What was the Inquisition?

[Tantum_ergo]

So all the heretics who were executed vandalized religious buildings and/or killed people. No body was executed for simply believing in what the Church considered to be heretical beliefs and/or espousing those beliefs. Is that what you are claiming?

It is, of course, entirely possible that in a particular case, even in a few (and as noted, over the course of several centuries the actual number of those who were actually brought to trial and condemned to death, rather than suffering such punishments as saying more prayers and offering a Mass, was perhaps between 600-2000 at most), that a stubbornly recusant heretic ‘simply’ espoused (loudly and publically and to the detriment of the souls of innocents) heretical beliefs. Your point?

Compare, if you will, the ‘reformers’ who, in a much shorter period of time, a century or less, killed as many in England and Ireland alone purely for espousing what to the Protestant Church were heretical–meaning Catholic–beliefs in that period as died in the entire Inquisition. And that’s just ‘one’ group. Add in the many Scots Catholics persecuted by the “Covenanters” and shot dead just for not showing up at a Covenant meeting in the 19th century. . .the German Catholics, the Scandinavian Catholics, the Slavic Catholics, etc. killed by their Protestant brethren, the history of hundreds of years of persecution by Protestants against Catholics in countries like Great Britain and (yes) even the U.S.; the shameful history of the Protestants who slaughtered fellow Protestants (ask the people in the Society of Friends). . .and tell me just how ‘different’ it was that Catholic officials appointed by a lawful government exercised their legal capacity during the Inquisition???

You know, most of us Catholics don’t automatically start screaming at Protestants about their very bloody heritage. We tend to take people at face value. We trust that rr1213 and others who have identified themselves as Protestants are not going to kill us for our Catholic beliefs even if their great-greats might have killed our great-greats for exactly those beliefs.

We wonder why it is so difficult though for them to take us at the same value–considering their own denominations’ bloody deeds are both more recent–and more widespread–than those of the Inquisition. . .

 

[Mannyfit75]

It is, of course, entirely possible that in a particular case, even in a few (and as noted, over the course of several centuries the actual number of those who were actually brought to trial and condemned to death, rather than suffering such punishments as saying more prayers and offering a Mass, was perhaps between 600-2000 at most), that a stubbornly recusant heretic ‘simply’ espoused (loudly and publically and to the detriment of the souls of innocents) heretical beliefs. Your point?

Compare, if you will, the ‘reformers’ who, in a much shorter period of time, a century or less, killed as many in England and Ireland alone purely for espousing what to the Protestant Church were heretical–meaning Catholic–beliefs in that period as died in the entire Inquisition. And that’s just ‘one’ group. Add in the many Scots Catholics persecuted by the “Covenanters” and shot dead just for not showing up at a Covenant meeting in the 19th century. . .the German Catholics, the Scandinavian Catholics, the Slavic Catholics, etc. killed by their Protestant brethren, the history of hundreds of years of persecution by Protestants against Catholics in countries like Great Britain and (yes) even the U.S.; the shameful history of the Protestants who slaughtered fellow Protestants (ask the people in the Society of Friends). . .and tell me just how ‘different’ it was that Catholic officials appointed by a lawful government exercised their legal capacity during the Inquisition???

You know, most of us Catholics don’t automatically start screaming at Protestants about their very bloody heritage. We tend to take people at face value. We trust that rr1213 and others who have identified themselves as Protestants are not going to kill us for our Catholic beliefs even if their great-greats might have killed our great-greats for exactly those beliefs.

We wonder why it is so difficult though for them to take us at the same value–considering their own denominations’ bloody deeds are both more recent–and more widespread–than those of the Inquisition. . .

From my observating Protestants have the habit of using the Inquisition against us, yet we Catholics don’t bragg about their persecution against the Catholics…

Who is more charitable? From my point of view, Catholics.

 

[newbie1234]

For those who want to deny the complicity of the Church in the inquisitions, including the fact that heretics were executed by the State with the full understanding and consent of the Church, the following excerpts from the article at the Catholic Encyclopedia are worth reading (emphasis added):

Gregory IX may be regarded as having had no share either directly or indirectly in the death of condemned heretics. Not so the succeeding popes. In the Bull “Ad exstirpanda” (1252) Innocent IV says:

When those adjudged guilty of heresy have been given up to the civil power by the bishop or his representative, or the Inquisition, the podestà or chief magistrate of the city shall take them at once, and shall, within five days at the most, execute the laws made against them.

Moreover, he directs that this Bull and the corresponding regulations of Frederick II be entered in every city among the municipal statutes under pain of excommunication, which was also visited on those who failed to execute both the papal and the imperial decrees. Nor could any doubt remain as to what civil regulations were meant, for the passages which ordered the burning of impenitent heretics were inserted in the papal decretals from the imperial constitutions “Commissis nobis” and “Inconsutibilem tunicam”… The civil authorities, therefore, were enjoined by the popes, under pain of excommunication to execute the legal sentences that condemned impenitent heretics to the stake. It is to he noted that excommunication itself was no trifle, for, if the person excommunicated did not free himself from excommunication within a year, he was held by the legislation of that period to be a heretic, and incurred all the penalties that affected heresy. …

The Spanish Inquisition deserves neither the exaggerated praise nor the equally exaggerated vilification often bestowed on it… However, the predominant ecclesiastical nature of the institution can hardly be doubted. The Holy See sanctioned the institution, accorded to the grand inquisitor canonical installation and therewith judicial authority concerning matters of faith, while from the grand inquisitor jurisdiction passed down to the subsidiary tribunals under his control. Joseph de Maistre introduced the thesis that the Spanish Inquisition was mostly a civil tribunal; formerly, however, theologians never questioned its ecclesiastical nature. Only thus, indeed, can one explain how the Popes always admitted appeals from it to the Holy See, called to themselves entire trials and that at any stage of the proceedings, exempted whole classes of believers from its jurisdiction, intervened in the legislation, deposed grand inquisitors, and so on.

newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm

take about an hour this evening and listen to bereanbeacon.org.
All about the inquisition. It’s eye opening.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Spanish Inquisition

One other task within Spain faced Isabel. During the years of turmoil, the Church had become weak and corrupt. Isabel was a fervent Catholic, putting the cause of Christ first in all she did. Furthermore, she knew that Spain’s unity as a nation depended upon a strong Church — Spain might as well not exist if it were not Catholic through and through. She set about reforming the Church, raising the educational and moral standards of the clergy. Many abuses were halted, including the practice of selling indulgences, which would cause much grief in the rest of Europe.

One of the most serious problems the Church faced was the number of Jews and Moors who had been baptized Catholics and risen to high positions in the government and the Church without really believing in Christian doctrine. These false Conversos and Moriscos (converted Jews and Moors) were a threat to the Church and to Spain, and a way had to be found of determining who was a true Christian and loyal Spaniard and who was a traitor. Isabel knew that not all the Conversos and Moriscos were enemies — her own confessor was a Converso as was the husband of her best friend. But to protect the innocent, the guilty had to be found.

The method Isabel chose was the Inquisition: a court which would examine evidence and judge whether a person was a faithful Christian or an enemy of Church and country. At the beginning of the Inquisition, there were many abuses — some innocent people suffered and torture was used frequently. At this point the Pope stepped in and appointed new Inquisitors, with the Grand Inquisitor (head of the Inquisition) being a Dominican monk named Tomas de Torquemada. Torquemada reformed the procedure of the Inquisition to ensure that justice would he done. He made its procedures more lenient and improved conditions in the prisons. He personally examined appeals from the accused and gave money to help the families of those on trial.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The actions of the Inquisitors are often criticized, usually as a means of attacking Spain by those who resent the strong Catholic character of the country. One criticism is that the Inquisition used torture. It did, though less so under Torquemada than before him. Torture is wrong, and the Church has since condemned any use of torture. But at the time, all governments routinely used torture as a means of extracting confessions. Though the fact that a sin is routinely committed does not justify it, the Inquisitors were most probably acting in good faith, and they should not be singled out as unusually evil.

A second attack is that the Inquisition’s judgments led to the execution of the guilty. People in modern times consider it wrong to execute people for not truly believing in the religion they professed, but that is not in fact why they were executed. Those found guilty were traitors to the state and to the Church, and treason has almost always been recognized as a crime justifying capital punishment. Furthermore, those found guilty were always given a chance to repent. Only if they refused to repent or if they relapsed into their crimes after promising repentance were they executed. Finally, only 2,000 were executed, a small percentage of the 100,000 put on trial.

A final charge is that the method of execution, burning at the stake, was unusually barbaric. But the 16th century was a brutal time. In England capital punishment consisted of being hanged, cut down while still alive, disembowelled, and then cut into four pieces (hanged, drawn and quartered); in France, it was to be boiled alive. Again, Spain should not be singled out for condemnation.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Inquisition, in fact, though not perfect, was a more just court than most. Often, people charged with regular crimes would pretend to be heretics so that they could be transferred to the custody of the Inquisition, whose prisoners were better treated.

Looking at the Inquisition historically, we see that it avoided more deaths than it caused. Because Spain was united religiously as well as politically, it did not suffer the religious wars which came when Protestantism began in other countries. Furthermore, a few years later other parts of Europe went through a witchcraft hysteria, when many people were executed as witches on only the flimsiest of evidence, or no evidence at all (30,000 in England, 100,000 in Germany). In Spain, the Inquisition investigated charges of witchcraft and found them baseless, thus saving many innocent people from death.

All the efforts of Ferdinand and lsabel — ending civil war, restoring order and justice, completing the Reconquista, reforming the Church — brought peace and prosperity to Spain. The latter years of their reign and the years immediately following are known as Spain’s Golden Age, when art, literature, culture and science reached a high point. During the 16th century, Spain was the intellectual capital of the world, with scholars coming from all over Europe to study there.

Out of Spain’s optimism, joy and excitement came the explorations and discoveries which were to open up our own hemisphere and bring about the settlement of a whole new world.

Source: Catholic Education

catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0009.html

 

[rr1213]

It is, of course, entirely possible that in a particular case, even in a few (and as noted, over the course of several centuries the actual number of those who were actually brought to trial and condemned to death, rather than suffering such punishments as saying more prayers and offering a Mass, was perhaps between 600-2000 at most), that a stubbornly recusant heretic ‘simply’ espoused (loudly and publically and to the detriment of the souls of innocents) heretical beliefs. Your point?

Compare, if you will, the ‘reformers’ who, in a much shorter period of time, a century or less, killed as many in England and Ireland alone purely for espousing what to the Protestant Church were heretical–meaning Catholic–beliefs in that period as died in the entire Inquisition. And that’s just ‘one’ group. Add in the many Scots Catholics persecuted by the “Covenanters” and shot dead just for not showing up at a Covenant meeting in the 19th century. . .the German Catholics, the Scandinavian Catholics, the Slavic Catholics, etc. killed by their Protestant brethren, the history of hundreds of years of persecution by Protestants against Catholics in countries like Great Britain and (yes) even the U.S.; the shameful history of the Protestants who slaughtered fellow Protestants (ask the people in the Society of Friends). . .and tell me just how ‘different’ it was that Catholic officials appointed by a lawful government exercised their legal capacity during the Inquisition???

You know, most of us Catholics don’t automatically start screaming at Protestants about their very bloody heritage. We tend to take people at face value. We trust that rr1213 and others who have identified themselves as Protestants are not going to kill us for our Catholic beliefs even if their great-greats might have killed our great-greats for exactly those beliefs.

We wonder why it is so difficult though for them to take us at the same value–considering their own denominations’ bloody deeds are both more recent–and more widespread–than those of the Inquisition. . .

You asked for my point. My point is quite straightforward and, I would pray to God, quite unremarkable…executing people for their religious beliefs is not a good thing. My point is that it is wrong, indeed evil, to persecute or kill people solely because of their religious beliefs and/or because they espouse beliefs that somebody else finds to be heretical.

We are not talking about vandals, we are not talking about people who kill clergy or rape nuns, instead we are talking about persecution of believers on account of their faith. I don’t care if it is the Catholic Church that does it, or the Anglican Church, or the Reformed Churches or the State or inquisitions or dictatorships in some third world country or China or, for that matter, the United States. Wrong is wrong. This is not a controversial point folks.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Both Protestants and Catholics are guilty of it.

 

[Mannyfit75]

A fair and balance look at the Inquisition;

catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0007.html

I posted the other link regarding the Spanish Inquistion.

 

[jmcrae]

You asked for my point. My point is quite straightforward and, I would pray to God, quite unremarkable…executing people for their religious beliefs is not a good thing. My point is that it is wrong, indeed evil, to persecute or kill people solely because of their religious beliefs and/or because they espouse beliefs that somebody else finds to be heretical.

We execute people for violating our most important laws.

One of the reasons that we no longer execute people for their religious beliefs is that society at large no longer considers religion to be a very important subject.

We execute people for theft and murder on a large scale, because what is important to us today is our physical life and our property.

But our souls are quite secondary, so heresy is not only no longer a capital crime, it’s not even a misdemeanor.

 

[mlchance]

If the church never coerced people what were the crusades all about?

The Crusades were about:

1. Defending Europe and Byzantium from Muslim aggressors.
2. Freeing up routes to pilgrimage sites in the Holy Land.

But let me guess: Some anti-Catholic website says differently, and that’s what you’ll believe no matter what?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I like to clear some facts about the numbers on how many were killed.

In the Spanish Inquistion.

Out of the 49,000 cases 700 were killed.

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)

The number that newbie gave that *“10 million and 50millon people died” * is not accurate.

 

[newbie1234]

I like to clear some facts about the numbers on how many were killed.

In the Spanish Inquistion.

Out of the 49,000 cases 700 were killed.

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)

The number that newbie gave that *“10 million and 50millon people died” * is not accurate.

What is your source. wikipedia?
Take a look at : A brief history of the inquisition. Robert Jones

 

[Mannyfit75]

What is your source. wikipedia?
Take a look at : A brief history of the inquisition. Robert Jones

My Sources;

catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0007.html

catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0009.html

davidmacd.com/catholic/inquisition.htm

 

[rtconstant]

Newbie, so far you’ve quoted propaganda, and shaky material as your basis for argument. Wikipedia while fun and sometimes useful is not a basis for anything. Berean is just strait propaganda they have an agenda.

Try citing an historical source. You’ll learn something and gain much more credibility.

Also you need to get a reality check on the period of time in question. Most of this occurred in the Middle Ages. This was an extremely harsh time. The vast majority of Europe struggled daily just to survive. Education was rare and superstition was rampit. All of European soceity lived on a razor’s edge and could have tumbled into chaos at any time.

People during this time lived hard, fought hard and died hard. As a Chrisitian continent there are many things that both Catholics and Protestants should regret that happened during this period. Yet we today safe in the warmth of our luxorious homes are in no place to judge them. Read about them, understand them, see what they went through and learn from them. From their mistakes we can do better that is the first sacrifice that our ancestors give to us.

While we as Christians should not blink or turn away from our heritage both good and bad. We should also not attempt to exagerate it or excuse it. Blowing up numbers like the Bereans and you yourself have done here just antagonizes and ultimately fails as you lose credibility. It is just as bad as trying to gloss over the events.

Around 3000 lives were lost because of the various Inquisitions. That is tragic. The lesson here isn’t “Man those Medieval Christians were jerks!” instead lets figure out how to not let that things get to that point again.

 

[Mannyfit75]

What is your source. wikipedia?
Take a look at : A brief history of the inquisition. Robert Jones

I did and it didn’t say the Inquistion killed 50 million people.

 

[newbie1234]

Newbie, so far you’ve quoted propaganda, and shaky material as your basis for argument. Wikipedia while fun and sometimes useful is not a basis for anything. Berean is just strait propaganda they have an agenda.

Try citing an historical source. You’ll learn something and gain much more credibility.

Also you need to get a reality check on the period of time in question. Most of this occurred in the Middle Ages. This was an extremely harsh time. The vast majority of Europe struggled daily just to survive. Education was rare and superstition was rampit. All of European soceity lived on a razor’s edge and could have tumbled into chaos at any time.

People during this time lived hard, fought hard and died hard. As a Chrisitian continent there are many things that both Catholics and Protestants should regret that happened during this period. Yet we today safe in the warmth of our luxorious homes are in no place to judge them. Read about them, understand them, see what they went through and learn from them. From their mistakes we can do better that is the first sacrifice that our ancestors give to us.

While we as Christians should not blink or turn away from our heritage both good and bad. We should also not attempt to exagerate it or excuse it. Blowing up numbers like the Bereans and you yourself have done here just antagonizes and ultimately fails as you lose credibility. It is just as bad as trying to gloss over the events.

Around 3000 lives were lost because of the various Inquisitions. That is tragic. The lesson here isn’t “Man those Medieval Christians were jerks!” instead lets figure out how to not let that things get to that point again.

It is funny how you don’t quote any sources.
Quite a double standard wouldn’t you say?

 

[Mannyfit75]

From Wikipedia

Medieval Inquistion:

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

Spanish Inquistion:

111 were condemned to be burned in person, and 117 in effigy, most of them for judaizing. In the reign of Philip V, there were 728 autos de fe, while in the reigns of Charles III and Charles IV only four condemned were burned.

So where are your 50 million?

 

[mlchance]

It is funny how you don’t quote any sources. Quite a double standard wouldn’t you say?

Actually, it is the exact same standard used by you. You’ve yet to name a single reputable historical source that backs up your most ridiculous assertions.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[newbie1234]

My Sources;

catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0007.html

catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0009.html

davidmacd.com/catholic/inquisition.htm

Any non catholic sources?