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

[Peter_Plato]

Was the entirety of late antiquity, the dark ages, the middle ages, the early Renaissance and eight hundred years of Papal autocracy in the former Papal States not enough time to test it out? I’m also not referring to all branches of Christianity here.

Sure, some - not all - of those were attacks of blight on the fringes and even the heart of the Church, but the fact that the Church survived those and didn’t succumb but came through them faithful to the Apostolic Mission shows it was sustained by the Holy Spirit.

There was a Judas in the Twelve chosen by Jesus himself, but the existence of Judas does not make the entire body of the Twelve suspect nor their subsequent mission a fraud. Judases will come and go, even in the inner circle of the Church, but the divine mandate shows itself in how the Church works through those trials.

What you need to show is that the core teaching and mission of the Church has not been faithful to what Jesus determined it to be, not that the Church has failed at some times or in some places to live up to that mission. Humans do fail, that is expected. The Holy Spirit picking up the pieces and sustaining the enterprise is what shows where the mandate comes from.

You need to demonstrate the Holy Spirit hasn’t done that.

We will not accept shoddy reasoning or tainted evidence. This is a serious question.

 

[sdegutis]

St. Peter abandoned Jesus during the Passion and denied him three times. Yet he still became the first Pope. According to the Book of Acts, this was clearly not very scandalous or problematic or troubling to the early Church.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This is impossible to calculate unless the Vatican chooses to share the inquisition records.

According to Google Juan Antonio Llorente, the Secretary General of the Inquisition from 1789-1801 estimated that 31,912 people were killed in Castille between the years of 1480-1808. There are two problems with this however. The first is that Juan Antonio never presented any evidence for this, and secondly this would be less than the total population of Jews (a.k.a: Muranos) which was wiped out during Isabella’s reign.

This is a very, very conservative figure, but it is the only one I can find from an RC mouthpiece.

Actually, not conservative at all. In fact, way overblown and the records from the Spanish Inquisition were not stored by the Vatican.

Several decades ago, all the records from the Spanish Inquisition (from Spain) were brought together by historians and careful analysis is being done.

The problem with taking much of what, historically, was claimed about the Spanish Inquisition from the time, was that those external sources were tainted by their view of Spain and consistently fabricated documents and narratives about the way Spain carried on the Inquisition. Any historical work done prior to 1990 contains at least some of those myths and reports them as evidence. After 1990 there have been historical treatments that continue to proclaim those fabrications as part of the actual narrative for polemical reasons.

It isn’t easy to sort out the myths from the facts, but it is slowly being done by historians who want to get at the real story.

With the collection and analysis of the entire corpus of the actual Spanish Inquisition documents, a better grasp of what actually went on is possible and forthcoming.

This is a good overview:
youtu.be/CY-pS6iLFuc

An extensive and scholarly historical treatment is this one:
amazon.ca/Spanish-Inquisition-Historical-Revision/dp/0300075227/ref=sr_1_20?ie=UTF8&qid=1415637869&sr=8-20&keywords=Inquisition

Kamen, and others who have done judicious research into the documents, estimate 3-4000 victims of the Spanish Inquisition. Far smaller than you believe.

The reason actual and complete Inquisition records exist in Spain is because the original testimonies and records for each trial were kept and archived by those responsible to carry out the trials; who, as it turns out, were lawyers by profession.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t think the protestants have been around long enough to match the other two so they’re definetly out of the running.

What you “think” has little to do with the facts.

The Inquisition started after the Reformation and partly because of it. Countries that became Protestant held their own Inquisitions and claimed, according to recent analysis, their own fair share of victims AND secular governments far more since these carried on witch hunts, as well.

 

[meltzerboy]

St. Peter abandoned Jesus during the Passion and denied him three times. Yet he still became the first Pope. According to the Book of Acts, this was clearly not very scandalous or problematic or troubling to the early Church.

Perhaps because St. Peter recanted and came to recognize Jesus as His Lord and Savior. But what about all those other Popes from the Middle Ages and later: did they ever renounce their harsh treatment of the Jews, which resulted in their secular expulsion from so many nations? It is indeed a double miracle that the Jews still exist as a people and that the Church still exists as a moral authority despite its shameful papal behavior toward non-Catholics for an extended period of time.

 

[LoganBice]

Secular anti-Catholicism is apparently always true but when someone reads history that is in favor of Catholicism is false? It seems to me people don’t want to hear the truth. They come here just to start these long treads asking to understand but when we give you 7 pages f answers you still say no thanks that’s not true.

 

[meltzerboy]

Secular anti-Catholicism is apparently always true but when someone reads history that is in favor of Catholicism is false? It seems to me people don’t want to hear the truth. They come here just to start these long treads asking to understand but when we give you 7 pages f answers you still say no thanks that’s not true.

It is also the case that it can be hard to get at the truth in modern history let alone ages past. Recent research, for example, has shown that Pope Pius XII was more accommodating to the Jews than previously believed and may have even been instrumental in saving thousands of them, according to Rabbi David Dallin. Yet there are other historians who dispute the claim and the numbers. When it comes to Popes and other Church leaders of distant times, the evidence one way or another with regard to the Inquisition(s) and other problematic behavior of the Church becomes murkier, especially given conflicting historical records, not to mention possible bias on the part of those scholars doing the research.

 

[LoganBice]

It is also the case that it can be hard to get at the truth in modern history let alone ages past. Recent research, for example, has shown that Pope Pius XII was more accommodating to the Jews than previously believed and may have even been instrumental in saving thousands of them. Yet there are other historians who dispute the claim and the numbers. When it comes to Popes and other Church leaders of distant times, the evidence one way or another with regard to the Inquisition(s) and other problematic behavior of the Church becomes murkier, especially given conflicting historical records, not to mention possible bias of those scholars doing the research.

This is true. Iv heard many conflicting evidence, especially for things such as the inquisitions. I have no doubt that corruption at times have taken place in the church because sin is in all people regardless but for me that points to its truth more because through all that corruption and scandals it is still standing after 2000. In my opinion.

 

[meltzerboy]

This is true. Iv heard many conflicting evidence, especially for things such as the inquisitions. I have no doubt that corruption at times have taken place in the church because sin is in all people regardless but for me that points to its truth more because through all that corruption and scandals it is still standing after 2000. In my opinion.

In my view, while the past cannot and perhaps should not be forgotten, it is so much more important to forge unions in the present between people of different faiths. Otherwise, we will forever be reliving the past, complete with its suspicions, animosities, ill will, and unjust behavior. Further, I, for one, do not want to think of myself being a member of the Jewish faith as a perpetual victim: it would be only too easy to resign oneself to that kind of mindset. The reasons I reject this are, for one, because the Jews themselves have not always been so kind to their neighbors throughout history, particularly the Pagans. But more so, because this kind of thinking keeps one from exercising a spirit of forgiveness, which is a basic tenet of both Judaism and Catholicism. Let us not relive the past in perpetuity.

 

[sdegutis]

Perhaps because St. Peter recanted and came to recognize Jesus as His Lord and Savior. But what about all those other Popes from the Middle Ages and later: did they ever renounce their harsh treatment of the Jews, which resulted in their secular expulsion from so many nations? It is indeed a double miracle that the Jews still exist as a people and that the Church still exists as a moral authority despite its shameful papal behavior toward non-Catholics for an extended period of time.

I look at the Church as an invisible, motherly being, who is constantly trying to guide us on the path of holiness and teach us God’s eternal truths in order to help us attain salvation.

But because she’s invisible, she can’t directly communicate with us. She has to express herself by visible things, tangible things. For example through the lives of the saints or their writings, or the Church’s official documents, or the homilies and even conduct of the Pope and clergy.

But not all these means of the Church’s expressions are equally faithful to what she has to say, especially because they’re all based on human beings who have free will and are not yet perfected in Heaven.

So I trust the Saints and their lives and their writings to be the most faithful voice of the Church and what she teaches us of the things of God. Because, by definition, they are more sanctified, and thus closer to God than the other visible expressions of the Church.

Whereas a Pope or a priest is close to God simply by virtue of their vocation (which in some cases might have incorrectly been discerned or even taken by force), and so there’s no guarantee that anything they say or do is going to be a true representation of the Church’s teachings about the things of God.

That’s why I don’t have a hard time with separating the sins of the Pope or clergy or even lay Catholics from the teachings of the Church. But because not everyone is able to clearly see this distinction. That’s why it’s important for everyone to avoid the sin of scandal, especially the clergy and Pope.

 

[guanophore]

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?

I agree that a good witness and holy behavior does more for the growth and health of the Church.

However, this is like saying “because Judas betrayed Christ, whatever He taught must not be valid”.

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.

If you have issues with how Jesus decided to save us, you will have to take that up with Him. He also chose to die on the cross to save us. Was that inefficient too?

I do believe, though, since the CC claims to have the “fullness of truth” then it is more incumbent upon Catholics and the Church to demonstrate this in word and deed. Catholics are held to a higher standard than all other Christian communities, and they should be. Catholics, who have more of the Divine Revelation, are more responsible to demonstrate it. To those whom much is given, much will be required.

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…

It is certainly a testimony that God would not allow the gates of hell to prevail, since the Church has survived so much corruption. No amount of human frailty and sin has dissolved the Church founded by Christ!

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.

I would like to respond to this, but first I need to know what you mean by “apostolic system”.

 

[Tomdstone]

Henry Charles Lea? That man’s works are totally discredited. It’s really quite horrifying how he blatantly misuses the sources he cites.

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.

If the works of Professor Lea are totally discredited, then how come Harvard has a special appointment called the Henry Charles Lea professor of history, Harvard University. Similarly, Princeton University has a similar appointment, the Henry Charles Lea professor of history, Princeton University? Here are a few of the
ACADEMIC HONORS AND MEMBERSHIP IN
LEARNED SOCIETIES OF HENRY CHARLES LEA
Doctor of Laws (LL.D.)
Universities of Pennsylvania, Harvard and Princeton
Doctor of Theology (S.T.D.)
University of Giessen
President
American Historical Association ( 1903)
Wyclif Society, American Branch ( 1892)
Vice-President
Historical Society of Pennsylvania ( 1890-1909)
American Historical Association ( 1902)
American Academy of Political and Social Science
Fellow
Imperial University of Moscow
Associate Fellow
American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Corresponding Fellow
British Academy
Akademie des Wissenschafts, Munich
Foreign Member
Reale Accademia dei Lincei, Rome
Corresponding Member
Royal Academy of Bavaria
Jewish Historical Society of England

---

Since you claim that his works are totally discredited, can you give us a few of the mistakes or errors that appear in any of his historical writings?

 

[Peter_Plato]

If the works of Professor Lea are totally discredited, then how come Harvard has a special appointment called the Henry Charles Lea professor of history, Harvard University. Similarly, Princeton University has a similar appointment, the Henry Charles Lea professor of history, Princeton University? Here are a few of the
ACADEMIC HONORS AND MEMBERSHIP IN
LEARNED SOCIETIES OF HENRY CHARLES LEA
Doctor of Laws (LL.D.)
Universities of Pennsylvania, Harvard and Princeton
Doctor of Theology (S.T.D.)
University of Giessen
President
American Historical Association ( 1903)
Wyclif Society, American Branch ( 1892)
Vice-President
Historical Society of Pennsylvania ( 1890-1909)
American Historical Association ( 1902)
American Academy of Political and Social Science
Fellow
Imperial University of Moscow
Associate Fellow
American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Corresponding Fellow
British Academy
Akademie des Wissenschafts, Munich
Foreign Member
Reale Accademia dei Lincei, Rome
Corresponding Member
Royal Academy of Bavaria
Jewish Historical Society of England

---

Since you claim that his works are totally discredited, can you give us a few of the mistakes or errors that appear in any of his historical writings?

I’ll give you one “mistake” to start and then refer you (in a subsequent post) to some resources that will show the bigger issues without me having to type ten thousand words.

Lea claims, for example, that the Spanish Inquisition was started by Ferdinand to persecute the Jews or conversos who were passing themselves off as Catholic so as to stay in Spain. The truth was that Ferdinand and Isabella instituted the Inquisition partly to protect the conversos, or New Christians, who had become victims of indignations, prejudices and fears of common society whose members had antipathy and distrust for them. Most of the first Inquisitors were lawyers who were only interested in finding and presenting clear evidence to resolve misunderstandings and quarrels and preserve the peace by finding irrefutable facts to counter accusations about the conversos that had resulted from prejudice. This is why records in Spain were meticulously kept and afford new analysis, though that will take time since there is a large corpus of material. Ferdinand and Isabella were more interested in uniting their people around them rather than creating more unrest.

Again, Lea’s problem is that he did his research before the bulk of the primary documents became available. I suspect his awards were because, for the time, his research was quite extensive and scholarly. However, if your sources appear credible but are full of false, though consistent, information - in line with other resources which contained the same misinformation - the inferences you draw from them will transmit those errors. A huge problem for researchers is the massive number of propaganda documents that came as a result of the invention of the printing press - marshaled by the Reformers to discredit the Church and Spain. These documents appeared authentic from the time but contained absolutely false information and intentionally negative impressions about what was going on in Spain and in the Church. There had been, previous to bringing together the source documents from the Inquisition, no way of ascertaining which of the “propaganda” documents could be trusted, so those which corroborated each other were accepted and written into historical works like Lea’s.

I am in the process of reading Lea’s work, but contrasting it to current historians like Peters, Kamen, Weidenkopf and others who have had access to primary sources and who paint a very different picture.

 

[Peter_Plato]

A good start…

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/holinquisit.htm

 

[Tomdstone]

I’ll give you one “mistake” to start and then refer you (in a subsequent post) to some resources that will show the bigger issues without me having to type ten thousand words.

Lea claims, for example, that the Spanish Inquisition was started by Ferdinand to persecute the Jews or conversos who were passing themselves off as Catholic so as to stay in Spain. The truth was that Ferdinand and Isabella instituted the Inquisition partly to protect the conversos, or New Christians, who had become victims of indignations, prejudices and fears of common society whose members had antipathy and distrust for them. Most of the first Inquisitors were lawyers who were only interested in finding and presenting clear evidence to resolve misunderstandings and quarrels and preserve the peace by finding irrefutable facts to counter accusations about the conversos that had resulted from prejudice. This is why records in Spain were meticulously kept and afford new analysis, though that will take time since there is a large corpus of material. Ferdinand and Isabella were more interested in uniting their people around them rather than creating more unrest.

Again, Lea’s problem is that he did his research before the bulk of the primary documents became available. I suspect his awards were because, for the time, his research was quite extensive and scholarly. However, if your sources appear credible but are full of false, though consistent, information - in line with other resources which contained the same misinformation - the inferences you draw from them will transmit those errors. A huge problem for researchers is the massive number of propaganda documents that came as a result of the invention of the printing press - marshaled by the Reformers to discredit the Church and Spain. These documents appeared authentic from the time but contained absolutely false information and intentionally negative impressions about what was going on in Spain and in the Church. There had been, previous to bringing together the source documents from the Inquisition, no way of ascertaining which of the “propaganda” documents could be trusted, so those which corroborated each other were accepted and written into historical works like Lea’s.

I am in the process of reading Lea’s work, but contrasting it to current historians like Peters, Kamen, Weidenkopf and others who have had access to primary sources and who paint a very different picture.

You have not given any error of fact in any of professor’s Lea’s writings. What you have given is an arguable motive for the establishment of the Inquisition. You have not mentioned the decree procured by in 1454 by Bishop Alsonso de Santa Maria at the Council of Basel including a clause directing inquisitors to inquire after conversos who had adhered to Jewish paractices. You have also not mentioned the letter of Fra Alonso de Espina in 1463 where he bemoans the errors of the ravenous wolves who have entered Catholicism.
You claim that the Spanish Inquisition was instituted partly to protect the conversos. But that is not what Kamen says in his book on the Spanish Inquisition. You are fond of that book, are you not? Kamen says that Ferdinand might have used the Inquisition to consolidate his power. He also says that the argument to eliminate the conversos from public life so that the tribunal could get rich from confiscating their property is plausible, although he does not see it as the only motive for the establishment of the Inquisition. Also, Kamen says that Ferdinand and Isabella tried to protect the Jews, but at the same time tried to eliminate judaising among the conversos.
I am not convinced that Professor Henry Charles Lea has been totally discredited as claimed here by Shin. I suspect that if he had been totally discredited that Princeton University and Harvard University would not have chairs in their respective history department designated as the Henry Charles Lea professorship. After all, Princeton University and Harvard University rank among the top universities in the world today.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You have not given any error of fact in any of professor’s Lea’s writings.

You may be right, but that seems a symantical issue. If the errors are all with his sources, then he may not be making errors “of fact,” but rather errors of inference from facts that are erroneous. The fact that some tract somewhere contains information that allows Lea to draw a particular conclusion is not an error of his fact checking since the tract does contain the information he cites. But if the information in the tract was simply contrived in its day, his inference is still wrong although he may have the fact that the tract contains that information correct.

 

[Tomdstone]

You may be right, but that seems a symantical issue. If the errors are all with his sources, then he may not be making errors “of fact,” but rather errors of inference from facts that are erroneous. The fact that some tract somewhere contains information that allows Lea to draw a particular conclusion is not an error of his fact checking since the tract does contain the information he cites. But if the information in the tract was simply contrived in its day, his inference is still wrong although he may have the fact that the tract contains that information correct.

You have not given any support for your statement that “The truth was that Ferdinand and Isabella instituted the Inquisition partly to protect the conversos…” Even if that were true, which does not seem to be so according to the book by Kamen, it still does not indicate any error on the part of Lea.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You have not given any support for your statement that “The truth was that Ferdinand and Isabella instituted the Inquisition partly to protect the conversos…” Even if that were true, which does not seem to be so according to the book by Kamen, it still does not indicate any error on the part of Lea.

You assume that “…the decree procured by in 1454 by Bishop Alsonso de Santa Maria at the Council of Basel including a clause directing inquisitors to inquire after conversos who had adhered to Jewish paractice…” appears to be some kind of damning evidence. Well no, it actually is completely consistent with a sincere intention to end the libel and jealousy of the common society which was persecuting the conversos by claiming they were not sincere in their conversion. The clause was directing the inquisitors to find the truth, not to necessarily persecute them but to get them off, if it was, for example, sincerely believed by the Bishop that the conversos were honest and sincere and that his actions would put an end to backbiting and calumny because he thought the conversos were generally sincere. Do you have evidence that he did not believe that and that he was merely being persecutory?

You seem to be making the same error as Lea, here, to wit: that the Inquisition was set up to condemn the conversos rather than defend them by obtaining hard evidence that was contrary to what the common society believed about the conversos. You are impugning motive by assuming motive. The claim is yours and Lea’s to defend, not mine. Show there was an intent to persecute in the source documents, not using the propaganda documents since those are tainted evidence.

The evidence in the article by Horvat that I posted demonstrates that the principle reason for the Inquisition was to inquire into the truth to stop injustices being perpetrated since common society had a tendency to lynch or burn now and ask questions later. Merely issuing a decree to “inquire into” claims that some conversos had adhered to Jewish practices does not prove his reason was to persecute them, if his belief was that the accusations were generally not true and the conversos would be protected from falsehoods by getting at the truth.

As Aristotle said, “one swallow does not a summer make.” Even if Fra Espina’s letter were authentic, that does not prove very much. It is comparable to taking the German “bling” cardinal’s attitudes and actions as indicative of what the entire Church is up to. Or a few Bishop Nazi sympathizers as proof the entire Church was a Nazi organization. Or, God forbid, that a few Bishops “protected” pedophiles as proof that the Church hierarchy endorses pedophilia.

The point is that finding fault by digging up some dirt is not difficult, but that says very little about the truth of the matter - which should be our principal concern. In as much as Lea merely reinforced common stereotypes and did that with meticulous care rather than uncover the truth, he was mistaken. You don’t think he promoted an anti-Catholic view? Read his work. It is clear, he did.