Struggling With the Inquisition

[Doxiemom]

The best thing the Pope could do is to admit that the church was responsible for the inquisition and the crusades and all the death, torture, and other acts of horror it took part in or helped to occur, or turned a blind eye to.

If they did this to one person or 1 million, it was still wrong.

Confession and repentence is good for the soul.

But i do want to point out that it has been a very long time since this was done. Those alive today are not responsilbe for these horrific acts.

 

[VociMike]

The best thing the Pope could do is to admit that the church was responsible for the inquisition and the crusades and all the death, torture, and other acts of horror it took part in or helped to occur, or turned a blind eye to.

If they did this to one person or 1 million, it was still wrong.

Confession and repentence is good for the soul.

But i do want to point out that it has been a very long time since this was done. Those alive today are not responsilbe for these horrific acts.

Do you consider Catholics to be Christians?

If so, should Christians admit that they were responsible for the inquisition and the crusades and all the death, torture and other acts of horror? I’ll be curious as to the reasoning behind your response.

 

[lookaround]

Do you consider Catholics to be Christians?

if I may answer this
Catholics can be Christians, just as Baptist can be Christians, just a Lutherans can be Christians

same as
Catholics can be non-Christians, just as Baptist can be non-Christians, just a Lutherans can be non-Christians

 

[Drawmack]

if I may answer this
Catholics can be Christians, just as Baptist can be Christians, just a Lutherans can be Christians

same as
Catholics cannot be Christians, just as Baptist cannot be Christians, just a Lutherans cannot be Christians

I believe you have implied something here that you did not intend to imply. The words can and cannot are antithetical in nature. I believe you intended to say:

Catholics can be Christians, just as Baptists can be Christians, just as Lutherans can be Christians.

Same as
Catholic can be non-Christians, just as Baptists can be non-Christians, just as Lutherans can be non-Christians.

Lookaround, feel free to correct me if I misspeak on your behalf.

All others, please note this is not my opinion but I offer it as a clarification of what I think lookaround actually intended to say.

 

[VociMike]

if I may answer this
Catholics can be Christians, just as Baptist can be Christians, just a Lutherans can be Christians

same as
Catholics cannot be Christians, just as Baptist cannot be Christians, just a Lutherans cannot be Christians

So do you consider that any of the Catholics involved in the inquisitions or the crusades were Christians?

Likewise, were any of the Protestants involved in witch-burning, or the killing of Catholics e.g. in England, Christians?

 

[lookaround]

I believe you have implied something here that you did not intend to imply. The words can and cannot are antithetical in nature. I believe you intended to say:

Catholics can be Christians, just as Baptists can be Christians, just as Lutherans can be Christians.

Same as
Catholic can be non-Christians, just as Baptists can be non-Christians, just as Lutherans can be non-Christians.

Lookaround, feel free to correct me if I misspeak on your behalf.

All others, please note this is not my opinion but I offer it as a clarification of what I think lookaround actually intended to say.

thank you

 

[Roman_Army]

Hi I could use some help…

I’m on a protestant forum and it usually goes very well. But I am struggling with how the Popes such as Innocent IV authorized torture cf. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_extirpanda

This was brought up to me by a strong protestant and I am also troubled by what I am reading about how the Church allowed and authorized people to be burned at the stake, or at least turned people over to said treatment. I suppose this happened with Jan Hus at the hand of the Council of Constance.

I need someone really well-versed in this area who can shed some light and context without excusing the sins of those in the Church, or even those leading the Church.

Certainly, a lot of the practices of the inquisition were wrong and unjustified. This was at a dark time in history where the secular monarchs made no distinction between high treason and heresy. A lot of times when the Church condemned a heresy as was indeed necessary as is evident in scripture, the overzealous monarchs sought to execute the heretical leaders for what they wrongly thought was high treason. Unfortunately, at times the Pope and some bishops supported this abuse of Secular power, though the Church did not herself take the task of executing them, the inquisitors merely made the judgment of heresy and representatives of the monarch took it from there. There is no need to sugar coat it or excuse it, it was unjustifiable. However, in some rare cases it might have been necessary to execute heretics that advocated violence, murder, and suicide. But this is due not to the heresy, but to the actual crimes committed by the heretic.

Now, in regards to Pope Innocent IV’s bull, certainly that was inappropriate and unjustifiable. He was caving into pressure from the secular authorities who sought to enforce ancient Roman Law. I heard that it has been argued that had Pope Innocent IV not permitted the inquisitors to employ torture, then the torture inflicted by the unscrupulous monarchs would have been far worst. Pope Innocent IV set limits on the extent of the torture to exclude any methods that imperiled life or limb. They would argue that it was permitting a lesser evil to avoid a greater evil. However, I personally do not subscribe to this explanation. I think Pope Innocent IV should have condemned the practice altogether as one of his predecessors did. However, this bull cannot be seen to be “Ex Cathedra” this was merely a mixture of discipline and politics. In this, Pope Innocent IV did not intend to bind the whole Church to a doctrine of faith or morals, but merely to permit the Inquisitors to use such a harsh instrument in extracting confessions and information about the heretical groups.

 

[lookaround]

So do you consider that any of the Catholics involved in the inquisitions or the crusades were Christians?

Likewise, were any of the Protestants involved in witch-burning, or the killing of Catholics e.g. in England, Christians?

you want us to tell you who is a Christian and who is not?

who searches the heart and examines the mind?
Is it not the Lord?

“I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward a man according to his conduct, according to what his deeds deserve.”
Jeremiah 17:10

 

[VociMike]

you want us to tell you who is a Christian and who is not?

who searches the heart and examines the mind?
Is it not the Lord?

“I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward a man according to his conduct, according to what his deeds deserve.”
Jeremiah 17:10

I was not asking for individual names. I was asking if a Christian (of any church/denomination) could take part in the inquisitions, or the crusades, or witch-burning, or the execution of Catholics. Surely you have an opinion on that question.

 

[lookaround]

I was not asking for individual names. I was asking if a Christian (of any church/denomination) could take part in the inquisitions, or the crusades, or witch-burning, or the execution of Catholics. Surely you have an opinion on that question.

surely I do not

 

[Roman_Army]

According to Fr. Lukefahr in the textbook for the class I took on a Catholic Bible perspective he talks about these things not actually being ordained by God, but rather that the people perceived them to be ordained by God. Just be prepared for that one to come back at you if you go this way. I would say it is better apologetics to either show that the person is wrong or explain how these were the actions of the man and not of the man’s office.

(I can look up the actual quote if anyone insists, but I’m feeling a little lazy at the moment.)

This interpretation is very modern and in my opinion unacceptable and untenable. It implies that the Sacred Author in Scripture lied about God’s commands to enforce such penalties. These scriptures have to be interpreted in the context that the Jews were in. They were wandering in the desert in tents with inadequate means to peaceably isolate apostates and evil doers. So, God, the supreme giver and taker of life, the supreme judge, permitted them to impose the death penalty on such transgressors of the law to preserve the Common Good and security of their society. When they massacred the inhabbitants of the land, it has to be viewed with the perspective that the inhabitants themselves were evil doers and relentless enemies of the Jewish state. God was punishing them through the Isrealites. He had previously explained to Abraham or Jacob in the book of Genesis that the Israelites could not inherrit the land until the transgressions of the Canaanites have reached their full measure. It took centuries before the Israelites could claim the land because the Canaanites have not sinned enough yet to merit such a punishment.

These directives from God cannot be applied to the situation of the apostates and heretics in the middle ages. There was no such directive from God at that period. As St. Thomas Aquinas had taught, the State was only permitted to safeguard the Common Good of society. Which means that certain public crimes that risked eroding the status quo or the fragile peace of society were punishable, but private personal sins cannot be punishable. But, I would add that perhaps most heresies falls under private personal sins and the State would not be authorized to punish those unless it became a societal problem such as is the case with some cults that incite criminal activity.

 

[Drawmack]

This interpretation is very modern and in my opinion unacceptable and untenable. It implies that the Sacred Author in Scripture lied about God’s commands to enforce such penalties. These scriptures have to be interpreted in the context that the Jews were in. They were wandering in the desert in tents with inadequate means to peaceably isolate apostates and evil doers. So, God, the supreme giver and taker of life, the supreme judge, permitted them to impose the death penalty on such transgressors of the law to preserve the Common Good and security of their society. When they massacred the inhabbitants of the land, it has to be viewed with the perspective that the inhabitants themselves were evil doers and relentless enemies of the Jewish state. God was punishing them through the Isrealites. He had previously explained to Abraham or Jacob in the book of Genesis that the Israelites could not inherrit the land until the transgressions of the Canaanites have reached their full measure. It took centuries before the Israelites could claim the land because the Canaanites have not sinned enough yet to merit such a punishment.

These directives from God cannot be applied to the situation of the apostates and heretics in the middle ages. There was no such directive from God at that period. As St. Thomas Aquinas had taught, the State was only permitted to safeguard the Common Good of society. Which means that certain public crimes that risked eroding the status quo or the fragile peace of society were punishable, but private personal sins cannot be punishable. But, I would add that perhaps most heresies falls under private personal sins and the State would not be authorized to punish those unless it became a societal problem such as is the case with some cults that incite criminal activity.

I agree with this interpretation, except for the word that I highlighted. To lie one must have the intent to deceive. If one is honestly mistaken about something then they are not lying.

 

[Roman_Army]

I agree with this interpretation, except for the word that I highlighted. To lie one must have the intent to deceive. If one is honestly mistaken about something then they are not lying.

It is not possible for the Sacred Author to have been mistaken about something, everything in Scripture is spoken from God’s own mouth through a human mediator.

 

[VociMike]

surely I do not

I am astonished that you do not. Have you never pondered such things?

 

[jamison]

This isn’t a problem for those of us who don’t believe the RCC is infallible… just sayin’

Of course it’s not a problem for non Catholics.

 

[leopolis1]

I’m not strugling with the inquisition. Protestants should be strugling with their own history: exterminating Aborigins in Australia, exterminating Indians in Northern America, three centuries of horrible persecuting the catholic Church in Britain. Didn’t he condemn burning at the stake by protestants? That’s not fair.
In 2000 JPII oficially apologized to God for the sins of the members of the Church. Have protestants done the same?
Protestants cannot justify their heresies and disobedience by talking about inquisition. That’s ridiculous. Let the dead bury the dead and you follow me - says the Lord.
Black legend of inquisition is the work of freemasons, protestants and non-believers. They fight against the same enemy - the Catholic Church, the mistical Body of Jesus.
If you’ll find somebody to translate it from Polish you’ll find a lot of interesting information (Piles of lies about inquisition):
eioba.pl/a84434/stosy_klamstw_o_inkwizycji

 

[Randy_Carson]

for starters I don’t think there is a Mr.CatholicChurch who is guilty of every sin by every Catholic ever ever.

as for the people (its up to God to judge)
at the minimum (unless they repented) the level by which they judged others with be the level by which they will be judged.

Interestng.

Why then do you suppose that people frequently bring up the Crusades and the Inquisition when they are listing their grievances against the Catholic Church?

 

[Randy_Carson]

The best thing the Pope could do is to admit that the church was responsible for the inquisition and the crusades and all the death, torture, and other acts of horror it took part in or helped to occur, or turned a blind eye to.

If they did this to one person or 1 million, it was still wrong.

Confession and repentence is good for the soul.

But i do want to point out that it has been a very long time since this was done. Those alive today are not responsilbe for these horrific acts.

Perhaps…if the Church really did anything wrong. Perhaps some reading will help you decide.

Articles on the Crusades

THE CRUSADES 101
by James Akin
catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/2002-02/article3.html

The Real History of the Crusades
By Thomas F. Madden
oldarchive.godspy.com/issues/Real-History-of-Crusades-by-Thomas-Madden.cfm.html

Crusade Myths
By Thomas F. Madden
ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/tmadden_crusademyths_feb05.asp

CRUSADING FOR THE TRUTH
By Robert P. Lockwood
catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0603tbt.asp

 

[Randy_Carson]

surely I do not

Then how about answering this question:

In your opinion, is there anything about Catholicism that automatically precludes Catholics from being true Christians.

 

[Drawmack]

It is not possible for the Sacred Author to have been mistaken about something, everything in Scripture is spoken from God’s own mouth through a human mediator.

The question is this, is it possible for that human mediator to have been mistaken?

(Mind that I do agree with your assertion that this is an inappropriate way to interpret the Scriptures of the Old Testament. I’m just explaining why I would not have used the word lie in my description because I do feel it changes the tone of the post.)