The thorny issue of Islam and Christianity

[livingwordunity]

The Spanish Inquisition murdered Jews and stole their money

Do you have the names of these people?

 

[idolatry]

The Spanish Inquisition murdered Jews and stole their money

Do you have the names of these people?

Good question,
however the church could make restitution by giving a substantial amount to Israel.

 

[livingwordunity]

The Spanish Inquisition murdered Jews and stole their money

Good question,
however the church could make restitution by giving a substantial amount to Israel.

I wouldn’t be against the Church giving some support to Israel. But the Muslims would not be happy at all with it since they have always hated the Jews and still do. The reason is Jews hold the ancient claim of being God’s chosen people, but when Muhammad started Islam in the 7th century he denied this and instead made the claim that Arabs are the chosen people of God. Christians don’t have a problem with Jews being God’s chosen people because we recognize it as prefiguring how God’s chosen people are all who are baptized in the Church.

 

[Path_Finder]

The Moors invaded Spain in 711 AD and stayed their for 600-700 years.

spanish-fiestas.com/history/moorish-spain/

Did the Moors apologize for that occupation?

You add those figures on to 711 + 700 years, you are now during the time of the Spanish Inquisition.

I think it’s important to remember how long Spain was occupied and it probably wasn’t all negative.

Do you think a people who were under a foreign ruler for so long may have overreacted?

Denmark not too long ago apologized to the United Kingdom for the Vikings pillaging of those islands around 1000 AD. It is a nice gesture…

Rather than attack, Fernando chose to blockade Granada. After months of stalemate and negotiations Boabdil surrendered, in return for 30,000 gold coins, part of the Alpujarras mountains to the south of Granada and political and religious freedom for his subjects. ** On January 2nd 1492 **Los Reyes Católicos marched into Granada and the last stronghold of Moorish Spain came to an end.

Just think, the Moor Muslim occupation of Spain was still going on in the year that Columbus discovered the New World. The occupation of the Iberian Peninsula was not always all of the land of Portugal and Spain, they had liberated parts.

Medieval and Renaissance times were much different like seeing that movie Braveheart and though that is not a totally accurate portrayal, some of the things in that movie probably do reflect the way it was back then, executing people and so forth.

 

[idolatry]

The Spanish Inquisition murdered Jews and stole their money

Good question,
however the church could make restitution by giving a substantial amount to Israel.

I wouldn’t be against the Church giving some support to Israel. But the Muslims would not be happy at all with it since they have always hated the Jews and still do.

Not support, but restitution.
Restitution confirms that the church was sincere in asking forgiveness by God,
However there is no evidence that the church ever repented

The Muslims will not be happy until we all worship their god.

 

[livingwordunity]

However there is no evidence that the church ever repented

St. Pope John Paul II apologized for whatever sins may have been committed by Christians in the past, and it was all over the news when he did it.

 

[Path_Finder]

St. Pope John Paul II apologized for whatever sins may have been committed by Christians in the past, and it was all over the news when he did it.

And I’d say the Catholics saved Jews in World War II. I’m not keeping score but one could start comparing that to how many Jews were persecuted during the Spanish Inquisition which again, was NOT officially the Church’s doing.

Also, as said, the Spaniards and Portuguese (see Fatima, Arabic name) were under the occupation of the Muslim Moors for 700 years so once they regained their country, they may have overreacted some in trying to make it a Catholic Nation.

 

[idolatry]

However there is no evidence that the church ever repented

St. Pope John Paul II apologized for whatever sins may have been committed by Christians in the past, and it was all over the news when he did it.

Do you think that this is meaningful without restitution?

 

[idolatry]

And I’d say the Catholics saved Jews in World War II. I’m not keeping score but one could start comparing that to how many Jews were persecuted during the Spanish Inquisition which again, was NOT officially the Church’s doing.

Also, as said, the Spaniards and Portuguese (see Fatima, Arabic name) were under the occupation of the Muslim Moors for 700 years so once they regained their country, they may have overreacted some in trying to make it a Catholic Nation.

Do you really think that the papacy was unaware of the Spanish Inquisition?

Is sin an overreaction?
I think not, unless you want to make excuses for past behaviour

 

[Path_Finder]

Jews were among the rulers of the Bolsheviks in Russia, Stalin’s Soviet Union, you can argue that some Jews helped create the Holodomor that killed millions in the Ukraine. Have these Jews repented? Given restitution?

This thread under the World News section touches on it some: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12404672&postcount=117

 

[Path_Finder]

Do you really think that the papacy was unaware of the Spanish Inquisition?

Is sin an overreaction?
I think not, unless you want to make excuses for past behaviour

What did the Vatican do, the Papacy do when the Muslim Moors ruled Spain for 700 years? Did they know what was going on then?

The Spanish Inquisition wasn’t the Vatican’s Inquisition. I think there is a separate Vatican Inquisition as well.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition#Spanish_Inquisition

King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile established the Spanish Inquisition in 1478. In contrast to the previous inquisitions, it operated completely under royal Christian authority, though staffed by clergy and orders, and independently of the Holy See.

Read: “independent of the Holy See”.

 

[idolatry]

Jews were among the rulers of the Bolsheviks in Russia, Stalin’s Soviet Union, you can argue that some Jews helped create the Holodomor that killed millions in the Ukraine. Have these Jews repented? Given restitution?

This thread under the World News section touches on it some: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12404672&postcount=117

I was talking about our church making restitution

You seem to tell me that since some Jews didn’t make restitution,
it must be fine for our church not to make restitution

Is that what Jesus taught; do only unless others behave properly first?

 

[Path_Finder]

I was talking about our church making restitution

You seem to tell me that since some Jews didn’t make restitution,
it must be fine for our church not to make restitution

Is that what Jesus taught; do only unless others behave properly first?

Roman Inquisition: This is what the Church was responsible for.

The Roman Inquisition, formally the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition, was a system of tribunals developed by the Holy See of the Roman Catholic Church during the second half of the 16th century, responsible for prosecuting individuals accused of a wide array of crimes relating to religious doctrine or alternate religious doctrine or alternate religious beliefs. In the period after the Medieval Inquisition, it was one of three different manifestations of the wider Christian Inquisition along with the Spanish Inquisition and Portuguese Inquisition.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Inquisition

They are the ones that prosecuted Galileo though Galileo was not seriously punished.

If you want to assign the blame of the “Papacy” for what went on in Spain after 700 years of Moor and Muslim control, I guess no one can change your mind. Times were a lot different then, people traveled by ship and horse and carriage over mountains and see.

 

[dmar198]

With Islam being on the news so often, the question of its alleged violent nature needs to be discussed. However, Aquinas is still held up as the highest Catholic theologian in the Church, even said to be materially infallible by Pius XI. First, I don’t think Pius XI said anything close to that.

Second, I don’t even think “materially infallible” has meaning as a term. Matter cannot be infallible because it cannot teach. The word you may be looking for is “inerrant,” but Pius XI knew that Aquinas was not inerrant. He had misunderstood the Immaculate Conception, and by the time Pius XI was pope that dogma had been infallibly defined. Therefore, Aquinas was not inerrant. Plus, as I said above, I don’t think Pius XI ever said he was.

However St. Thomas says things like the following:

 

[dmar198]

St. Thomas Aquinas also discusses bodily mutilation (ST, IIa IIae 65, 1) approvingly, which is unfortunately supported by the Bible: Ex. 21: 24, Lv 24: 19-20. However, the Church now teaches that torture is against human dignity (so when Jesus says sinners will be beaten, he is contradicting human dignity?)

I definitely think you are misrepresenting what St. Thomas, the Bible, and Jesus say in those passages. The passage you cited from Aquinas does not say that bodily mutilation is good. It discusses amputation and says that sometimes it can be justified. The first example St. Thomas cites is “when a decayed member is a source of corruption to the whole body.” That is still occasionally necessary today. The second example is when “by public authority a person…[is] deprived of a member on account of certain [crimes].” And even in those cases he seems to allow amputation only as a last resort: “A member should not be removed for the sake of the bodily health of the whole, unless otherwise nothing can be done to further the good of the whole.” In modern times we have methods of punishment that don’t involve amputating someone’s body parts. Therefore, if we followed St. Thomas Aquinas on this point, it appears to me that we would be forbidden from using amputation as a form of punishment. I don’t think we should blame the past too harshly for not having modern standards of punishment. It seems as though the people in these times didn’t have the economies to house prisoners permanently, and they resorted to punishments that were available to them.

Regarding the “eye for an eye” passages, first, it is my understanding that on a human level we never have a right to return injury in that way. Therefore, this is an apparent contradiction between the Law of Israel and the natural law. One way to resolve it is to say that God has rights which we do not. We cannot take peoples’ limbs on our own authority, but God gave us our limbs, and He can take them, or authorize His servants to take them, and not break any moral laws. Of course, if this is the answer to this problem, God repealed this law when He instituted a new and better covenant. In that case, this is another example of a law that imperfectly reflected the will of God.

But I think another answer may come into play here. It is my understanding that the civil law of Israel commanded people to return the injuries that were given them in exact measure, but only in order to limit the people from causing a more excessive injury to the wrongdoer. It is my understanding that the imperative command in this verse is therefore qualified: it is not meant to say that you must do as much harm as you were done, but that that is the maximum you may do without violating the civil law. If that is a correct interpretation, then it seems that that has nothing to do with the moral law. The civil law of Israel was not supposed to forbid all sins. That’s not what civil laws are for, that’s what religious laws are for. And the religious laws of Israel did forbid bearing hatred to your enemies, and therefore implicitly they forbade mutilating them. Ex. 23:4-5; Prov. 25:21-22; 24:17-18

Therefore, it seems quite possible to me that a person could sometimes break one of God’s moral commands without breaking the commands of the civil law. And this is one of those cases. The civil law of Israel did not punish you for harming someone who has harmed you, but the moral law did, and the prophets were more clear about that.

*Ecumenical Council of Vienne *(1311-1312).
“However, the bishop without the inquisitor or the inquisitor without the bishop or his representative . . . may not consign anyone to harsh and cruel imprisonment, which would be punishment rather than custody, or subject anyone to torture” Canon 13 of the Council’s disciplinary decisions. Cf. H. J. Schroeder, O.P., Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils (London: Herder, 1937)

I would argue that this passage more forbids torture than allows it. And St. Thomas Aquinas, by comparing it to medical amputation, seems to imply that it is an evil as well, and cannot be done if you have other options. Anyway, that is how I understand these issues, and I hope it resolves some of your difficulties.

 

[idolatry]

Ecumenical Council of Vienna (1311-1312).
“However, the bishop without the inquisitor or the inquisitor without the bishop or his representative . . . may not consign anyone to harsh and cruel imprisonment, which would be punishment rather than custody, or subject anyone to torture” Canon 13 of the Council’s disciplinary decisions. Cf. H. J. Schroeder, O.P., Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils (London: Herder, 1937)

I would argue that this passage more forbids torture than allows it.

Why is it that the Spanish Inquisition totally ignored this doctor of the church?

 

[idolatry]

The Spanish Inquisition wasn’t the Vatican’s Inquisition. I think there is a separate Vatican Inquisition as well.

In 1478, the Spanish Inquisition was established with the papal approval of Pope Sixtus IV.

Sin needs to be confessed
Why are you trying to make excuses?

 

[idolatry]

If you want to assign the blame of the “Papacy” for what went on in Spain after 700 years of Moor and Muslim control, I guess no one can change your mind. Times were a lot different then, people traveled by ship and horse and carriage over mountains and see.

In 1478, the Spanish Inquisition was established with the papal approval of Pope Sixtus IV.

I am simply noting the facts
and wonder about repentance and restitution

You don’t think that unrepented sin is an issue?

 

[dmar198]

Do you really think that the papacy was unaware of the Spanish Inquisition?

They were not unaware of it, and at one point they condemned it for excessive violence: 1482 A.D. - Pope Sixtus IV - “[In] Aragon, Valencia, Mallorca, and Catalonia the Inquisition has for some time been moved not by zeal for the faith and the salvation of souls but by lust for wealth. Many true and faithful Christians, on the testimony of enemies, rivals, slaves, and other lower and even less proper persons, have without any legitimate proof been thrust into secular prisons, tortured and condemned as relapsed heretics, deprived of their goods and property and handed over to the secular arm to be executed, to the peril of souls, setting a pernicious example, and causing disgust to many. … Provoked by the complaints of many men against this, we desire to and are bound to provide that the office [of the Inquisition] itself is duly carried out by such means that no one is unnecessarily and unjustly harmed. … In the example of [Jesus], whose vicar we are on earth (cujus vices gerimus in terris), not willing the death of sinners but rather desiring to restore their salvation, we choose to show mercy rather than to punish.” (Papal Bull Ad Perpetuam Rei Memoriam, reproduced in page 587 of Volume 1 of Henry Charles Lea’s “A History of the Inquisition of Spain.”) The bull goes on to provide that victims of Inquisition abuse may appeal their cases to be heard in papal courts. I think the contents of this papal bull need to be made more widely known.

 

[idolatry]

Do you really think that the papacy was unaware of the Spanish Inquisition?

They were not unaware of it, and at one point they condemned it for excessive violence: “[In] Aragon, Valencia, Mallorca, and Catalonia the Inquisition has for some time been moved not by zeal for the faith and the salvation of souls but by lust for wealth. Many true and faithful Christians, on the testimony of enemies, rivals, slaves, and other lower and even less proper persons, have without any legitimate proof been thrust into secular prisons, tortured and condemned as relapsed heretics, deprived of their goods and property and handed over to the secular arm to be executed, to the peril of souls, setting a pernicious example, and causing disgust to many. … Provoked by the complaints of many men against this, we desire to and are bound to provide that the office [of the Inquisition] itself is duly carried out by such means that no one is unnecessarily and unjustly harmed. … In the example of [Jesus], whose vicar we are on earth (cujus vices gerimus in terris), not willing the death of sinners but rather desiring to restore their salvation, we choose to show mercy rather than to punish.” (Papal Bull Ad Perpetuam Rei Memoriam, reproduced in page 587 of Volume 1 of Henry Charles Lea’s “A History of the Inquisition of Spain.”)

Is their condemnation a sin of omission
as the papacy had the power to stop the Inquisition?