The Catholic Church and Persecution

[Gabriel_of_12]

Tomdstone;13351839]Falsely labeling torture? I consider the use of the rack or the strappado to be torture, as anyone would.
Torture was used during the Inquisition, contrary to what you claim

.

Amputations, mutilations strictly for therapeutic medical reasons is not immoral.
Such acts to extract a confession or satisfy hatred is immoral.

Here is a tonque twister; There were times when the inguisitors were inquisitioned by true inquisitors.

We cannot neglect the history when the secular powers would place an unapproved bishop in office. Abuses such as these would allow the King’s to exercise his self appointed inquisitors to torture and kill their enemies who threatened the King’s throne, all done in the name of the Church.

That said; CCC 2298 states; In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, **who themselves **(very important to understand what “who themselves” is excluding Church practice) **adopted in their own tribunals **the prescriptions of Roman (secular) law concerning torture.

REGRETABLE (includes the tongue twister above, because the Church is taking responsibility for her members, because un- approved Bishops (Pastors) were selected by secular Catholic Kings, and those weak bishops for fear of their secular King, who were under threat, would not protest against such torture , that was used against the respect for the person and human dignity.) as these facts are, the CHURCH ALWAYS TAUGHT THE DUTY OF CLEMENCY AND MERCY. She forbade clerics to shed blood.

I am not denying that in rare cases there was extreme torture during questionable Inguisitors exercising the inquisition to be used to favor the secular Kiing against his potential rivals to his throne. And yes, these were questionable inquisitors which some of the Pastors did not protest against or sat idle.

I am stating that torture or the spilling of blood is never a practice by the Catholic Church and her approved clerics. Whereby, your post’s appear to be labeling the Church’s clerics as being the perpetrators who were directly exercising torture and capital punishment, which is false.

To be faithful to this history, we cannot generalize, but take a case by case heretical trial. When this is done, you will find the True Inquisitors had very minimal guilty pleas (per populace) and sentencing for an offense was very minimal and torture in the extreme was not given. Although a corporal discipline was given such as carrying a large cross. To some carrying a large cross in public can be torture in the extreme.

 

[Tomdstone]

A translation error is hardly a change in doctrine. In the official Latin verbiage of the mass the phrase was always “Pro multis”. There was a period when the English translation incorrectly translated this as "for all "instead of “for many” But that obviously does not constitute a change in doctrine.

It was not merely a translation according to a letter of Pope John PAul II: March 13 2005, which said in the fourth paragraph:

“‘Hoc est enim corpus meum quod pro vobis tradetur.’ The body and the blood of Christ are given for the salvation of man, of the whole man and of all men. This salvation is integral and at the same time universal, because no one, unless he freely chooses, is excluded from the saving power of Christ’s blood: ‘qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur.’ It is a sacrifice offered for ‘many,’ as the Biblical text says (Mk 14:24; Mt 26:28; cf. Is 53:11-12); this typical Semitic expression refers to the multitude who are saved by Christ, the one Redeemer, yet at the same time it implies the totality of human beings to whom salvation is offered: the Lord’s blood is ‘shed for you and for all,’ as some translations legitimately make explicit. Christ’s flesh is truly given ‘for the life of the world’ (Jn 6:51; cf. 1 Jn 2:2).”
Previously it was taught that the Blood was shed for many. However, here we have a statement from the Pope that the Blood was shed for you and for all.
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/letters/2005/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_20050313_priests-holy-thursday.html

 

[GKC]

.

Amputations, mutilations strictly for therapeutic medical reasons is not immoral.
Such acts to extract a confession or satisfy hatred is immoral.

Here is a tonque twister; There were times when the inguisitors were inquisitioned by true inquisitors.

We cannot neglect the history when the secular powers would place an unapproved bishop in office. Abuses such as these would allow the King’s to exercise his self appointed inquisitors to torture and kill their enemies who threatened the King’s throne, all done in the name of the Church.

That said; CCC 2298 states; In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, **who themselves **(very important to understand what “who themselves” is excluding Church practice) **adopted in their own tribunals **the prescriptions of Roman (secular) law concerning torture.

REGRETABLE (includes the tongue twister above, because the Church is taking responsibility for her members, because un- approved Bishops (Pastors) were selected by secular Catholic Kings, and those weak bishops for fear of their secular King, who were under threat, would not protest against such torture , that was used against the respect for the person and human dignity.) as these facts are, the CHURCH ALWAYS TAUGHT THE DUTY OF CLEMENCY AND MERCY. She forbade clerics to shed blood.

I am not denying that in rare cases there was extreme torture during questionable Inguisitors exercising the inquisition to be used to favor the secular Kiing against his potential rivals to his throne. And yes, these were questionable inquisitors which some of the Pastors did not protest against or sat idle.

I am stating that torture or the spilling of blood is never a practice by the Catholic Church and her approved clerics. Whereby, your post’s appear to be labeling the Church’s clerics as being the perpetrators who were directly exercising torture and capital punishment, which is false.

To be faithful to this history, we cannot generalize, but take a case by case heretical trial. When this is done, you will find the True Inquisitors had very minimal guilty pleas (per populace) and sentencing for an offense was very minimal and torture in the extreme was not given. Although a corporal discipline was given such as carrying a large cross. To some carrying a large cross in public can be torture in the extreme.

The history of the slow evolution, from the Roman accusatorial system to the developing inquisitorial system, is well covered in Peters, INQUISITION, chapters 1 & 2 and his TORTURE, chap 2. In addition to Ad extirpanda the impact of Alexander IV’s decretal,
Ut negotium, must be considered. Again, see Peters/TORTURE, p. 65.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The history of the slow evolution, from the Roman accusatorial system to the developing inquisitorial system, is well covered in Peters, INQUISITION, chapters 1 & 2 and his TORTURE, chap 2. In addition to Ad extirpanda the impact of Alexander IV’s decretal,
Ut negotium, must be considered. Again, see Peters/TORTURE, p. 65.

Thank you for your recommendation. I am full of inquisition history books to last me a lifetime. Although, Peter’s book according to his critics, removes the Myth’s to which our poster Tombstone alludes too. I don’t find Peter’s book in disagreement with my brief comments.

According to his book reviews, Peter lacks in informing his public of the other tribunal (secular) courts that were taking place that got public notoriety, which paints a false or mythical trace back to the Church. To which my commentary includes.

As far as the impact of Pope Alexander IV’S decretal is concerned, without a long post here that would expose all the finger pointing (especially among bishops) going on during his time. His decretal (not church doctrine) calmed the storm within the Church in his time.

 

[GKC]

Thank you for your recommendation. I am full of inquisition history books to last me a lifetime. Although, Peter’s book according to his critics, removes the Myth’s to which our poster Tombstone alludes too. I don’t find Peter’s book in disagreement with my brief comments.

According to his book reviews, Peter lacks in informing his public of the other tribunal (secular) courts that were taking place that got public notoriety, which paints a false or mythical trace back to the Church. To which my commentary includes.

As far as the impact of Pope Alexander IV’S decretal is concerned, without a long post here that would expose all the finger pointing (especially among bishops) going on during his time. His decretal (not church doctrine) calmed the storm within the Church in his time.

I still recommend Peters. Amongst the dozen or so books on the Inquisitions I have, it stands out, as does Kamen’s, on The Spanish Inquisition, particularly.