What was the Inquisition?

[mrs_abbott]

I’ve heard it mentioned before and I know it has to do with executing folks but what was it all about? How did it start and why?

 

[DeFide]

I’ve heard it mentioned before and I know it has to do with executing folks but what was it all about? How did it start and why?

This has a few different leads on the different inquisitions:

turrisfortis.com/history.html

 

[Caesar]

Inquisitions were ecclesiastical institutions that came about in the early middle ages to combat heresy and crimes commited by the clergy and religious. Originaly they were not organized until the Spanish Inquistition, which was for the most part the Spanish monarchy using the clergy to combat political enemies. No Inquistitions ever executed anyone- crimminals were given over to the civil authorities for punishment.

In the late 1500s the Holy Office of the Roman Inquistion was founded as an organized structure that acted throughout the entire Church and was subject only to the Pope. In the 1980s the Holy Office (as it was commonly called) had a name change, which is why today we have the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

 

[rr1213]

Inquisitions were ecclesiastical institutions that came about in the early middle ages to combat heresy and crimes commited by the clergy and religious. Originaly they were not organized until the Spanish Inquistition, which was for the most part the Spanish monarchy using the clergy to combat political enemies. No Inquistitions ever executed anyone- crimminals were given over to the civil authorities for punishment.

In the late 1500s the Holy Office of the Roman Inquistion was founded as an organized structure that acted throughout the entire Church and was subject only to the Pope. In the 1980s the Holy Office (as it was commonly called) had a name change, which is why today we have the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The Church was actively complicit in what happened during the Inquisition and what happened to people whom the Church turned over to the State. As noted in this Catholic source, which provides some interesting insights into the issue, “in many respects - and here is a truth extremely difficult for us at the end of the twentieth century to comprehend - to speak of ‘Church and State’ during the Middle Ages, and indeed much later, is to draw a distinction without a difference.”

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/1112-96/article2.html

 

[Caesar]

The Church was actively complicit in what happened during the Inquisition and what happened to people whom the Church turned over to the State. As noted in this Catholic source, which provides some interesting insights into the issue, “in many respects - and here is a truth extremely difficult for us at the end of the twentieth century to comprehend - to speak of ‘Church and State’ during the Middle Ages, and indeed much later, is to draw a distinction without a difference.”

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/1112-96/article2.html

I would have to disagree there- there was a distinct separation of Church and State (it is a rather Catholic idea after all- or, the proper definition of it anyway) throughout the history of the Church, however it was the influence that the Church held over the State and vice versa that is the key here.

 

[jmcrae]

Here’s a really interesting article by Thomas Madden. (Click on the underlined blue to get to the page.)

A quick snippet from the article:

To understand the Inquisition we have to remember that the Middle Ages were, well, medieval. We should not expect people in the past to view the world and their place in it the way we do today. (You try living through the Black Death and see how it changes your attitude.) For people who lived during those times, religion was not something one did just at church. It was science, philosophy, politics, identity, and hope for salvation. It was not a personal preference but an abiding and universal truth. Heresy, then, struck at the heart of that truth. It doomed the heretic, endangered those near him, and tore apart the fabric of community.

The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Yes, you read that correctly. Heresy was a crime against the state.

 

[newbie1234]

I’ve heard it mentioned before and I know it has to do with executing folks but what was it all about? How did it start and why?

The inquisition was a dark period for the papacy.
It lasted 605 years.
It is estimated that between 10 million and 50millon people were either tortured, killed, or burned at the stake.
The torture methods were gruesome.
There were over 75 popes in succession that not only condoned but promoted these atrocities.
Many Christians were tortured and burned at the stake if they didn’t accept the doctrine of Real Presence in the eucharist.
Many people of other faiths were killed also.
The inquisition started with pope Innocent III or there about.
It is really a fascinating, albeit tragic, time in RCC history.
The inquisition made the holocaust look like childs play.

 

[jmcrae]

The inquisition was a dark period for the papacy.
It lasted 605 years.
It is estimated that between 10 million and 50millon people were either tortured, killed, or burned at the stake.

That’s more than triple the entire population of Europe at the time (keep in mind that it was after the Black Death). What did they do, raise them back to life and then kill them again?

Do yourself a favour; read the link that I provided in my previous post.

 

[mlchance]

It is estimated that between 10 million and 50millon people were either tortured, killed, or burned at the stake.

Not by any credible historian of the period.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Caesar]

The inquisition was a dark period for the papacy.
It lasted 605 years.
It is estimated that between 10 million and 50millon people were either tortured, killed, or burned at the stake.
The torture methods were gruesome.
There were over 75 popes in succession that not only condoned but promoted these atrocities.
Many Christians were tortured and burned at the stake if they didn’t accept the doctrine of Real Presence in the eucharist.
Many people of other faiths were killed also.
The inquisition started with pope Innocent III or there about.
It is really a fascinating, albeit tragic, time in RCC history.
The inquisition made the holocaust look like childs play.

Can you show credible sources for this claim?

 

[E.E.N.S]

The inquisition was a dark period for the papacy.
It lasted 605 years.
It is estimated that between 10 million and 50millon people were either tortured, killed, or burned at the stake.
The torture methods were gruesome.
There were over 75 popes in succession that not only condoned but promoted these atrocities.
Many Christians were tortured and burned at the stake if they didn’t accept the doctrine of Real Presence in the eucharist.
Many people of other faiths were killed also.
The inquisition started with pope Innocent III or there about.
It is really a fascinating, albeit tragic, time in RCC history.
The inquisition made the holocaust look like childs play.

Do you read Jack Chick much?

 

[rr1213]

The inquisition was a dark period for the papacy.
It lasted 605 years.
It is estimated that between 10 million and 50millon people were either tortured, killed, or burned at the stake.
The torture methods were gruesome.
There were over 75 popes in succession that not only condoned but promoted these atrocities.
Many Christians were tortured and burned at the stake if they didn’t accept the doctrine of Real Presence in the eucharist.
Many people of other faiths were killed also.
The inquisition started with pope Innocent III or there about.
It is really a fascinating, albeit tragic, time in RCC history.
The inquisition made the holocaust look like childs play.

You make unfounded and unhistorical allegations like this and your credibility is shot. In fact, at this point, I think it is totally lost my friend.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Here is an article found right here at CA:

The Inquisition

 

[Mannyfit75]

The inquisition was a dark period for the papacy.
It lasted 605 years.
It is estimated that between 10 million and 50millon people were either tortured, killed, or burned at the stake.
The torture methods were gruesome.
There were over 75 popes in succession that not only condoned but promoted these atrocities.
Many Christians were tortured and burned at the stake if they didn’t accept the doctrine of Real Presence in the eucharist.
Many people of other faiths were killed also.
The inquisition started with pope Innocent III or there about.
It is really a fascinating, albeit tragic, time in RCC history.
The inquisition made the holocaust look like childs play.

Talk about false statistics.

From what I know, there were two types of Inquistions, , the Medieval Inquisition and Spanish Inquisition.

In the Medieval Inquisition, Bernard Gui was one of the most notorious of the medieval inquisitors. (so much so that the sick modern pornography industry has turned him into a hero). He tried 930 people out of which 42 were executed (4.5%). Another famous Inquisitor was Jacques Fournier who tried 114 cases of which 5 were executed (4.3%). Using numbers that are known, scholars have been able to surmise that approximately 2,000 people died in the Medieval Inquisition. (1231-1400 AD)

According to public news reports the book’s editor, Prof. Agostino Borromeo, stated that about 125,000 persons were investigated by the Spanish Inquisition, of which 1.8% were executed (2,250 people). Most of these deaths occurred in the first decade and a half of the Inquisition’s 350 year history. In Portugal of the 13,000 tried in the 16th and early 17th century 5.7% were said to have been condemned to death. News articles did not report if Portugal’s higher percentage included those sentenced to death in effigy (i.e. an image burnt instead of the actual person). For example, historian Gustav Henningsen reported that statistical tabulations of 50,000 recorded cases tried by nineteen Spanish tribunals between 1540-1700 found 775 people (1.7%) were actually executed while another 700 (1.4%) were sentenced to death in effigy (“El ‘banco de datos’ del Santo Oficio: Las relaciones de causas de la Inquisición española, 1550-1700”, BRAH, 174, 1977). Jewish historian Steven Katz remarked on the Medieval Inquisition that “in its entirety, the thirteenth and fourteenth century Inquisition put very few people to death and sent few people to prison; 90 percent of its sentences were canonical penances” (The Holocaust in Historical Context, 1994).

During the high point of the Spanish Inquisition from 1478-1530 AD, scholars found that approximately 1,500-2,000 people were found guilty. From that point forward, there are exact records available of all “guilty” sentences which amounted to 775 executions. In the full 200 years of the Spanish Inquisition, less than 1% of the population had any contact with it, people outside of the major cities didn’t even know about it. The Inquisition was not applied to Jews or Moslems, unless they were baptised as Christians.

If we add the figures, we find that the entire Inquisition of 500 years, caused about 6,000 deaths. These atrocities are completely inexcusable. These numbers are however, a far cry from the those used in the popular press by people who are always looking to destroy the Church. This is about equal to the number of war related deaths that have occurred in Afghanistan and Iraq in the 2 years since the US responded to 9/11.

Currently in North America, more babies die from abortion in 2 days than the total number of people who died during centuries of Inquisitions. Now that is a scary thought. The thought of millions dying in the Inquisitions is erroneous and it isn’t supported by facts. Most scholars, and historians agree to this.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I also like to add, that Protestants in the Colonial America had the notorious Salem Witch Trials, and they also executed Catholics during the 30 Years War…when Protestant and Catholic nations went to war with each other.

 

[Allan1972]

Burning was used as a means of execution in many ancient societies. According to ancient reports, Roman authorities executed many of the early Christian martyrs by burning, and so did the Roman Catholic Holy Inquisition against persons judged to be heretics like Giordano Bruno. These reports say that in some cases they failed to be burnt, and had to be beheaded instead.

Here is a link for that.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned_at_the_stake

There was another page that wikipedia had on Roman Catholic Church that said that the Papacy sanctioned or supported the death of heretics, but some hacker must of broke in to the web page and deleted it because its not there anymore.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Inquisition

The important thing about it was that the papacy held trials and let the governments punish. It would be better for Catholics of today to say that they are not responsible for what the Church did then and not defend it, but some don’t. They use the excuse that the papacy only tried them. For some reason they must of thought that they would be innocent of it, but the priests of phariacies did the same thing to Jesus, which is put him on trial and hand him over to the Romans.

Just to show that i’m not just biased. Here is a Catholic source that admits the wrong of them.
catholic.com/library/Inquisition.asp

 

[Mannyfit75]

Catholic Answers:

Fundamentalists suffer from the mistaken notion that the Church includes only the elect. For them, sinners are outside the doors. Locate sinners, and you locate another place where the Church is not.

Thinking that Fundamentalists might have a point in their attacks on the Inquisition, Catholics tend to be defensive. This is the wrong attitude; rather, we should learn what really happened, understand events in light of the times, and then explain to anti-Catholics why the sorry tale does not prove what they think it proves.

Not “Bible Christians”

They identify themselves with the Catharists (also known as the Albigensians), or perhaps it is better to say they identify the Catharists with themselves. They think the Catharists were twelfth-century Fundamentalists and that Catholics did to them what they would do to Fundamentalists today if they had the political strength they once had.

This is a fantasy. Fundamentalist writers take one point—that Catharists used a vernacular version of the Bible—and conclude from it that these people were “Bible Christians.” In fact, theirs was a curious religion that apparently (no one knows for certain) came to France from what is now Bulgaria. Catharism was a blend of Gnosticism, which claimed to have access to a secret source of religious knowledge, and of Manichaeism, which said matter is evil. The Catharists believed in two gods: the “good” God of the New Testament, who sent Jesus to save our souls from being trapped in matter; and the “evil” God of the Old Testament, who created the material world in the first place. The Catharists’ beliefs entailed serious—truly civilization-destroying—social consequences.

Marriage was scorned because it legitimized sexual relations, which Catharists identified as the Original Sin. But fornication was permitted because it was temporary, secret, and was not generally approved of; while marriage was permanent, open, and publicly sanctioned.

The ramifications of such theories are not hard to imagine. In addition, ritualistic suicide was encouraged (those who would not take their own lives were frequently “helped” along), and Catharists refused to take oaths, which, in a feudal society, meant they opposed all governmental authority. Thus, Catharism was both a moral and a political danger.

Even Lea, so strongly opposed to the Catholic Church, admitted: “The cause of orthodoxy was the cause of progress and civilization. Had Catharism become dominant, or even had it been allowed to exist on equal terms, its influence could not have failed to become disastrous.” Whatever else might be said about Catharism, it was certainly not the same as modern Fundamentalism, and Fundamentalist sympathy for this destructive belief system is sadly misplaced.

 

[Mannyfit75]

davidmacd.com/catholic/inquisition.htm - Catholic Source on the Subject

 

[DeFide]

There was another page that wikipedia had on Roman Catholic Church that said that the Papacy sanctioned or supported the death of heretics, but some hacker must of broke in to the web page and deleted it because its not there anymore.

Hacker? You should realize that anyone can write whatever they want on Wikipedia. It’s just anonymous writing.

 

[Allan1972]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_Inquisition

Medieval Inquisition

Origins
The Medieval Inquisitions were in response to growing religious movements, in particular the Cathars first noted in the 1140s and the Waldensians starting around 1170, in southern France and northern Italy. “Heretics”, for example Peter of Bruis, had always been a challenge for the Church. However, the Cathars were the first mass heretical organization in the second millennium that posed a serious threat to the authority of the Church, and to its interpretation of Christian doctrines.

The first medieval inquisition, the episcopal inquisition, was established in the year 1184 by a papal bull entitled “Ad abolendam,” “For the purpose of doing away with.” The inquisition was in response to the growing Catharist heresy in southern France. It is called “episcopal” because it was administered by local bishops, which in Latin is episcopus. The episcopal inquisition was not very effective for many reasons. The bishops often did not reside in their dioceses, living in far-off cities such as Rome and rarely, if ever, visiting. When they did visit, bishops were busy and had many other responsibilities.

Inquisition procedure
The papal inquisition developed a number of procedures to discover and prosecute heretics.

Investigation
When a papal inquisition arrived at a town it had a set of procedures and rules to identify likely heretics. First, the townspeople would be gathered in a public place. Although attendance was voluntary, those who failed to show would automatically be suspect, so most would come. The inquisitors would provide an opportunity for anyone to step forward and denounce themselves in exchange for easy punishment. As part of this bargain they would need to inform on other heretics. In addition, the inquisitors could simply force people to be interrogated. Once information had been gathered, an inquisitorial trial could begin.

Trial
The inquisitorial trial generally favored the prosecution (the Church). The defendant would be allowed a lawyer, but if the defendant was convicted, the lawyer would lose his ability to practice. Therefore most lawyers never took the chance of defending a potential heretic. The trials were conducted in secret with only the inquisitors, the defendant and some inquisitorial staff to take notes. Inquisitors sequestered all of the property of the defendant. The defendant was not told the charges, but was always invited to confess, only guessing what for. The accused was expected to self-incriminate and did not have the right to face and question the accuser. It was acceptable to take testimony from criminals, persons of bad reputation, excommunicated people, and convicted heretics. Blood relationship did not exempt one from the duty to testify against the accused. Sentences could not be appealed once made. The inquisitor could keep a defendant in prison for years before the trial to obtain new information.

Despite the seeming unfairness of the procedures, the inquisitors did provide rights to the defendant. At the beginning of the trial, defendants were invited to name those who had “mortal hatred” against them. If the accusers were among those named, the defendant was set free and the charges dismissed; the accusers would face life imprisonment. This option was meant to keep the inquisition from becoming involved in local grudges. A confession under torture was not admissible in court, although the inquisitor could threaten the accused with torture during the proceedings.

Torture
Torture was used after 1252. On May 15, Pope Innocent IV issued a papal bull entitled Ad exstirpanda, which authorized the use of torture by inquisitors. It was a common part of the medieval judicial system and not particular to the inquisition. The torture methods used by inquisitors were mild compared to secular courts, as they were forbidden to use methods that resulted in bloodshed, mutilation or death. Also, torture could be performed only once (although a session could be “suspended”, and when continued would be regarded as the same session of torture). One of the more common forms of medieval inquisition torture was known as strappado. The hands were bound behind the back with a rope, and the accused was suspended this way, dislocating the joints painfully in both arms. Weights could be added to the legs dislocating those joints as well.

The inquisitors generally preferred not to hand over heretics to the secular arm for execution if they could persuade the heretic to repent. It was in the inquisitors’ interest to be perceived as merciful, and they generally preferred to keep defendants alive in hopes of obtaining confessions. For example, Bernard Gui, a famous inquisitor working in the area of Toulouse (in modern France), executed 42 people out of over 900 guilty verdicts in fifteen years of office. Execution was to admit defeat, that the Church was unable to save a soul from heresy, which was the goal of the inquisition…