The Real Inquisition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sirach14
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unfortunately, I think it’ll take more than articles to change people’s perception of the Inquisition. 😦
 
to those who refuse to believe the truth there will never be an answer… but to those who believe, no answer is necessary…
👍
 
I have learned from my years as a protestant that the Inquisition is not about truth. It is about ‘myth’.

Just read “Foxes Myths of Martyrs” to find out why.:whacky:
 
well, you know what they say… a good truth is honorable, but a lie well told never dies.
 
I believe it was Vladimir Lenin…who said, “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”
 
Of course there was an Inquisition. Mostly the problem is putting it into the context of the times.

The Inquisition burned quite a number of heretics. But about the same time the Protestant countries burned quite a number of witches. And the Inquisition was quite often entangled in politics and used by kings as a tool to suppress political dissent.

Politics and religion were considered one by most people in those days, and to be a member of a religion other than that of the ruler was considered to be at least potentially disloyal.

Unfortunately some Protestants have sometimes exaggerated the evils of the Inquisition while sone Catholics are at great pains to deny it. Both are wrong.
 
Some more contextualization:

The Spanish Inquisition was begun as a means of rooting out those non-believers who had infiltrated the Church and using their positions to spread untruth. Thus, it was not a crime to be Jewish; the crime was to be a Jew posing as a Catholic.

The Spanish Inquisition resulted in capital punishment in 1% of all cases heard.

Ecclesiastical courts had more protections for the defendant than contemporaneous civil courts. Some civil defendants actually committed ecclesiastical offenses in the course of their civil trials in order to have their cases transferred to the Church and consequently receive fairer treatment.
 
I heard that the Inquisition used the latest developments at the time of due process. Your chances of being found innocent were higher than being found guilty. I don’t think this was true in any other lawful judgements.

I’m only now beginning to learn more of this history (was never interested in school 😦 ). IIRC, the Inquisition was the result of pushing out Muslims who took over most of Spain. However, some Muslims were allowed to stay if they converted to Christianity. It didn’t take long to figure out what one says, is not always what one does, so folks who “pretended” to be Catholic were removed from influential positions. But how do you find those people? Then of course, it eventually became abused by leaders.
 
40.png
PilgrimJWT:
Of course there was an Inquisition. Mostly the problem is putting it into the context of the times.

The Inquisition burned quite a number of heretics. But about the same time the Protestant countries burned quite a number of witches. And the Inquisition was quite often entangled in politics and used by kings as a tool to suppress political dissent.

Politics and religion were considered one by most people in those days, and to be a member of a religion other than that of the ruler was considered to be at least potentially disloyal.

Unfortunately some Protestants have sometimes exaggerated the evils of the Inquisition while sone Catholics are at great pains to deny it. Both are wrong.
Click to expand...
The point being made is that it wasn’t the Church that burned anyone. In a secular court, if a person was indicted or confessed of heresy or blasphemy, they were transfered to the ecclesiastical courts and were tried there. If they were found guilty of heresy or blasphemy, they were turned over to the secular authorities who then executed them. You have to understand, with heresy, a guilty verdict was the equivalent of Treason. So, if oyu were guilty of Heresy, you were also guilty of Treason, and the punishment for Treason was death. Can anyone here think of a “crime” against God that is worse than disloyalty and disobedience?
 
yes, it is true what several posters said.
The Inquisition was the first court to use the normal process.
It was the secular court that condemned them, not the Church.
It was Jews and Moslems who converted but remained Jews and Moslems in their hearts.
Many people who were in secular jails would blaspheme in order to be placed in the Inquisition’s jails in order to get better treament. (the staw on the floor was changed daily.)
How come no one mentions the Inquisition of England against Catholics under Henry VIII or Elizabeth I???
 
40.png
Rascal:
I heard that the Inquisition used the latest developments at the time of due process. Your chances of being found innocent were higher than being found guilty. I don’t think this was true in any other lawful judgements.

I’m only now beginning to learn more of this history (was never interested in school 😦 ). IIRC, the Inquisition was the result of pushing out Muslims who took over most of Spain. However, some Muslims were allowed to stay if they converted to Christianity. It didn’t take long to figure out what one says, is not always what one does, so folks who “pretended” to be Catholic were removed from influential positions. But how do you find those people? Then of course, it eventually became abused by leaders.
Click to expand...
People were purposefully blaspheming to get out of secular courts so they would be given better treatment in ecclessiastical courts.

To prevent people from bringing up false charges against neighbors or people they had disagreements with, the accused would be asked to provide a list of any enemies he may have. If a witness was on the list of enemies, his testimony was thrown out to protect the accused from false charges.

The Inquisitor would go to a town, and ask the people if there were anyone who wanted to go to confession for heresy within a specific amount of time. If they did and repented, nothing would happen to them. It was after that amount of time was over that the trials would begin.
 
Mike C:
yes, it is true what several posters said.
The Inquisition was the first court to use the normal process.
It was the secular court that condemned them, not the Church.
It was Jews and Moslems who converted but remained Jews and Moslems in their hearts.
Many people who were in secular jails would blaspheme in order to be placed in the Inquisition’s jails in order to get better treament. (the staw on the floor was changed daily.)
How come no one mentions the Inquisition of England against Catholics under Henry VIII or Elizabeth I???
Click to expand...
Dave Armstrong (I think) wrote an article on this called the Protestant Inquisition.
 
40.png
Apologia100:
The point being made is that it wasn’t the Church that burned anyone. In a secular court, if a person was indicted or confessed of heresy or blasphemy, they were transfered to the ecclesiastical courts and were tried there. If they were found guilty of heresy or blasphemy, they were turned over to the secular authorities who then executed them. You have to understand, with heresy, a guilty verdict was the equivalent of Treason. So, if you were guilty of Heresy, you were also guilty of Treason, and the punishment for Treason was death. Can anyone here think of a “crime” against God that is worse than disloyalty and disobedience?
Click to expand...
I think it disingenuous to say the Church never executed anyone. Of course they didn’t–but they knew full well what a conviction of heresy would bring.

As to the last sentence in the quot–if this is so, why don’t we have heresy trials today?? Should we bring back the Inquisition?
I am sure that quite a few of the contributors to this forum would love to see that!!
 
I am sure that quite a few of the contributors to this forum would love to see that!!
Click to expand...
I certainly would, minus the torture and executions of course. The Dogmas of the Church are not things that can be politely disagreed upon, and there are priests and even bishops who seem to have the mindset that they are. These people need to be brought back in line with the Church so as not to lead other souls into peril, and I would love to see a more orderly and official process for doing this.
 
The article makes a very good point that most european law at the time was based on the Code of Justinian which made heresy a crime of treason against the king. The Inquisition was set up to curb abuses by royal authorities who would often falsely accuse people who were political threats and execute them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top