What was the Inquisition?

[rr1213]

The Inquisitions were separate courts and in many cases–most notably the Spanish Inquisition–were not under the direct control of the papacy. There are papal remonstrances on record protesting against the excessive rigor of the Spanish Inquisition–in fact the papacy opposed the establishment of the Spanish Inquisition and only gave in under serious pressure from the Spanish government.

Edwin

Nonetheless, this Catholic source seems to indicate that the Church had a great deal of influence over the Spanish Inquisition.

“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

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Problem is, there is a difference between people saying that execution for ‘religious belief’ is a ‘bad thing’ (most of us living in this particular time, in a society that has promoted free exercise of religious belief, where we ourselves have not undergone torture, imprisonment etc. for our beliefs)–and other people either giving proven false information about a particular religion’s past, or attempting to put the ‘worldview or mindset’ of today onto people living more than 500 years ago.

People in the 1500s, or the 1000s, or earlier, were not ‘just like people today’. We are not ‘just like’ somebody born even in the 1800s. Both big and little things separate us in our actions (not in our souls, not in the “natural” law) and beliefs. That doesn’t make us ‘right’ and them ‘wrong’, though. In fact in some ways those ‘mediaeval’ minds were closer to God and on the right track; less swayed by materialism, less bombarded by secularization, more focused on their faith.

Today we live long lives, in relative affluence and peace, free for the most part of disease, literate, with centuries of ‘mutual tolerance’ among diverse groups and cultures.

Then people lived short lives, were desperately poor and hungry, at the mercy of weather and war, prone to diseases that don’t even exist today, illiterate, with centuries of constant warfare, with no history of ‘tolerance’ per se because there was not the peaceful ‘division’ or the stability we possess today.

The crusader or inquisitioner didn’t have centuries of knowledge and understanding of ‘diversity’. He didn’t have a safe, stable, luxorious life. As far as he was concerned, the primary focus of life was to live for God and to save both his–and others- SOULS. Eternity was more important than here-and-now.

The Inquisition did not kill 10 or 50 million people. The Catholic Church (as a Church) did not kill even the projected 2000 heretics.

Whether heresy is called ‘heresy’ or ‘treason’, it still remains, Edwin, that those Catholics killed in Protestant England as being “traitors” were seen as traitors purely and simply for their Catholic beliefs–beliefs which would not permit them to take the Protestant state government’s Oath of Supremacy, beliefs which had priests ‘breaking’ the ‘civil’ law which forbade them to offer Mass. They suffered martyrdom by adhering to God’s higher law. . .

God bless.

 

[mlchance]

Whether heresy is called ‘heresy’ or ‘treason’, it still remains, Edwin, that those Catholics killed in Protestant England as being “traitors” were seen as traitors purely and simply for their Catholic beliefs–beliefs which would not permit them to take the Protestant state government’s Oath of Supremacy, beliefs which had priests ‘breaking’ the ‘civil’ law which forbade them to offer Mass. They suffered martyrdom by adhering to God’s higher law. . .

Quite right. Arguing that Catholics were persecuted, often to death, for being traitors rather than heretics by the Protestant thieves and hooligans that sought to destroy the Catholic Church in England in order to fill their own coffers is, at best, disengenuous.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[rr1213]

Quite right. Arguing that Catholics were persecuted, often to death, for being traitors rather than heretics by the Protestant thieves and hooligans that sought to destroy the Catholic Church in England in order to fill their own coffers is, at best, disengenuous.

– Mark L. Chance.

“Thieves and hooligans”? A bit of hyperbole huh? No more or less than the Catholic rulers of predominately Catholic countries at the time.

 

[mlchance]

“Thieves and hooligans”? A bit of hyperbole huh?

Just barely if at all. The primary motivation for destroying the Catholic Church in England was the theft of Church possessions and properties. This was especially true in Scotland, where Protestantism became deeply entrenched and virulently anti-Catholic.

No more or less than the Catholic rulers of predominately Catholic countries at the time.

Which Catholic rulers of predominately Catholic countries were robbing Protestant churches of their often centuries-old possessions and properties in order to become rich?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Contarini]

Quite right. Arguing that Catholics were persecuted, often to death, for being traitors rather than heretics by the Protestant thieves and hooligans that sought to destroy the Catholic Church in England in order to fill their own coffers is, at best, disengenuous.

– Mark L. Chance.

No, it’s nothing of the sort. It’s just accurate.

I explicitly said that it was a religious persecution. There are many kinds of religious persecution. Persecuting people as heretics is one kind; persecuting them as traitors is another. The fact is that no one was ever executed as a traitor simply for their beliefs. They were executed for their actions–specifically, for infiltrating England as a missionary priest or (in the case of laypeople) for cooperating with the activities of such a priest. Since after a certain point this was the only way people could get to Mass, I agree entirely that this made the most basic Catholic act (Mass) an act of treason by definition and was a vicious form of religious persecution. However, it is simply false to say that people were executed simply for their beliefs. You could believe anything you wanted and you were left alone as long as you didn’t act on it. If you didn’t attend the parish church you had to pay a fine, which amounted to a serious persecution for poor people and an annoyance for the rich.

This is a classic example of the intrinsic dishonesty of apologetics to which I’ve referred elsewhere. This thread, like all such threads, has been taken over by people who don’t really care about historical truth but only care about their propagandistic point. You want to make a clear, simple, pungent criticism of Protestants in response to the ludicrous exaggerations being thrown at you. I understand that. But I’m here to do my best to make things complicated, because the historical record *is *complicated. Religious persecution takes many forms–you can’t just reduce it to “people being killed for their beliefs.”

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

My Halleys Bible commentary states:
“Later on the inquisition was the main agency in the papacy’s effort to crush the Reformation. It is stated that in the 30 years between 1540 and 1570 no fewer than 900,000 Protestants were put to death in the popes war for the extermination of the Waldenses”

Halleys Bible Handbook Zondervan 1965, Mich. pg777

Or is this more anti-catholic propaganda?

Of course it is. Note that your commentary doesn’t give any evidence that the Inquisition had anything to do with the war against the Albigenses. The Inquisition didn’t wage wars–governments waged wars. The Inquisition tried people (including the use of torture according to Roman law) and handed them over to the government for execution in extreme cases. So even if this figure is correct, which I highly doubt, it has nothing to do with the Inquisition. Nor was it “the Pope’s war” as far as I know. Catholic governments were not tools of the Pope–that is a silly Protestant misconception.

Back to the Spanish Inquisition, in response to rr–I didn’t say that the Inquisition wasn’t under the control of the Church, I said it was not under the direct control of the Papacy. Of course it acknowledged the Papacy’s authority. It wasn’t a primarily civil court or a simple tool of the papacy. It was an organ of the Church in Spain, which stood under the dual authority of the Spanish monarchy *and *the Papacy. On the whole, though, it was the monarchy that pushed for the establishment of the Inquisition and I think it’s fair to say that the Spanish government had more control over the Spanish Inquisition than the Papacy did. Spanish Catholicism was heavily controlled by the government–the Papacy tolerated this because the Spanish government was uncompromisingly orthodox. All Catholic governments tried to keep control over the Church in their dominions, and after Henry VIII’s antics the Papacy couldn’t afford to push them too far.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Here are some book quotes:

50 million martyrs died in the dark ages.
Bunch, Taylor,‘Book of Daniel’ 1950, p185
50 million died for thier faith,
Montana, Walter M, ‘Behind the Purple Curtain’ Cowan Publishers 1950 p91

Two Million Waldensian Martyrs from 1160-1560
Clarks Martyrology

Papal Rome shed the blood of 50 million
Brownlee,W.C. ‘The Roman Catholic Religion Viewed in Light of Prophecy and History’ N.Y. CK Moore Pub. 1843 p87

All references taken from David A Plaisted. in his paper
“Estimates of the number killed by the Papacy in the Middle ages and Later” David A Plaisted,2006

Give me one work by a reputable historian with professional credentials. All your sources are propaganda. None of them are serious history. They are just quoting each other and not doing any serious research. You haven’t even bothered to look at them yourself–you’re just getting them all from Plaisted. You don’t know what you are talking about.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Those are Anti-Catholic Sources which is not very reliable. No 50 million people were killed in the Inquistion. The reasonable account of the people killed was probably around 2,000.

That’s just the Spanish Inquisition, and it is a low estimate (though I believe a defensible one). Add in all the other Inquisitions and the figure’s going to be significantly higher, but certainly not in the millions.

Edwin

 

[mlchance]

No, it’s nothing of the sort. It’s just accurate.

I explicitly said that it was a religious persecution. There are many kinds of religious persecution. Persecuting people as heretics is one kind; persecuting them as traitors is another.

It is a difference without distinction resting on mere sophistry.

The fact is that no one was ever executed as a traitor simply for their beliefs.

Belief without action is a lie. Again, mere sophistry. Why am I suddenly reminded of the persistent doublespeak that dominated the “justice” system in the U.S.S.R.?

You could believe anything you wanted and you were left alone as long as you didn’t act on it.

How generous!

This is a classic example of the intrinsic dishonesty of apologetics to which I’ve referred elsewhere.

Now you’re projecting as well as well dissembling.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[miguel]

…The Inquisitions were separate courts and in many cases–most notably the Spanish Inquisition–were not under the direct control of the papacy. There are papal remonstrances on record protesting against the excessive rigor of the Spanish Inquisition–in fact the papacy opposed the establishment of the Spanish Inquisition and only gave in under serious pressure from the Spanish government.

The Roman Inquisition, which was under the direct control of the papacy, was the most restrained of the various Inquisitions I know about, although it did torture and execute people so I’m not saying it was benign!

People also need to keep in mind that the Spanish Inquisition came on the heels of the final expulsion of the muslim Moors from Spain after 700 years of warfare (the reconquista) by the Spanish Catholics. This was a long and hard fought process. The rulers at the time, Ferdinand and Isabella, were determined to root out all traces of the former regime. Not defending the ruthlessness or excesses of the SI, just trying to put it in historical context by giving the main rationale that was driving it. For example, Jews were targetted, not primarily because they weren’t Catholic, but more because of their perceived collaboration with the former regime. Here’s a good summary of this very important point…
catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/1112-96/article2.html

If you want more detail, Warren H. Carroll has written written extensively on the reconquista in his multi-volume History of Christendom…
amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_seeall_6/102-5517459-4636169?ie=UTF8&keywords=Warren%20H%20Carroll&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3AWarren%20H%20Carroll%2Ci%3Astripbooks

 

[Contarini]

It is a difference without distinction resting on mere sophistry.

No, it’s not. There were a lot of Catholics who were never bothered by the government even though they were known to be Catholic.

Belief without action is a lie.

There’s something to be said by this.

Again, mere sophistry.

Your use of the word “sophistry” is picking up on one of the sillier bits of 16th-century anti-medieval propaganda, by the way. By “sophistry” you really mean “making careful distinctions,” which simply means a care for truth. I am not ashamed of this “sophistry.” Ignoring fine points for the sake of propaganda is not something to be proud of.

Why am I suddenly reminded of the persistent doublespeak that dominated the “justice” system in the U.S.S.R.?

I think that’s an excellent comparison. The English government’s attitude to Catholicism was very much like that of Communist governments which established state churches under their control and banned all others as tools of Western imperialism or as symbols of sympathy with the former regime.

How generous!

I never said it was generous. I think it was a vicious persecution, and I have said so frequently. But it was a persecution based on a perceived (and to some extent a real) political threat. It was not a persecution for heresy per se, and that’s a significant point.

The fact that Protestant governments did not prosecute Catholics for heresy can actually be used by Catholics to show that Protestants tacitly recognized the absurdity of calling something “heresy” that everyone had publicly professed until very recently.

Edwin

 

[mlchance]

No, it’s not. There were a lot of Catholics who were never bothered by the government even though they were known to be Catholic.

Never bothered except for having their churches confiscated by the state, being forced to abandon their faith under penalty of severe punishment, et cetera.

Your use of the word “sophistry” is picking up on one of the sillier bits of 16th-century anti-medieval propaganda, by the way. By “sophistry” you really mean “making careful distinctions,”…

Now you’re the arbiter of what I mean? The term “sophistry” is part of something silly? How amusing.

In point of fact, I’m picking up on Merriam-Webster, in which “sophistry” means “subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation,” such as claiming Catholics persecuted by the Protestant robber barons in England weren’t persecuted for being Catholic.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Contarini]

In point of fact, I’m picking up on Merriam-Webster, in which “sophistry” means “subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation,” such as claiming Catholics persecuted by the Protestant robber barons in England weren’t persecuted for being Catholic.

I didn’t say that. I said they weren’t persecuted for beliefs. Saying they were persecuted for “beliefs” is subtly deceptive, because it implies that simply for thinking certain things you could be arrested. That wasn’t true. There were a lot of “recusants” who were known to be Catholic and in some cases had high positions in English society. So by your definition you’re the one engaging in “sophistry.”

I’m not sure what you are arguing about, since I’ve admitted a number of times that Catholics were viciously persecuted. I am making a technical point which you seem to think of no importance. But you have not shown that I was wrong. You cannot give me one case in which the legal charge was heresy. You may think this doesn’t matter, but it is ridiculous to accuse me of being “subtly deceptive” because I state something that is perfectly true.

Declaring an act central to the practice of a religion to be treason does indeed amount to persecuting that religion. But the fact is that the persecution was for treason and it had a genuine political motivation–the Pope had after all excommunicated Elizabeth and called on Catholics to revolt against her. This was not something the Elizabethan government made up. It really happened. (I know perfectly well that most of the people persecuted as a result of this were not in fact disloyal to Elizabeth. I am not justifying what happened at all–I am simply stating accurately the historical circumstances. We have come to a sad state when an accurate summary of the historical record is called “subtly deceptive.”)

Edwin

 

[mlchance]

I didn’t say that. I said they weren’t persecuted for beliefs.

And here again is the sophistry. Catholics were persecuted for being Catholic, which you admit, but not for their beliefs. This is utterly preposterous. What does it mean to be Catholic if not hold Catholic beliefs? If the Catholics had beliefs identical to the state-run church, they would not have been persecuted.

As I said, you keep harping on a difference without a distinction.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[newbie1234]

Give me one work by a reputable historian with professional credentials. All your sources are propaganda. None of them are serious history. They are just quoting each other and not doing any serious research. You haven’t even bothered to look at them yourself–you’re just getting them all from Plaisted. You don’t know what you are talking about.

Edwin

You don’t seem to quote any of your sources though.
If you want to hear it from an ex catholic priest go to bereanbeacon.org. He’ll tell you all about it.
Halleys Bible commentary is a pretty well accepted book. Is it just another anti catholic propaganda tool?
You can get the Halley’s at any Christian Bookstore
Or are you of the school of people that say the Holocaust didn’t happen either.
I quoted Plaisted, which you can look up online.
I gave you a website of a Catholic Priest.
I gave book quotes.
What more do you want?
If you maintain that there were only 2000 people killed in the 605 years of the Dark Ages, who doesn’t know what he is talking about?
That averages to 4 to 5 people killed per year.
If that is what you believe, you might as well just say it never happened and it is a figment of the worlds imagination.
Why do you think it was called THE DARK AGES?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Why do you think it was called THE DARK AGES?

Not because of a non existent genocide of 10 or 50 million Protestants.

The Dark Ages. From Wikipedia:
*In historiography, the term Dark Ages or Dark Age most commonly refers to the European Early Middle Ages, the period encompassing (roughly) 476 to 1000.

This concept of a “Dark Age” was created by the Italian scholar Francesco Petrarca (Petrarch) and was originally intended as a sweeping criticism of the character of Late Latin literature. Later historians expanded the term to include not only the lack of Latin literature, but also a lack of contemporary written history and material cultural achievements in general. Popular culture has further expanded on the term as a vehicle to depict the Middle Ages as a time of backwardness, extending its pejorative use and expanding its scope. The rise of archaeology and other specialties in the 20th century has shed much light on the period and offered a more nuanced understanding of its positive developments. Other terms of periodization have come to the fore: Late Antiquity, the Early Middle Ages and the Great Migrations, depending on which aspects of culture are being emphasized.

In Britain and the United States, the phrase “Dark Ages” has occasionally been used by professionals, with severe qualification, as a term of periodization. This usage is intended as non-judgmental and simply means the relative lack of written record, “silent” as much as “dark.”*

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:
the early medieval period of western European history. Specifically, the term refers to the time (476–800) when there was no Roman (or Holy Roman) emperor in the West; or, more generally, to the period between about 500 and 1000, which was marked by frequent warfare and a virtual disappearance of urban life. It is now rarely used by historians because of the value judgment it implies.

Would you please post a reputable site (encyclopedia) which supports your theory for the name?

 

[mlchance]

Or are you of the school of people that say the Holocaust didn’t happen either.

Yeah, that must be it. Someone doesn’t agree with your anti-Catholic propaganda, so he must hate the Jewish people.

I quoted Plaisted, which you can look up online.

On-line I can look up “evidence” that Jesus Christ was an extraterrestrial from Urantia.

What more do you want?

Two things: stop posting lies and admit you’re wrong.

If you maintain that there were only 2000 people killed in the 605 years of the Dark Ages, who doesn’t know what he is talking about?

You and anyone who agrees with you.

Why do you think it was called THE DARK AGES?

Because of Renaissance-era, anti-Catholic (and, to a lesser but still noteworthy extent, anti-Christian) sentiment that sought to falsely portray the Middle Ages as a dark, repressive period in human history.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[mrs_abbott]

So briefly, the Inquistion was a bunch of Catholics executing Protestants after the Reformation?

 

[DeFide]

So briefly, the Inquistion was a bunch of Catholics executing Protestants after the Reformation?

I can see that I provided those informative links on the Inquistions in post #2 to no effect.

sigh.:nope: