when finding someone guilty of not being in communion with the Church for whatever reason, would hand them over to the civil authorities, who would then further punish (by either torture, or death, or both) the defendant for breaking the law, which was not being in communion with the Church. Thankfully, it’s not against the law anymore to not be in Communion with the Church, so the Church can do nothing about those who do not comply with it’s rules and regulations. The civil government doesn’t care which religion someone follows, and further, doesn’t care whether or not the civilian follows the rules and regulations of their religion.

And two, it matters not one iota to me that in 'rare cases where torture was applied, torment was already over by that point". It still makes the actions of those ‘religious’ evil and disgusting, and worthy of an apology by a later Pope for spitting on the name of the Church. And if I believe anything to be “True”, there is no doubt in my mind that they ‘got there’s’ when their time came.

 

[angelerulastiel]

Questionhaver;6978946 [BIBLEDRB:

Matthew 25:41[/BIBLEDRB]
Or to say it different: Just what part of Hell isn’t a threat?

Going to Hell is a choice man makes through his refusal to enter heaven. And that judgment is made by a perfect being, not imperfect man.

 

[bingbang]

Going to Hell is a choice man makes through his refusal to enter heaven. And that judgment is made by a perfect being, not imperfect man.

So its God’s choice, not man’s.

 

[angelerulastiel]

God judges a man’s actions. God judges whether the man’s actions say “I want to go to heaven” or “I refuse to go to heaven.”

 

[joeantony]

@Questionhaver;

I haven’t read all the replies to your post. However it seems to me that most of them is discussing whether the past Inquisitions were right or wrong/Good or bad ?

The answer to your question " whether is it sinful to wish another Holy Inquisition " according to me ( excuse me, its a very personal opinion) is NO.

Having said that, I am convinced that it is not a sin because my understanding of a Holy Inquisition is ( not comparing to or relating to what happened in the past) that it is an ardent, effective and definitive effort by the Church to promote, educate and practice Holy Catholicism and using all its spiritual, financial,human and authoritative resources to defend its beliefs, customs and traditions from all the heresies and schisms which leads many faithful and potential faithful away from the “Truth”.

I believe in a lay man’s language it just means that stand up for what you believe is Truth, defend it at any cost ( note that no sin come from God- so I don’t mean any wrongful means).

I am not committing a sin by wishing if Catholic Church could promote and profess more effectively its faith.

The moment we go back to those historical events, of which we will never be sure of its morals, we are suspecting that any new “Inquisitions” will be of the same sort. If we can be open minded that it is not going to the same ( if at all it was wrong) but surely of a well defined stand that do not violate the sanctity of the Church, then who don’t want it to be true .
Joe

 

[angelerulastiel]

The only problem is that questionhaver has admitted he thinks it would be okay to use threats, torture, and maybe even execution as means to stamp out heresy. That is what he says he thinks of when he wishes for the Holy Inquisition.

 

[Questionhaver]

@Questionhaver;
I haven’t read all the replies to your post. However it seems to me that most of them is discussing whether the past Inquisitions were right or wrong/Good or bad ?

That’s the situation (though not the initial question).
I have summed up my position at the end of this post so you don’t need to read through all pages.

The answer to your question " whether is it sinful to wish another Holy Inquisition " according to me ( excuse me, its a very personal opinion) is NO.

Having said that, I am convinced that it is not a sin because my understanding of a Holy Inquisition is ( not comparing to or relating to what happened in the past) that it is an ardent, effective and definitive effort by the Church to promote, educate and practice Holy Catholicism and using all its spiritual, financial,human and authoritative resources to defend its beliefs, customs and traditions from all the heresies and schisms which leads many faithful and potential faithful away from the “Truth”.

I believe in a lay man’s language it just means that stand up for what you believe is Truth, defend it at any cost ( note that no sin come from God- so I don’t mean any wrongful means).

I am not committing a sin by wishing if Catholic Church could promote and profess more effectively its faith.

The moment we go back to those historical events, of which we will never be sure of its morals, we are suspecting that any new “Inquisitions” will be of the same sort. If we can be open minded that it is not going to the same ( if at all it was wrong) but surely of a well defined stand that do not violate the sanctity of the Church, then who don’t want it to be true .
Joe

So the problem is not so much the goal but the means?
For when you say “all its spiritual, financial,human and authoritative resources”, “at any cost” and “no wrongful means”, I - on the other hand - mean by all means and at any cost (though less cost would be preferable, of course).

To sum my position up:

I believe that had the Hl.Inquisition never ended but instead ensured unity throughout the Church to this very day, the world would be a better place. And I’d wish for a reinstitutation of a similar ecclesiastical organization.
Is it wrong for me to do so?
I’m worried I may be commiting a sin (anger, resentment, execration, intolerance, disregarding the commandment of love, haughtiness, …) but remain unsure.
Should I seek help?

I am displeased with the struggles the Hl.Church is facing and resent the heretics for the role they played in it. Some sects have gone so far in confusing Christian faith that I execrate them.
That and the thereof resulting intolerance make me wonder if I am disregarding the commandment to love, which would be quite arrogant of me indeed.

when I say “Inquisition”, I don’t mean the slaughter of heretics, I mean the converting of heretics (by force, if necessay).

God isn’t a democracy. Nor are His entity and His teachings subject to personal preferrence.
…]
What I would want is an organization uniting all of Christianity - by force if need be. Because if you think about it, all those “denominations” that once split from the Catholic Church are in one way or the other misleading others about the faith.
The Hl.Church, on the other hand, by her contemporary passive position and in allowing heresy to abide is putting thousands, if not millions, of lives in jeopardy.
Furthermore, unity is the most simple form of defence.

You cannot cherry pick what you like and disregard what you don’t. And as far as I’m concerned, it’s the duty of the Hl.Church to ensure that Christian beliefs remain Christian.

[concerning “just excomunicate them”]Could you please explain to me how you can so strongly fend off the idea of the Hl.Church lecturing those who are wrong on faith, yet would have her stand by and idly watch millions of people commit suicide?!

ecclesiastical unity strikes me as absolutely necessary.

angelerulastiel;6966075:

It doesn’t really matter what the Inquisition really was, the OP has stated that their idea of what goes on is that we should threaten to torture, torture, imprison for life, or burn, cafeteria Catholics, and all non-catholic Christians.

What I have stated is that I wish for the Hl.Inquisition.
What you are referring to, is my explanation as to the means earlier Inquisitions used.
I never encouraged either of these, nor do I fancy the idea.
If, however, these are the last of your options …

Rence;6966152:

It seems to me (correct me if I’m wrong), that you are not just concerned about Catholics playing the ‘good Catholic’ but about all Christians being forced under one Church, the Catholic Church. Am I correct? It seem so me (correct me if I’m wrong), that you want to do away with all the other Christian religions, and have them annexed by the Catholic Church…by force?

If everything else fails, yes.

Why is everybody insisting that the Inquisition equals torture, murder and whatnot?
Today, given the knowledge and possibilities at our disposal, don’t you think there are more subtle methods?

 

[Questionhaver]

What this implies is that it would be better for someone to fake being Catholic then to tell the truth about what they believe, and to live according to what they are inside of themselves.

That’s right. There is too much of liberalism and it’s already killing the world. It’s time to tighten the rope again.

Yes, the Church did hand those they judged to be guilty to the wordly authorities. They had to because the Church and State were intertwined and it was against civil law to be in conflict with the Catholic Church. Therefore, the interogators, when finding someone guilty of not being in communion with the Church for whatever reason, would hand them over to the civil authorities, who would then further punish (by either torture, or death, or both) the defendant for breaking the law, which was not being in communion with the Church. Thankfully, it’s not against the law anymore to not be in Communion with the Church, so the Church can do nothing about those who do not comply with it’s rules and regulations. The civil government doesn’t care which religion someone follows, and further, doesn’t care whether or not the civilian follows the rules and regulations of their religion.

And two, it matters not one iota to me that in 'rare cases where torture was applied, torment was already over by that point". It still makes the actions of those ‘religious’ evil and disgusting, and worthy of an apology by a later Pope for spitting on the name of the Church. And if I believe anything to be “True”, there is no doubt in my mind that they ‘got there’s’ when their time came.

So far, I could just as well have been talking to a stone.
I don’t know where you got that information from but it’s definitely not true.
The Church did hand over individuals to the worldly authorities.However, they would not just hand over everybody found guilty.
Also, my argument in two was that torture was not part of punishment. Therefore, the worldly authorities did not torture those handed over to them. Also, you make it appear as if death was the only punishment the Church accepted, and that’s wrong.
Of course, as long as it “matters not one iota” to you, don’t bother replying.

Going to Hell is a choice man makes through his refusal to enter heaven. And that judgment is made by a perfect being, not imperfect man.

“Choose me or choose eternal damnation.”
I still don’t see how that’s no threat to the unfaithful.

The only problem is that questionhaver has admitted he thinks it would be okay to use threats, torture, and maybe even execution as means to stamp out heresy. That is what he says he thinks of when he wishes for the Holy Inquisition.

Heresy must be stopped and Christianity united.
When I wish for the Hl. Inquisition I wish for that goal to be achieved.
And if the only way to achieve said goal is to stop handling heretics with kid gloves, so be it.
If, however, there are less drastic ways, those would be preferable.

 

[joeantony]

@Questionhaver,

Now I am confused, is it because I am completely misreading you or are you expressing dual conflicting opinion ?

As far as I understood you are saying
1-You desire a Holy inquisition to happen (again) without applying violence of any sort.
2-You are Ok with using compulsion ( we all know what does that mean) as the last resort.

Well if you could excuse me for being blunt, I think you should probably make it clear for everyone whether you want a forceful inquisition that legally prosecute people for not believing.Its most unlikely that Church will ever be in that position again to do that.

When I wrote “using all its spiritual, financial,human and authoritative resources to defend its beliefs, customs and traditions from all the heresies and schisms which leads many faithful and potential faithful away from the “Truth”.” I meant it for the “fear” of being called fanatics if we stand up for the teachings of the church. For heavens sake Lets not be afraid of anything.

For example, If a senator who claims to be a Catholic says that “I am catholic and believe its teaching” and then say “on the issue of abortion I have to respect the law of the land” is hypocrisy. In such case a new Holy inquisition would be , according to my imagination, is the courage and the authority the local Bishop to say LOUDLY that if you are a catholic, you are a Catholic, at home, at work, on the street,in the church and in the Government. Say Loudly you are not a catholic if you cannot stand up for its believe proudly, Confront the Heretic media with Catholic media, When Govt spend money to promote heretic laws and " freedom of choice" let the Church spend the money to promote what is Truth. When people think of welcoming the Pope to their country and asking him to inaugurate an abortion clinic,instruct all the catholic institutes not to do abortions, not to promote gay marriages and gay communion, even at the cost of closure of those institutes, lets all go to prison, or gas chambers, or wherever it is leading us to, that is an inquisition according to me. The proclamation of faith and its believe, the Truth without worrying about those who can only kill us.
It has to shown by us Catholics and the Clergy that we cannot be suppressed or taken advantage of its lost “glory” ( I mean influence in the government) , we cannot be threatened.
St Thomas Moore was slaughtered because he refused to be part of King Henry 8 th’s plans. He took a stand, a good one for the Church, Are we afraid of being new Moors ? If yes Inquisitions are dead.

But I am absolutely sure that the Queen Mary’s style is the one that no one should even think of. It was attack, bloody attack. I am ready to bleed for Catholicism but I dont want to make anyone bleed.And I don’t think I am sinning by wishing so.
Joe.

 

[Questionhaver]

@Questionhaver,

Now I am confused, is it because I am completely misreading you or are you expressing dual conflicting opinion ?

As far as I understood you are saying
1-You desire a Holy inquisition to happen (again), preferably without having to apply violence of any sort.
2-You are Ok with using compulsion ( we all know what does that mean) as the last resort.

Maybe the changements in bold will clear it up a bit.
I don’t see where these two statements are conflicting.
I wish for the Hl Inquisition, and the less blood will be shed because of it, the better.
Where compulsion - as you name it - is necessary, though, I’d have no problem with the Hl Inquisition’s taking appropriate steps.

Well if you could excuse me for being blunt, I think you should probably make it clear for everyone whether you want a forceful inquisition that legally prosecute people for not believing.Its most unlikely that Church will ever be in that position again to do that.

Not for not believing anything at all. After all, that’s the one choice God has compelled us to make on our own. It matters not to me how the individuals decide on this. Such is the God given freedom of choice and I am not to question that.
Once, however, an individual decided for Christianity, there cannot be multiple different truths. There cannot be multiple Christianities.
There is but one Hl Church, and she is Catholic. For heaven’s sake, that’s what we profess in the Credo on a daily basis. Therefore, the Hl Church has a duty to ensure Christianity remains Christian. That includes correcting Catholics who would uphold non-Catholic beliefs as well as “Christians” who would disagree with the Church.
You are Christian or you are not, there can be no wishy-washy.
That the persecution and correcting cannot be done by legal oppression anymore, should be a well known fact and I really like your idea of Catholic authorities standing up to “Catholics”. However, we also need somthing that goes beyond that, that can be applied when simply talking fails, something concrete and effective … and something that can be pulled off with or without the support of the respective country.

Is that clearing anything up?
If not, here is a shorter try:
I want all that claims to be Christian but is not Catholic and all that claims to be Catholic but doesn’t uphold the Hl Church’s teachings re-indoctrinated and converted.
If that can be achieved peacefully, there is no problem.
If not, however, then simply turning a blind eye is not an option.
The question of legality doesn’t even enter this.

When I wrote “using all its spiritual, financial,human and authoritative resources to defend its beliefs, customs and traditions from all the heresies and schisms which leads many faithful and potential faithful away from the “Truth”.” I meant it for the “fear” of being called fanatics if we stand up for the teachings of the church. For heavens sake Lets not be afraid of anything.
For example, If a senator who claims to be a Catholic says that “I am catholic and believe its teaching” and then say “on the issue of abortion I have to respect the law of the land” is hypocrisy. In such case a new Holy inquisition would be , according to my imagination, is the courage and the authority the local Bishop to say LOUDLY that if you are a catholic, you are a Catholic, at home, at work, on the street,in the church and in the Government. Say Loudly you are not a catholic if you cannot stand up for its believe proudly, Confront the Heretic media with Catholic media, When Govt spend money to promote heretic laws and " freedom of choice" let the Church spend the money to promote what is Truth. When people think of welcoming the Pope to their country and asking him to inaugurate an abortion clinic,instruct all the catholic institutes not to do abortions, not to promote gay marriages and gay communion, even at the cost of closure of those institutes, lets all go to prison, or gas chambers, or wherever it is leading us to, that is an inquisition according to me. The proclamation of faith and its believe, the Truth without worrying about those who can only kill us.

From your mouth to God’s ear.

 

[Rence]

Originally Posted by Rence
What this implies is that it would be better for someone to fake being Catholic then to tell the truth about what they believe, and to live according to what they are inside of themselves.

That’s right. There is too much of liberalism and it’s already killing the world. It’s time to tighten the rope again.

Well, thankfully that will never happen again. If it did, I’d leave the Church because that would mean Satan prevailed over it. The American public wouldn’t stand for it either.

So far, I could just as well have been talking to a stone.
I don’t know where you got that information from but it’s definitely not true.
The Church did hand over individuals to the worldly authorities.However, they would not just hand over everybody found guilty.
Also, my argument in two was that torture was not part of punishment. Therefore, the worldly authorities did not torture those handed over to them. Also, you make it appear as if death was the only punishment the Church accepted, and that’s wrong.
Of course, as long as it “matters not one iota” to you, don’t bother replying.

Your argument that torture was not part of punishment was probably correct in most cases. It was, however, used to obtain “confessions”. And again, coercing confessions out of people in the name of a religion will never again be supported by the public and would result in more fallen away Catholics. And thankfully, American won’t stand for it either. That’s one of the reasons why it was founded.

“Choose me or choose eternal damnation.”
I still don’t see how that’s no threat to the unfaithful.

Because the unfaithful don’t believe it to be a threat.

Heresy must be stopped and Christianity united.
When I wish for the Hl. Inquisition I wish for that goal to be achieved.
And if the only way to achieve said goal is to stop handling heretics with kid gloves, so be it.
If, however, there are less drastic ways, those would be preferable.

You still haven’t answered when asked to give specific examples of what you wanted done to people who didn’t act in according to the Church. Or how, specifically, you want Protestants to be forced to be Catholic, even against their will. How would it be accomplished if a Lutheran had no desire whatsoever to be Catholic? What kind of force would be used to make a Catholic comply with Catholic teachings?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I agree with Rence.

Free will is a sacred gift of God. It is completely immoral to try and force people to change their religions, even if we believe that our religion is right and theirs is wrong.

Heresy is bad. Forced coercion is worse.

 

[Prophesy]

Yeah, that is completely immoral. I don’t even think there is a good argument for that being moral at all. If Jesus supported something like that, why didn’t he implement it himself? He obviously had the power to do that. If Jesus didn’t force beliefs on anyone, why would Catholics think that they should??

Old response, but an interesting thought:

John 2:15
And when he had made, as it were, a scourge of little cords, he drove them all out of the temple, the sheep also and the oxen, and the money of the changers he poured out, and the tables he overthrew.

For an inquisition to be an inquisition it wouldn’t involve atheists or Jews or Muslims. It would strictly apply to people who profess to be Catholic. For example, Nancy Pelosi stands blatantly against the teachings of the Catholic Church on abortion. An inquisition would determine if she’s really a practising Catholic or not.

-Prophecy