The sins of Catholics do not affect the truth of teaching?

[Athus]

Did the Catholic Church approve of the torture of heretics and burning them alive at the stake?

Yep, the last one was in Spain, Cayetano Ripoll who was executed for the “sin” of Deism and preaching deist values

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cayetano_Ripoll

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

^ There isn’t quite as many as some Protestants make out, but the reigns of Catholic Monarchs like Isabella of Castile and perhaps to a lesser extent Mary of England were more or less orgies of bloodlust where inquisitors more or less had free license to do whatever they liked.

There were other groups just as bad, but they never had the same organized and persistant fevour as the inquisition. A good few torture devices like the Iron Maiden, Stretching rack and Judas cradle were supposedly developed and certainly used by them.

It’s a shame the inquisition records are still mostly witheld inside the Vatican archives, I daresay they could tell us a great deal more than the few examples that fell into French and Spanish hands during the French Revolution and the Spanish Civil war respectively.

There’s actually some church sponsored art from the Renaissance featuring burnings taking place, here’s one of St. Dominic for example condemning Cathars to death

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fileedro_Berruguete_Saint_Dominic_Presiding_over_an_Auto-da-fe_1495.jpg

 

[Duane1966]

The Church also says Paul is a saint, and proclaimed his letters inspired. Didn’t he cause many Christians to be murdered?

Have there been bad popes? Of course. I believe God used them to further His plan like He used King Saul, or King David (believe he committed adultery and caused the Uriah to be murdered, and raised some monsters for kids), but he is considered the greatest king of Israel? I read his psalms, and believe them to be inspired by God, but not a good person. Luckily I am NOT the judge. Abraham, didn’t he have his concubine and oldest son driven into the desert, to possibly die, yet Jesus calls him “Father Abraham”?

The fact of the matter is we should live that old saying. Judge not, lest you be judged.

 

[Duane1966]

Why do the polls show that a majority of Roman Catholics believe that it is OK for a married couple to use artificial birth control? I thought it was a mortal sin to use ABC, and that you could be sent to hell for an unrepented mortal sin?

The question these polls should also ask: are you a practicing Catholic who goes to Church every Sunday? And have you as a Catholic read Humane Vitae, the response of the Church to ABC? I know many couples (both Catholic and Protestant) who practiced birth control that changed after they read HV.

Really I don’t care if a majority think it is okay. Truth is truth. How can every Christian denomination say it was wrong until 1930? How could it be wrong for my great grandfather, but not for me? Will it be okay to commit murder in the future, if it is convenient for society? (Think it has already happened).

From the Gospel according to Luke. 23:28-31Jesus turning to them said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never gave suck!’ Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us’; and to the hills, ‘Cover us’. For if they do this when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?”

 

[Athus]

The question these polls should also ask: are you a practicing Catholic who goes to Church every Sunday? And have you as a Catholic read Humane Vitae, the response of the Church to ABC? I know many couples (both Catholic and Protestant) who practiced birth control that changed after they read HV.

Really I don’t care if a majority think it is okay. Truth is truth. How can every Christian denomination say it was wrong until 1930? How could it be wrong for my great grandfather, but not for me? Will it be okay to commit murder in the future, if it is convenient for society? (Think it has already happened).

From the Gospel according to Luke. 23:28-31Jesus turning to them said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never gave suck!’ Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us’; and to the hills, ‘Cover us’. For if they do this when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?”

As crude as the argument is I think it is more than sufficent

romancatholicism.org/popes-jews.html

Further back than your grandfather, your ancestors were compelled to persecute the Jews as a matter of faith and submission.

Why is it ok for you to associate with Jews, indeed not need to persecute them but not your Great–Great Grandfather?

Your argument doesn’t work. Just as the early Church’s understanding of Christ developed into the doctrine of the trinity, our understanding of faith develops as well just as the RC’s understanding of freedom of religion has.

The chatechism states that Catholics must respect freedom of religion, and yet Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors proclaimed this as one of the greatest evils of the age. Surely a contraction of infallible proportions?

Also, contraception did not just magically arrive in the 1930’s. It was widley practiced before through herbal salve concoctions and the predecessor of the condom called “the Jonny”. I don’t know when they first appeared but they were definitely in circulation in Europe by 1850 at latest. In medeval times there was an object developed by brothels roughly equivalent to what we would call the “cap” or “diaphragm” now. Rulings against contraception came far, far later.

 

[Duane1966]

As crude as the argument is I think it is more than sufficent

romancatholicism.org/popes-jews.html

Further back than your grandfather, your ancestors were compelled to persecute the Jews as a matter of faith and submission.

Why is it ok for you to associate with Jews, indeed not need to persecute them but not your Great–Great Grandfather?

Your argument doesn’t work. Just as the early Church’s understanding of Christ developed into the doctrine of the trinity, our understanding of faith develops as well just as the RC’s understanding of freedom of religion has.

The chatechism states that Catholics must respect freedom of religion, and yet Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors proclaimed this as one of the greatest evils of the age. Surely a contraction of infallible proportions?

Also, contraception did not just magically arrive in the 1930’s. It was widley practiced before through herbal salve concoctions and the predecessor of the condom called “the Jonny”. I don’t know when they first appeared but they were definitely in circulation in Europe by 1850 at latest. In medeval times there was an object developed by brothels roughly equivalent to what we would call the “cap” or “diaphragm” now. Rulings against contraception came far, far later.

Agreed. I never said it magically arrived in 1930? Did slavery magically arrive at the Emancipation Proclamation? Since slavery was legal, was it morally wrong to own slaves? Of course, just as I can see easily how contraception is wrong. Before 1930 EVERY denomination condemned ABC.

Now for your list of popes. They are entitled to their opinion, which is what those statements are. It is easy for us to look back and judge, but I will leave that to God. Can you say with a 100% certainty that if you grew up in their shoes, that you would be different?

 

[Athus]

Agreed. I never said it magically arrived in 1930? Did slavery magically arrive at the Emancipation Proclamation? Since slavery was legal, was it morally wrong to own slaves? Of course, just as I can see easily how contraception is wrong. Before 1930 EVERY denomination condemned ABC.

Not according to the RC it wasn’t until the late 1960’s, I recall Pius IX was all for it as were many of his predecessors who took part (via the papal state goverment often in trade deals with the Ottomans) in the slave trade.

Now for your list of popes. They are entitled to their opinion, which is what those statements are. It is easy for us to look back and judge, but I will leave that to God. Can you say with a 100% certainty that if you grew up in their shoes, that you would be different?

Of course I can’t, but I don’t believe in absolute morality. I also don’t believe in infalliability, of which several of those papal comments such as Eugene’s forbadance of the Jews to own property in Christian areas meet the criteria.

I’m not judging them one bit, I was pointing out that morality, even the Catholic Churchs morality does change over time.

 

[Tomdstone]

Did slavery magically arrive at the Emancipation Proclamation? Since slavery was legal, was it morally wrong to own slaves? Of course, …

If slavery was always morally wrong, how come we read in the Bible:

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5)
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2)

 

[Athus]

If slavery was always morally wrong, how come we read in the Bible:

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5)
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2)

An excellent point! And one I forgot to mention.

Brace yourself! I suspect we’re going to get posts saying “biblical slavery was better than American chattel slavery”

If they are coming like I suspect then well…No it wasn’t. A man had a right to have sex with his slaves and kill them whenever he liked.

 

[Peter_Plato]

An excellent point! And one I forgot to mention.

Brace yourself! I suspect we’re going to get posts saying “biblical slavery was better than American chattel slavery”

If they are coming like I suspect then well…No it wasn’t. A man had a right to have sex with his slaves and kill them whenever he liked.

You certainly have it all figured out, don’t you?

We’ll see…

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yep, the last one was in Spain, Cayetano Ripoll who was executed for the “sin” of Deism and preaching deist values

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cayetano_Ripoll

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

^ There isn’t quite as many as some Protestants make out, but the reigns of Catholic Monarchs like Isabella of Castile and perhaps to a lesser extent Mary of England were more or less orgies of bloodlust where inquisitors more or less had free license to do whatever they liked.

There were other groups just as bad, but they never had the same organized and persistant fevour as the inquisition. A good few torture devices like the Iron Maiden, Stretching rack and Judas cradle were supposedly developed and certainly used by them.

It’s a shame the inquisition records are still mostly witheld inside the Vatican archives, I daresay they could tell us a great deal more than the few examples that fell into French and Spanish hands during the French Revolution and the Spanish Civil war respectively.

There’s actually some church sponsored art from the Renaissance featuring burnings taking place, here’s one of St. Dominic for example condemning Cathars to death

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fileedro_Berruguete_Saint_Dominic_Presiding_over_an_Auto-da-fe_1495.jpg

It would be helpful if you could provide primary source material or reliable historical analysis to back up your claims.

Using sedevacantist, deist, self-published “thinkers” or Wikipedia articles edited by individuals named materialscientist or OccultZone hardly qualify as historical material upon which to begin a serious discussion.

Could you dig a little deeper into your trash bin, you might find even more outrageous bits to fuel your rage? Or, better still, why not go to the teachings of the Church and access the original Encyclicals, Canons or Letters from which we can begin to distinguish the actions and teachings of the Church from the fringe imaginings and reconstructed history that you seem to have spent quite some time imbibing. Are you interested in the truth or merely upholding a perspective?

Be honest, when you find someone making extreme claims about the actions of Church members do you jump at it and add it to your bag of accusatory material or do you dig a little deeper and seek the truth of the matter? Are you merely trying to justify your views or honestly seeking what truly occurred? From your cited material, the answer seems pretty apparent.

I would suggest and advise that you refine your motives and target the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

 

[Athus]

It would be helpful if you could provide primary source material or reliable historical analysis to back up your claims.

Using sedevacantist, deist, self-published “thinkers” or Wikipedia articles edited by individuals named materialscientist or OccultZone hardly qualify as historical material upon which to begin a serious discussion.

Could you dig a little deeper into your trash bin, you might find even more outrageous bits to fuel your rage? Or, better still, why not go to the teachings of the Church and access the original Encyclicals, Canons or Letters from which we can begin to distinguish the actions and teachings of the Church from the fringe imaginings and reconstructed history that you seem to have spent quite some time imbibing. Are you interested in the truth or merely upholding a perspective?

Be honest, when you find someone making extreme claims about the actions of Church members do you jump at it and add it to your bag of accusatory material or do you dig a little deeper and seek the truth of the matter? Are you merely trying to justify your views or honestly seeking what truly occurred? From your cited material, the answer seems pretty apparent.

I would suggest and advise that you refine your motives and target the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

google.com/search?q=Cayetano%2BRipoll&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb#rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&channel=sb&q=Cayetano+Ripoll

I invite you to prove me mistaken Peter, this is one of the cases where it is beyond little doubt the RC did indeed do what was claimed, largely because of the world outcry that followed. Even back in the early 19th century they thought burning people to death for not being Catholic a bit extreme.

This is a very famous case within Spain, an iconic feature in fact that lead to a boom in communist movements opposed to the Church.

 

[guanophore]

Innocent III however proclaimed himself/the office of pope to be undoubtedly Lord of the World,

Can you provide a reference for this?

Let’s take it up a notch though

“Decree now for all time”…That sounds pretty absolute, moreso than anything John Paul II ever said. Why is the RC not seeking to purge the Jews from common society anymore? If this is infallible as claimed surely it’s a matter of morals to do so?

Who is claiming it is infallible?

This is a disciplinary action,just like those given in the Council of Jerusalem to the Gentiles not to eat blood, etc. As such it can be changed. It is a pastoral instruction for the faithful, like the requirement to wear a veil in the church. These disciplines/ practices are not doctrine.

 

[chimo]

Hi there, I was hoping you might be able to help me with a question I have

Whenever some awful scandal comes out about church abuses, or people talk about something bad the Catholic church did a few decades or centuries ago one of the lines I’ve often heard is “Bad behavior of members does not change the truth of its teachings”.

How can this be? If the Catholic Church is as claimed the one and only instrument of God to bring about the salvation of souls he seems to have picked a very inefficient way of doing it. Any book on Papal history can show many pontiffs who were less than ideal examples of Catholic faith. Now maybe the office is separate from the corrupt individual…But to repeatedly thrust power into the hands of individuals (Let’s take the German Bishops who have the “pay to take sacraments” policy; essentially pay me or I’m condemning you to hell) who like the so called “Bishops of Bling” use it to further their own ends…Either somethings not quite right with how this salvation plan is supposed to work (i.e: God didn’t realize humans would be as corrupt as they are), or saving souls apparently wasn’t the creators number one priority. The whole apostolic system seems very open to abuse, and doesn’t seem to fit with the idea of a deity who wants to see souls saved.It fits perfectly with the idea of an absolute law, but not with any concept of benevolence.

One bad egg doesn’t mean the whole basket is off, but when the very core system itself is very inefficient and in practice does not and has never worked (i.e: There has never been a period without corrupt clerics) why is that not indicative of some very deep problems with the theory.

On a far more basic crude level; in the same way North Korea isn’t fit to lecture anyone on human rights, how is the Catholic Church qualified to lecture anyone about the welfare of children or vulnerable individuals? Doesn’t “Do as I say, not as I do” sound hypocritical?

It’s just something that crossed my mind, and I wondered what the Catholic opinion on it was.

Thanks if you can help.

The problem with many members of the Church is to know how to put His love and mercy into action, into service. The Lord Jesus had said many are called but few come to put this love and mercy into action. This has been the biggest failure of our Church. How do we teach others to implement love and mercy into the direction of the world? It seems from the past only few had attained to that awesome and incredible vocation. Yes the saints have attained to this level of love and thank God for them for without them the Church would have died out long ago. For some great mystery God does have His saints to give to the Church to return back the Church into its unique and rightful place. God has reserved these great men and women to be placed into the world and into the Church when it was necessary. And when it was the right time to return faith back to the people God would send Mary to us to remind us of our great privilege and the power that is entrusted to us. Even the Lord Jesus had decided to come many times in timely apparitions, the most recent one in the 1930’s to remind us of the power to administer His love and mercy. The most incredible fact that most people do not get is they have the responsibility to activate God! We have the power to move God to act and save. The problem is to get the people to do this! I believe the approaches and manner of teachings from the past had failed us because we do not know how to teach love and mercy in the same manner as do the saints and many peoples who did not get this type of teaching responded by leaving the Church, forgetting the manner of life to which they were called into or even worse by attacking and persecuting the Church.

Yet from all of this I sense an emerging transformation within the Church despite the many sins and failures of her members. The question to be asked is this? Why has not the Laity been involved in the ministry of the Church? Here lies the most incredible answer to know why the failures of the Church in the past were always present. The Laity have not given to their witness in the same manner as the clergy and monastics of the past. The fact is the Laity are just now coming into their own. Most of the evangelism of the past was only done by the clergy and monastics. God is now only calling the Laity to be more involved. Why the Laity were not that involved from the past is a great mystery. When the Laity are more involved you will see more of a Church that will be more involved in the way that will implement the love and mercy as Jesus would like it to be.

I would not judge the Church too harshly for the Church still needs to grow to find her place into this world. I see the emerging Laity the best answer to what you were addressing. As yet this emerging Laity is only in its beginning formation. Wait until this emerging Laity does come to fulfill their mission into the world. They will come to correct the many abuses and failures of the past once they find their God given vocation. The Popes, Bishops, Priests and Monastics cannot do it on their own. The Laity must have their rightful place alongside them. By rightful place I mean a believing, prayerful, merciful, hopeful and courageous Laity. We need to wait for many more courageous teachers, motivators and mentors to help implement the Laity into its struggle to learn how to activate the Lord into the world.

 

[fhansen]

Hi there, I was hoping you might be able to help me with a question I have

Whenever some awful scandal comes out about church abuses, or people talk about something bad the Catholic church did a few decades or centuries ago one of the lines I’ve often heard is “Bad behavior of members does not change the truth of its teachings”.

How can this be? If the Catholic Church is as claimed the one and only instrument of God to bring about the salvation of souls he seems to have picked a very inefficient way of doing it. Any book on Papal history can show many pontiffs who were less than ideal examples of Catholic faith. Now maybe the office is separate from the corrupt individual…But to repeatedly thrust power into the hands of individuals (Let’s take the German Bishops who have the “pay to take sacraments” policy; essentially pay me or I’m condemning you to hell) who like the so called “Bishops of Bling” use it to further their own ends…Either somethings not quite right with how this salvation plan is supposed to work (i.e: God didn’t realize humans would be as corrupt as they are), or saving souls apparently wasn’t the creators number one priority. The whole apostolic system seems very open to abuse, and doesn’t seem to fit with the idea of a deity who wants to see souls saved.It fits perfectly with the idea of an absolute law, but not with any concept of benevolence.

One bad egg doesn’t mean the whole basket is off, but when the very core system itself is very inefficient and in practice does not and has never worked (i.e: There has never been a period without corrupt clerics) why is that not indicative of some very deep problems with the theory.

On a far more basic crude level; in the same way North Korea isn’t fit to lecture anyone on human rights, how is the Catholic Church qualified to lecture anyone about the welfare of children or vulnerable individuals? Doesn’t “Do as I say, not as I do” sound hypocritical?

It’s just something that crossed my mind, and I wondered what the Catholic opinion on it was.

Thanks if you can help.

The fruits of the CC are massive. Hospitals, orphanages, schools, a gazillion hours and trillions of bucks donated, volunteer work, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, preserving learning during the dark ages, developing the educational and university systems, advances in arts and sciences, promoting the pursuit of excellence in general, giving order and hope to an often chaotic, lost and dying world. And, oh yeah, her members, clergy and laity alike, still fall short of impeccability. A few have even been downright awful. And this only proves the authenticity of the Church even further; her doctrine of original sin pretty well explains the ignorance and darkness and selfishness that we’re called to do battle against, failing at times.

 

[Peter_Plato]

google.com/search?q=Cayetano%2BRipoll&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb#rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&channel=sb&q=Cayetano+Ripoll

I invite you to prove me mistaken Peter, this is one of the cases where it is beyond little doubt the RC did indeed do what was claimed, largely because of the world outcry that followed. Even back in the early 19th century they thought burning people to death for not being Catholic a bit extreme.

This is a very famous case within Spain, an iconic feature in fact that lead to a boom in communist movements opposed to the Church.

Here’s the problem for me, Athus…

I get that there are a multitude of sites on the web that purport that the case of Cayetano Ripoll really happened and provide a minimal version of the story. The problem is that the story is almost always the same and seemingly from the same source which is never identified.

I went on several primary document archives with original records from the Spanish Inquisition and the name Cayetano Ripoll does not come up in any searches throughout any of the archives.

Do you see how this might be problematic for someone interested in the complete story? Now, there were several Googled sites that provided more than minimal details and went so far as to give the name of the Inquisitor responsible for the sentence, but there were some problems with authenticating that information, as well.

Now you might be satisfied with the World News or tabloid versions of history, but me, not so much.

Try, for example, this one…

rarebooks.library.nd.edu/digital/inquisition/collections/RBSC-INQ:COLLECTION

If you can provide me with primary source documentation on what occurred and why, who was responsible and their connection to the Church, that would be appreciated. I am just not that interested in rehashed history reported by sites with particular agendas.

I will keep searching and let you know when I come up with something interesting, but Google simply wasn’t that helpful except in locating archives of primary documents which do not seem to contain any reference to Cayetano.

 

[Peter_Plato]

google.com/search?q=Cayetano%2BRipoll&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb#rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&channel=sb&q=Cayetano+Ripoll

I invite you to prove me mistaken Peter, this is one of the cases where it is beyond little doubt the RC did indeed do what was claimed, largely because of the world outcry that followed. Even back in the early 19th century they thought burning people to death for not being Catholic a bit extreme.

This is a very famous case within Spain, an iconic feature in fact that lead to a boom in communist movements opposed to the Church.

These are interesting claims and I have a source that will debunk much of what you have claimed above.

Just to get a sense of your fact checking and the reliability of your resources, could you do us the favor of answering a few questions?

How many heretics do you suppose were burned at the stake in Spain during the Inquisition years?
Was Spain the worst perpetrator of Inquisition tactics and claimed the most victims?
Were the victims generally tortured to obtain a confession?
Do you suppose the Church, secular governments or Protestant Reformers claimed the most inquisition victims?

Thanks

 

[Tomdstone]

Here’s the problem for me, Athus…

I get that there are a multitude of sites on the web that purport that the case of Cayetano Ripoll really happened and provide a minimal version of the story. The problem is that the story is almost always the same and seemingly from the same source which is never identified.

I went on several primary document archives with original records from the Spanish Inquisition and the name Cayetano Ripoll does not come up in any searches throughout any of the archives.

Do you see how this might be problematic for someone interested in the complete story? Now, there were several Googled sites that provided more than minimal details and went so far as to give the name of the Inquisitor responsible for the sentence, but there were some problems with authenticating that information, as well.

Now you might be satisfied with the World News or tabloid versions of history, but me, not so much.

Try, for example, this one…

rarebooks.library.nd.edu/digital/inquisition/collections/RBSC-INQ:COLLECTION

If you can provide me with primary source documentation on what occurred and why, who was responsible and their connection to the Church, that would be appreciated. I am just not that interested in rehashed history reported by sites with particular agendas.

I will keep searching and let you know when I come up with something interesting, but Google simply wasn’t that helpful except in locating archives of primary documents which do not seem to contain any reference to Cayetano.

There are a series of books by Henry Charles Lea on the Inquisition and on torture which are available almost free on Amazon for the kindle.

A History of The Inquisition of The Middle Ages; volume I
Dec 18, 2012
by Henry Charles Lea
Kindle Edition

$0.00

A History of The Inquisition of The Middle Ages; volume II
Dec 18, 2012
by Henry Charles Lea
Kindle Edition

$0.00

A History of The Inquisition of The Middle Ages; volume III
Dec 18, 2012
by Henry Charles Lea
Kindle Edition

$0.00

A History of the Inquisition of Spain (vol. 1 & 2; annotated)
Oct 21, 2013
by Henry Charles Lea
Kindle Edition

$0.99

Torture. (Sources of Medieval History)
Jul 1974
by Henry Charles Lea
Paperback
The Inquisition of the Middle Ages; Its Organization and Operation
1969
by Henry Charles LEA

 

[Peter_Plato]

There are a series of books by Henry Charles Lea on the Inquisition and on torture which are available almost free on Amazon for the kindle.

A History of The Inquisition of The Middle Ages; volume I
Dec 18, 2012
by Henry Charles Lea
Kindle Edition

$0.00

A History of The Inquisition of The Middle Ages; volume II
Dec 18, 2012
by Henry Charles Lea
Kindle Edition

Sorry, no go.

Lea wrote on the Inquisition before the primary documents were compiled from all over Spain and carefully analyzed for a complete and annotated history of what actually occurred during the period. His work is still fraught with the misconceptions created by the Reformers who carried out a massive vendetta campaign against the Spanish Crown and the Church.

I will provide a current source, but I want Athus to come clean with what he thinks he knows.

 

[Duane1966]

I found sources on the web that claimed more Catholics were killed by Henry VIII then all the Inquisitions combined, and that Elizabeth was almost as bloody as Mary. Could they be true?

 

[Athus]

I found sources on the web that claimed more Catholics were killed by Henry VIII then all the Inquisitions combined, and that Elizabeth was almost as bloody as Mary. Could they be true?

In the case of Elizabeth that’s half true, I don’t think anyone would deny her rule was fairly violent. It’s no secret, what with Catholic Spain trying to invade, the Pope preaching the queen was a harlot who needed to be cast down and she had the rest of Catholic Europe breathing down her neck I don’t think it’s really much surprise that Elizabeth wasn’t fond of Catholics and viewed them as a threat. That said we know there simply was not enough british Catholics alive to be put to death as there were victims of the inquisition. I don’t suppose that will stop some arguing for the notion however.

As for Henry VIII that one is mistaken. Henry did indeed strip the monasteries of their wealth and made some serious changes regarding the faith of England. That said his efforts really had little effect on the lowest layer of society; he was interested in reshaping the goverment and not installing a new standard of Orthodoxy amongst the masses. It wasn’t until Edward took the throne that a full reform movement began to try and erase Catholicism.

That of course came to an early end after his death and that of Lady Jane Grey when Mary took the throne and began her efforts to reverse changes made by Edwards ministers. When Elizabeth came to power she more or less rolled everything back, Edward 2.0