Who is My Brother?

[Eden_of_Mind]

Well, there’s been quite a bit of activity in my absence. Thank you all for contributing and aiding a poor soul who is vexed by a problem that is not easy to see one’s way through.

When I began to dialogue with Roman Catholics who were kind enough to offer their time to this question, I wanted to keep distractions to a minimum, do my best to listen and not to quibble over details that might be unimportant to the issue I brought forward. Some said that the persecutions did not go on as long as I made out. Alright. I will let that go for the sake of the health of the discussion. Still, longer or shorter, many or less, the deeds were done and must be answered fairly. Then others said that Rome and its assigned officers did not practice torture and were not involved in killing but that this was the province of the State. Alright. This, too, is not important to the central issue as the mere sanctioning and teaching of such methods and practices was still evil enough to trouble those of Christ. Others focused more upon individuals and I reminded them of the central focus… the activity of Rome as a church, not simply a handful of individuals.

After a while, the references to history seemed to grow more spurious (though I certainly believe unintentionally so) and three major arguments surfaced. They are as follows:

1. Not only was Rome not involved in the evil activity directly, Rome wasn’t involved at all. This was all the handiwork of a few individuals (or secular authorities) without the sanction of Rome itself.
2. The supposed evil of the Inquisitions (much less the pre-Inquisitorial period) has been greatly overblown. Their formation was, in fact, a great stride forward for peace and justice in Europe. Many were acquitted because of the fair procedures of the Inquisitors and very few were executed by their findings. They kept the destructive monarchies of that day from greater extremities of avarice and savagery and even helped assuage the wrath of the Protestants against witches.
3. Those executed, whatever else they may have been, were not “separated brethren” but “heretics” and Rome cannot be found guilty of sanctioning the death of “heretics” as this is an ethical act, if you truly understand the gravity of the threat of “heresy.”

These are the three arguments which I will now set myself to examining. I haven’t the room here, so I will have to make another post of it.

Thank you for your patience.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

The first response to be examined is the following:

1. Not only was Rome not involved in the evil activity directly, Rome wasn’t involved at all. This was all the handiwork of a few individuals (or secular authorities) without the sanction of Rome itself.

Now, with such a tiny word limit, I cannot pile up quotation after quotation to dispute this, so I will offer instead a link that might help clarify some of the historical problems with this approach. I use this link for the sake of the readers’ convenience.

jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/Inq/mi.htm

There, among other things, you will find references to important councils and Papal bulls which shaped, defined, commissioned and sanctioned the activity of the Medieval Inquisition.

jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/Inq/ri.htm

This link provides the same in reference to what is called the Roman Inquisition which was formed when the Reformation was in full swing. I’ve skipped the Spanish Inquisition for the purposes of considering only certain periods in question.

I assume that, if councils and bulls were responsible for the Inquisition and its activity for hundreds of years, it is proper to say that Rome itself and not a few individuals was responsible. In responding to the other premises in other posts, I shall uncover more evidence that will shed light back upon this question as well.

Speaking, specifically, to dear Shiann, you agreed that the argument I used previously was valid though it failed ultimately because of the inaccuracy of my second premise. If that second premise were now shown to be sound, will you still accept that the argument itself is sound?

Having shown, I believe, that the church of Rome was responsible and not merely individuals who lacked Rome’s sanction, I shall move on to argument #2…

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

The second argument to be examined is:

The supposed evil of the Inquisitions (much less the pre-Inquisitorial period) has been greatly overblown. Their formation was, in fact, a great stride forward for peace and justice in Europe. Many were acquitted because of the fair procedures of the Inquisitors and very few were executed by their findings. They kept the destructive monarchies of that day from greater extremities of avarice and savagery and even helped assuage the wrath of the Protestants against witches.

This is easily refuted by taking a look at a few resources which offer records from that time. The Acts and Monuments of the Christian Martyrs, written by John Foxe, is a work of eight volumes, most of which are devoted to the time period of 1377 through 1581. Scores of examples of Inquisitorial brutality and the brutality of Rome’s own clergy are to be found therein. Various abridged editions are available for free by touching the following links:

wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/christian_library/vol2/

hrionline.ac.uk/foxe/index.html

Or, you may research the same in the excellent 8 volume history of the Christian Church written by Philip Schaff and available online free at:

ccel.org/s/schaff/history/About.htm

If none of this is suitable to those who do not wish to do this research or just don’t feel they have the time, I offer the following… The now rather infamous Malleus Maleficarum. For those who are unaware of this document, I shall do my best to fairly represent it.

Innocent VIII wrote a papal bull granting or ratifying the powers of two Inquisitors, Henry Kramer and James Sprenger, whom I believe the pope had commissioned for the sake of rooting out all sorts of “heretics” but, in particular, those guilty of witchcraft. He granted them all freedom and license to accomplish their task and forbade any power or authority to restrict them in their work. After proceeding for a year or two, the two Inquisitors authored a book which explored every imaginable aspect of their task, even discussing proper methodology in the torture of the victims, etc. This was meant to be used as a guidebook for other Inquisitors involved in the same efforts and it had a great deal of influence.

For a very brief summary of the Inquisitors’ methods, follow this link:

history.hanover.edu/texts/mm.html

For a complete transcript of the work itself, go here:

malleusmaleficarum.org/mmtoc.html

I think, at this point, an important disclaimer is required. I have no interest in drawing this discussion off into an exploration of “witch hunts” Nor am I suggesting that Rome was alone in much of this as self-professed Protestant Christians were guilty of atrocities against witches also. I do not take any pleasure in the subject and witch trials and the torments that followed them are not the focus here. What is, then?

I bring up the Malleus Maleficarum only for the purpose of demonstrating, in the context of that second argument at the top of the page, that the Inquisition was not quite the rosy picture that has been painted in certain quarters. The outrageous methods of the Inquisitors in this work were not even necessarily exceptional in their time. If extremes like this had roused as much indignation and opposition in the Roman Church as some would rather believe, then the Inquisitors would hardly have been so brash as to systematize and publish their crimes for all to see and copy.

It was Rome that generally defined and sanctioned these practices of torture to elicit confessions and created the problem in the first place.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

The final argument to be addressed is perhaps the most important:

Those executed, whatever else they may have been, were not “separated brethren” but “heretics” and Rome cannot be found guilty of sanctioning the death of “heretics” as this is an ethical act, if you truly understand the gravity of the threat of “heresy.”

The distinct meaning of “separated brethren” as opposed to “heretic” has, I believe, been adequately given (more or less) by mercygate:

We distinguish between a person who innocently holds heretical beliefs but with the best light at his disposal is seeking Truth [separated brethren] and the person who willfully denies the fullness of the faith, rejects the Church and works to corrupt the faith of those who are in the Church [the heretic].

Now, if I may, I will list a few “types” of people who would, I believe, fall under that first category. I am supposing that young children raised by Protestant parents to be Protestants but who do not know that what they’ve been taught is at odds with Christ’s historical Church would belong to the first group (“separated brethren”). I am also supposing that those who were executed without trial or on the basis of false confessions elicited under torture could belong to this group also (and, more likely, were all the while innocent Roman Catholics). Finally, I am assuming that those men or women who conscientiously recanted their heresies but were slain in spite of their recantations would be innocent (either faithful Roman Catholics or, at worst, “separated brethren”).

I believe that the links I’ve already provided demonstrate that quite a few such cases were known to have been killed with Rome’s blessing. Regarding the first group, concerning children, the Lollards are a well known historical example. They were much reviled and slaughtered indiscriminately, men, women, children and even infants. Their parents, when summoned to appear before the authorities, were often not allowed to understand those charges made against them so that they were ignorant of where and how they had erred. There were also children who were put to death merely because they were related to a heretic or, worse, merely because their parents owned an unauthorized translation or were in possession of Luther’s writing, for instance.

Regarding the second group, concerning false confessions made under torture, the Malleus Maleficarum teaches precisely that the Inquisitor ought to make every attempt to secure such confessions (even by the use of lies).

Regarding the third group, those killed even after they’ve properly recanted, Thomas Cranmer is a very famous example of this. He willfully signed a letter of recantation and then was burned all the same… and, once again, the Malleus Maleficarum makes it clear that such things were not uncommon.

Now, in answering these questions, another objection returns to the surface. Weren’t these examples of the death’s of “separated brethren” isolated ones and not authorized by Rome? I offer the following reasons why it does not seem that this is so…

First, the Malleus Maleficarum did not describe the opinions of the few but was published openly and with the sanction of the Church and spread wide and taught for some time. The practices it advocated were not considered too extreme. Second, it was precisely both council decrees and Papal bulls which advocated the use of torture to bring about confession (or perhaps recantation) and it was this method which made it inevitable that the innocent would be found guilty. It would be rather difficult to argue that the Roman authorities of the time were too dull-witted to realize this. The point was that the death of a few innocents did not matter so much.

In a famous incident, in 1210AD, when Pope Innocent III unleashed “orders of fire and sword” against heretics throughout Europe, 450 “heretics” were captured, but many of them claimed to be good Catholics. Arnaud-Armaury, the Cistercian Abbot of Citeaux, the Papal Legate, was asked by the military commander of the
crusade, one Simon of Montfort, Earl of Leicester, how to distinguish between true Catholics and pretending Albigensians. The Abbot’s reply, supposedly recorded by a monk who was present, was “Neca ecos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet” (“Kill them all. God will know His own.”). And, that is precisely what they did.

The point of this story (published only 40 years after it took place by a sympathetic fellow Cistercian) is simply that the innocent most certainly were tortured and/or murdered alongside heretics and it was the Roman church‘s prescribed purpose and sanctioned methods which allowed this. Ergo, Papal bulls and church councils prescribed the use of methods which not only could not fail to but clearly did result in the death of innocents, both true Roman Catholics and “separated brethren.”

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

If the three major arguments given thus far in response to my initial post have, as I imagine, ultimately fallen short at least in themselves of providing an adequate resolution in favor of Rome’s innocence concerning the blood of innocents, then what conclusion ought to be drawn?

I think a Scriptural passage very clear and to the point, to add to that already given, can be taken from John 16:2-3. Speaking to His disciples, His brethren, Christ explains the coming persecutions:

Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. And they will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me.

It is, at the very least, clear that Christ’s message is that there will be those who kill His brethren, His people, and think in doing so that they have offered some service to GOD. However, of such who are killers of those purchased by the blood of Christ, He declares, “they have not known the Father, nor me.”

I do believe that the Scriptures are clear that those who kill the brethren, even out of what they believe to be righteous motives in service to GOD, are nevertheless among those who do not know Christ nor the Father. Can Christ’s true Church kill Christ’s people, even ignorantly supposing this to be righteous? The Scriptures say, “No.”

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

I want to thank you all for sticking with me in this and doing all you can to hlep me to understand the Church’s stance on these issues. I am entirely willing to hear any and all responses to what I’ve posted recently. I expect many of you will have further points to make and I want to hear them.

I will weigh them all carefully as I have tried to do so far. I do hope I have at least shown that I am sincerely interested in listening to and engaging fairly the ideas that I’ve been graciously offered.

I want to thank CorneliusBottom for joining the discussion. It was helpful to hear the perspective of another Protestant who is, perhaps, a little less clumsy than I have been. Ah, well. I’m trying to understand these important subjects. I hope that he returns. Perhaps he can point out any errors in my latest reasoning if I have missed something. He sounds like a fair person (i.e., he probably isn’t a disciple of Dave Hunt… heh, heh).

 

[Eden]

Let’s see… I’ll get into your links in-depth one by one. I just wanted to point out that your first two links go to a site written by J. Michael Gainor. Here is another one of his works:

jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/MDPC/LA/LA.htm

The above article accuses the Pope of being responsible for the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. :whacky:

J. Michael Gainor’s article is classic Jack Chick. Not a good start for credibility.

catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p1.asp

 

[Kristina_P]

Hrm. I see that my earlier arguments didn’t work out so well, which isn’t that surprising to me. I’ll try a new tack and play a little Devil’s Advocate. Let’s assume that what you’ve said so far is true and that various representatives of the Catholic Church were involved in serious misconduct and were guilty of hating their brothers.

1. What does the parable of the wheat and the tares mean to you?
2. Do you think that the Catholic Church at large, meaning all of Her clergy and members, was guilty of hating Her brothers? Do you not think that the main aim of most of her members was charity? Do you believe that in order to be recognized as a member of Christ’s body, I can never, ever be guilty of failing to show perfect love?
3. What, if anything, does the Spanish Inquisition have to do with infallibility, which pertains not to practice or discipline but to the teaching authority of the Church?

 

[Eden]

Eden of Mind:

There, among other things, you will find references to important councils and Papal bulls which shaped, defined, commissioned and sanctioned the activity of the Medieval Inquisition.

I’m not sure to which post you are referring when you set out to show that Rome was involved in the Inquisiton. Of course Rome was involved in the formation of the Inquisition!

"The Catholic Church’s response to this problem was the Inquisition, first instituted by Pope Lucius III in 1184. It was born out of a need to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges."

**“During the 13th century the Inquisition became much more formalized in its methods and practices. Highly trained Dominicans answerable to the Pope took over the institution, creating courts that represented the best legal practices in Europe. As royal authority grew during the 14th century and beyond, control over the Inquisition slipped out of papal hands and into those of kings. Instead of one Inquisition there were now many.” **

nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp

I’m having a hard time understanding the significance of your point #1. You stated before that heresy is condemned in the Bible. You also asked why the Church was unable to discern the difference between a Protestant or Muslim? You wondered why there was not a “test”.

In fact you stated that clearly the Church should have set up a test or inquiry (i.e. Inquisition) to determine who was a heretic and who was not at a time when heresy was a grave threat to the faith and to the salvation of souls. So, you felt that an Inquisition was needed under the circumstances in which the Church and especially medieval France, Spain and Germany found themselves.

You state, “I believe, that the church of Rome was responsible and not merely individuals who lacked Rome’s sanction.”

Responsible for creating a court to judge whether someone was a heretic or not? Yes. So? Your other points look valid but I don’t see why the creation of the Inquisition by the Pope is in and of itself of concern. Was it an attempt to suggest that the abuses within the Inquisition were a Pope-sanctioned, Church-wide problem?

Pope Lucius III instituted the Inquisition. The Inquisition was carried out mainly in France, Spain and Germany. The Inquisition never operated in England, Scandinavia, northern Europe, or eastern Europe. Nor was it in Ireland or Scotland. This is significant, for though the medieval Catholic Church flourished in these areas, the Inquisition didn’t exist there. Catholic medievalism is not synonymous with courts of orthodoxy. (Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating)

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Eden:

Let’s see… I’ll get into your links in-depth one by one. I just wanted to point out that your first two links go to a site written by J. Michael Gainor. Here is another one of his works:

jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/MDPC/LA/LA.htm

The above article accuses the Pope of being responsible for the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

I understand and, if the articles I sent everyone to were established on the back of his own historical work, then I wouldn’t have troubled anyone about him. Yes, Mr. Gainor himself is strange… and I certainly don’t agree with his strange theories. Nevertheless, he quotes straightforward encyclopedia articles and a few useful resources (like Schaff and even the Catholic Encyclopedia).

He’s apparently a conspiracy theorist but I was hard pressed to find any other website with such a diverse listing of concise and useful quotations that would be easily available to all. The articles I saw seemed to fit the bill and represent the usual consensus on the facts of the case… even if they don’t come from specialized historical scholarship.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Eden:

I’m not sure to which post you are referring when you set out to show that Rome was involved in the Inquisiton. Of course Rome was involved in the formation of the Inquisition!

I’m sorry this wasn’t clear but I was answering three major arguments I’ve received to my initial post from different Roman Catholics who have participated in this discussion. This was not one of your responses to my post because you’ve never denied this. However, others have. I’m simply treating everyone’s thoughts with respectful attention.

nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp

I don’t see how statements such as the following: “Despite popular myth, the Inquisition did not burn heretics” could be true when I’ve already provided a link where one can read of Pope Innocent VIII who issued a bull in which Inquisitors had the power to torture and take the lives of others. One might bandy about with words and suggest that this sort of killing never took the form of “burning” but that misses the whole point, really.

Again, statements such as the following: "Elsewhere, particularly in Germany, secular or religious courts burned witches by the thousands do not leave us with a clear picture. Were these “religious courts” Roman Catholic? Mustn’t they have been as the Protestants did not have “religious courts” at the time?

I think it is important to ask, not whether Rome was controling every movement of the Inquisition nor whether the State or Rome carried out the sentences. The question to ask is, when such things happen within the sight, even under the nose, of Rome, did Rome object or watch with satisfaction? Did Rome sanction these things?

You stated before that heresy is condemned in the Bible. You also asked why the Church was unable to discern the difference between a Protestant or Muslim? You wondered why there was not a “test”

I never said it like this. I was probably not very clear. You mentioned that the real abuses of power arose from the State which killed masses of people who were believed to be Jews and Muslims who claimed to be Christians but secretly practiced their own religions. I thought this sort of explanation for the deaths of quite a few people was… a bit confused. It were as though you thought people of that day too stupid to tell the difference when an easy test was at hand (and which had been used in history before for such things). I never mentioned the Roman church because I thought you were talking about secular powers.

You state, “I believe, that the church of Rome was responsible and not merely individuals who lacked Rome’s sanction.”

Responsible for creating a court to judge whether someone was a heretic or not? Yes. So? Your other points look valid but I don’t see why the creation of the Inquisition by the Pope is in and of itself of concern. Was it an attempt to suggest that the abuses within the Inquisition were a Pope-sanctioned, Church-wide problem?

Pope Lucius III instituted the Inquisition. The Inquisition was carried out mainly in France, Spain and Germany. The Inquisition never operated in England, Scandinavia, northern Europe, or eastern Europe. Nor was it in Ireland or Scotland. This is significant, for though the medieval Catholic Church flourished in these areas, the Inquisition didn’t exist there. Catholic medievalism is not synonymous with courts of orthodoxy. (Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating)

All of this I know. Yet this avoids the atrocities that occurred through the methods of the Inquisition in often fabricating a verdict by the confessions of tortured victims, by lies, by deception and, ultimately, having the said “heretic” finally killed by the State or by their own hand. Rome, the facts of history seem to say, sanctioned all of this, including the torture and deaths of these “heretics.”

Can anyone who disagrees provide a solid case for Rome’s challenge to these practices? That would be a sounder basis for disagreement. I know, however, of no such evidence (which doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, of course). Did Rome, for instance, cry out against the abuses of use of torture or was it Rome who prescribed this? Did Rome challenge the burning of people who confessed under torture or did Rome support this? Did Rome argue against the use of “capital punishment” against children (such as those of the Lollards), against those who had recanted, against a number of people who never had a trial or were accused on drubbed up charges?

Rome did not speak up, it seems, because Rome saw these actions as necessary and important and moral.

 

[Eden]

I am familiar with the Malleus Maleficarum. The penalties described are practically medieval. Oh wait. They *were *medieval.


Your disagree with me that the Inquisition released most of the accused and dispute that the numbers are overblown by citing The Acts and Monuments of the Christian Martyrs by John Foxe. Foxe’s work was for centuries standard reading for devout Protestants, alongside the Bible and John Bunyan. Foxe was an Elizabethan who detailed the numerous stories of Protestant martyrs, especially during the reign of Queen Mary. Ironically, the book was essentially used as an indictment of the Church when Mary’s persecution of Protestants had nothing to do with the Inquisition. The Inquisition did not exist in England. The other problem with his book is the fact that it leaves out the Protestant Inquisition.

You say that I am exaggerating the amount of accused who were released and disagree that the numbers of those who died has been overblown:

"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)

As far as the abuses of the Spanish Inquisition are concerned, the Catholic Church is not responsible for them. Those abuses were committed, with a few exceptions, by the civil power, and they were condemned by Popes Leo X, Paul III, Paul IV, and Sixtus IV who reigned during that period of history."

davidmacd.com/catholic/inquisition.htm#How%20many%20people%20were%20killed%20in%20the%20Inquisition

The Catholic Church, while divinely protected from error in defining matters of faith and morals, does not claim to be immune from acts of abuse of power on the part of some of her children, even in high places. Such an abuse on the part of officials of the Church caused Pope Leo X to excommunicate the Catholic tribunal at Toledo, and to have the witnesses who appeared before its inquisitorial trial arrested for perjury. This was during Spanish Inquisition days. But such an abuse of power was rare, as the spirit of charity dominated those historic inquiries regarding heresy. Persons called before the inquisitors who repented were released after promising to mend their ways and to do the penances enjoined, such as fasting, wearing a special penitential garb for a time, and imprisonment, which very often was in the houses of the penitents themselves. Torturing and burning were no part of the solemn religious ceremony called the Auto-da-Fe, where the penitents abjured their errors and made public recantation, by making an Act of Faith.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Eden:

I am familiar with the Malleus Maleficarum. The penalties described are practically medieval. Oh wait. They *were *medieval.


Your disagree with me that the Inquisition released most of the accused and dispute that the numbers are overblown by citing The Acts and Monuments of the Christian Martyrs by John Foxe. Foxe’s work was for centuries standard reading for devout Protestants, alongside the Bible and John Bunyan. Foxe was an Elizabethan who detailed the numerous stories of Protestant martyrs, especially during the reign of Queen Mary. Ironically, the book was essentially used as an indictment of the Church when Mary’s persecution of Protestants had nothing to do with the Inquisition. The Inquisition did not exist in England.

Yes, this is true… I am familiar with this and if I ever said that the Inquisition was in England, then I apologize. I only used Foxe as a resource because I believe that the practices of Mary and others were not condemned but applauded by Rome and certainly influenced by the Inquisitions in other countries. I do not mean to mislead by implying that the Inquisition was, technically, a reality in England. It was merely Roman Catholic cruelty that was a reality in England (as well as Protestant cruelty, I agree). The question is whether this was sanctioned by Rome. We must not forget that the atrocities revealed in Foxe’s research and findings were not exactly unknown to the Roman church.

You seem to answer this below:

"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)

Yes, these are fairly common numbers given on Roman Catholic websites like the one you quoted from. They are a little low and based on standards that are not the fairest. Nevertheless, even if I and so many other historians were in error, even if these conservative estimates were accepted, we are still talking about 2000 people in 169 years in what is, relatively, perhaps the least violent of the Inquisitions.

As far as the abuses of the Spanish Inquisition are concerned, the Catholic Church is not responsible for them. Those abuses were committed, with a few exceptions, by the civil power, and they were condemned by Popes Leo X, Paul III, Paul IV, and Sixtus IV who reigned during that period of history."

You mean the same Leo X who challenged Luther’s statement that burning heretics was not according to the Spirit, in his Papal bull? Are many of these not the same Popes who advocated the use of torture on heretics to procure confessions? I think that the resources I’ve offered provide a more substantial account compared to this sort of overly simplistic outline.

The Catholic Church, while divinely protected from error in defining matters of faith and morals, does not claim to be immune from acts of abuse of power on the part of some of her children, even in high places.

Agreed. That isn’t the issue here, of course. The issue is whether Rome itself sanctioned the use of torture to procure confessions and whether Rome sanctioned corrupt measures and trials and other such things which resulted in the deaths of innocents or separated brethren?

Why is it that, instead of answering this simple question, I must continually go round about with you, Eden, on the subject of whether Rome really killed such people itself or whether Rome sanctioned the death of far fewer people than I have suggested. That sounds as though you are arguing, not about whether Rome was guilty of such things as I am asking of but just that Rome is not quite so guilty as I’m making out?

But such an abuse of power was rare, as the spirit of charity dominated those historic inquiries regarding heresy.

I appreciate the resources you’ve suggested and I will be certain to read them. I would like to look into the arguments of historians who put forward this sort of claim. Perhaps it is utterly true after all and so many have been duped. That would not be the first time. Nevertheless, please forgive my skepticism. It is strange to me to hear someone suggesting that the Inquisition–not at certain times or places but always–was “dominated” by a “spirit of charity.” I am surprised, then, that the history rose up around it which we have today. I am surprised that so many revolted against its cruelties.

Nevertheless, I want very much to know if this is actually the case.

 

[CorneliusBottom]

Mickey:

Wow! You sound exactly like Eden of Mind. Are you related? Are you one in the same person? You also refuse to name your church just like Eden of Mind. Your reasoning is also circular just like Eden of Mind and Van Til.

Honestly, Mickey, I don’t know how to respond to that. Maybe you think we called Jack Chick to plan our day out, and he suggested we stir up trouble at catholic.com! Of course, Chick would probably not associate with anyone who reasons in a circle like Van Til. That’s just too… Presbyterian. Mickey, I would like you to show me examples of my circular reasoning, if you don’t mind, since I really don’t see it in anything I’ve written here. As for the idea that I’m really Mr. Mind in disguise, I’m sure the forum administrators can peep at our IP addresses and put your conspiratorial worries to rest.

You mention wanting to know my own commitments, but I notice that Eden of Mind is very concerned not to get the discussion off on a tangent but to keep things well-focused. Who am I to derail his train?

Mickey:

I find it interesting that you both come here onto a Catholic forum proposing accusations, (albeit polite accusations), that the Catholic Church is not Christ’s true Church.

Excuse me, sir, but if you review my posts, I think you’ll see that I did no such thing. I have not proposed any accusations at all. I have simply paraphrased Eden of Mind’s posts, in an attempt to distill the discussion a bit, and reasoned alongside the points already raised.

Mickey:

Yet neither of you will divulge which church you belong to and which church you believe to be the one true church. Let us start with a level playing field. You know that we are Catholic and you know what we believe. It would assist the dialogue if we knew which belief system you were borne into.

Well, I actually had a post ready to go that would make my own commitments quite clearly defined for you, but after seeing Eden of Mind’s attempt to keep us on the straight-and-narrow (so to speak), I’m now disinclined to do so. Your final sentence, however, I will answer. I was baptized as an infant in the Roman Catholic Church. You may have figured out that I am not, now, a Roman Catholic.

The reality is that these questions will not add to the discussion before us, because they are, truly, irrelevant to it. My church membership has no bearing on whether Roman Catholicism is the true Church (and it’s a good thing for both of us, too)! The question asked here is whether Rome fails her own test for being the Church (that is, whether she bears the marks of the True Church).

Mickey:

Please don’t say that it is irrelevent to the dialogue. If you are going to propose thinly veiled accusations at the Catholic Church, it is only fair to know where you are coming from.

You have a strange sense of fairness, Mickey. Once again, I leveled no accusations at all.

Mickey:

I have been praying for Eden of Mind, and I will pray for you; that you may be released from this deception that has burrowed itself in your heart.

I wonder if you would be offended if I offer to pray for your own infirmity.

Mickey:

Oh and by the way, doctrine cannot sin–people do!

You’re quite fond of saying that. Of course, unless you want to say that your entire Church is nothing but “doctrine,” the statement is completely irrelevant.

mercygate:

One might deny that heresy justifies capital punishment if one wishes to deny that the death of souls is serious. To my understanding, Eden of Mind did not deny the seriousness of the willful destruction of souls.

Well, mercygate, perhaps I was mistaken. I don’t want to speak on someone else’s behalf.

mercygate:

I was not arguing that it was either wrong headed or mistaken. I maintain that it doesn’t work and all things considered, unless there is immediate danger, if you do NOT kill someone, you are usually doing a better thing than if you DO kill somone – as the late Pope John Paul emphasized in all of his teaching on capital punishment.

mercygate:

We now judge capital punishment for heresy to be wrong-headed.

Assuming you meant the top statement when you said the bottom one, the question is rescinded.

mercygate:

If only heretics were executed, that means they were not “brothers” – nor, I presume, did they consider themselves to be brothers, or they would not have denied the faith.

I think you would be hard-pressed to show that Thomas Cranmer fits your category.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

I think it is especially important to look at accounts so close to that time period, like those we have in the work of John Foxe. England did not find herself suddenly more sadistic than anyone had ever been before. I’d wager that it wasn’t a “charitable” Inquisitorial standard that emboldened Mary to slaughter in the name of her faith.

The Malleus Maleficarum was, as I argued, a standard work at the end of the 15th century. Things would only grow worse with time and Rome contributed. The issues are these:

1. Did Rome sanction the use of torture to procure confessions? If so, then innocent people were slaughtered… as is the case in the outline of Inquisitorial methods in the Maleficarum.
2. Did Rome sanction the death of those who had already recanted, as the Maleficarum would seem to suggest?
3. Did Rome sanction the activities of those who acted in favor of Roman Catholic faith (like “Bloody” Mary) even if these were not areas of Inquisitorial activity?
4. Did Rome advocate the use of methods which were in extreme danger of securing the deaths of innocent people? In other words, did Rome advocate the view that a person was innocent until proven guilty (which is a cardinal aspect of our justice system precisely to avoid the punishment of innocent people)? It seems to me, from what I have gathered, that Rome encouraged or prescribed a “guilty until proven innocent” approach in certain cases.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Well, I do think that I’m sounding a bit like a broken record and I don’t think that’s necessary. Most on this forum will have seen clearly enough my concerns and, if they wish to offer helpful contributtions, as always, I will return and give each one of them a patient devotion.

As for me, I’ve got plenty of study ahead of me on this subject for which I must strive to be as balanced as possible. I am, obviously, the sole Protestant settled in the heart of this discussion and so I am virtually offering “the other side” of history, so to speak, on my own. This may help explain my deep interest in fairly testing some of the answers given here by the Roman Catholics who took time to respond. I apologize to any Protestant (especially a better informed one) who may happen by (like CorneliusBottom, perhaps) if I seem not to be a very good representative of their side of things.

The identity of Christ’s Church is extremely serious and her integrity must be upheld according to the standard of Christ.

Eden, I encourage you to respond to that information and the posts I offered. I’d like to hear more of your critiques. Shiann, wherever you are, I’d welcome anything you would like to add. May all others whom I did not get to interact with so very much not feel neglected. It was unintentional if I missed something important in your post. I was a bit stretched trying to ponder and answer so much at once.

May the LORD bless you all and reveal Himself magnificently to you, according to His will and for the glory of His precious name.

 

[Eden]

This (neutral source) Wikipedia entry about the Malleus Maleficarum is very eye-opening:

The Malleus Maleficarum (“The Hammer of Witches” or the “Hexenhammer”) is considered by many to be the classic Roman Catholic text on witchcraft, although it was in fact condemned by the Inquisition in 1490, and never officially used by the Catholic Church. First published in 1487, the book is notorious for its use in the witchhunt craze of the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries.

And

The book itself was not specifically ordered by the Roman Catholic Church. The writers attached a letter of approbation from the University of Cologne ostensibly signed by four teachers there. However this letter was a forgery. The University had not approved the book, and had in fact condemned it for the use of unethical legal procedures, and because its demonology was not consistent with Catholic doctrine. Kramer was condemned by the Inquisition in 1490, but the book continued in publication, buoyed by the growing popular hunger for remedies against witchcraft.

More: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Maleficarum

 

[Church_Militant]

Eden of Mind:

The identity of Christ’s Church is extremely serious and her integrity must be upheld according to the standard of Christ.

If this is true then there is no such thing here on Earth since all…every single version and denomination (and non-denom) has failed in this capacity.

Furthermore “Foxe’s Book of (ahem) Martyrs” is hideously one sided and biased. I’ve read it, but I’ve also read the accounts of the Catholics who have suffered as badly or worse at that miserable time in history.

I think this is a huge waste of time as “Eden of Mind” simply refuses to accept any evidence except his own or that which agrees with his. This is fruitless…and just like trying to prove to someone that you’re a good person. You can’t. Because every time you cite your evidence…they simply raise the bar again and say…“it’s not enough”.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Eden:

This (neutral source) Wikipedia entry about the Malleus Maleficarum is very eye-opening:

The Malleus Maleficarum (“The Hammer of Witches” or the “Hexenhammer”) is considered by many to be the classic Roman Catholic text on witchcraft, although it was in fact condemned by the Inquisition in 1490, and never officially used by the Catholic Church. First published in 1487, the book is notorious for its use in the witchhunt craze of the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries.

And

The book itself was not specifically ordered by the Roman Catholic Church. The writers attached a letter of approbation from the University of Cologne ostensibly signed by four teachers there. However this letter was a forgery. The University had not approved the book, and had in fact condemned it for the use of unethical legal procedures, and because its demonology was not consistent with Catholic doctrine. Kramer was condemned by the Inquisition in 1490, but the book continued in publication, buoyed by the growing popular hunger for remedies against witchcraft.

More: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Maleficarum

Sigh. I’m sorry, Eden. I know I’ve posted that I did not wish to sound like a broken record but this bit of information (which could be helpful, depending upon its reliability) is just a bit too important to pass in complete silence and I’ve not touched upon it before.

I’ll quote from the online Catholic Encyclopedia:

Probably the most disastrous episode was the publication a year or two later, by the same inquisitors, of the book “Malleus Maleficarum” (the hammer of witches). This work is divided into three parts, the first two of which deal with the reality of witchcraft as established by the Bible, etc., as well as its nature and horrors and the manner of dealing with it, while the third lays down practical rules for procedure whether the trial be conducted in an ecclesiastical or a secular court. There can be no doubt that the book, owing to its reproduction by the printing press, exercised great influence. It contained, indeed, nothing that was new.

I’m not sure if you know this but Wikipedia is not technically a valid resource of information because its entries are written (and can be edited or rewritten entirely).by anyone who happens along on the internet. I could, for instance, go in there right now and rewrite everything that you just quoted (and who knows who wrote what you quoted).

I’m not saying that everything here is wrong… but I’d check on it elsewhere. I’m going to do that myself. It seems strange that the work of someone condemned by the Inquisition would not be utterly censored… yet it was used later, according to the Wikipedia article, and remained popular. If it truly contained “nothing new,” as the Catholic Encyclopedia says, then does it represent common opinions and practices that had prevailed around the time of and before its publication? And, if so, did Rome sanction such things before but not by that time? And why condemn it, later?

These are things I want to look into. Thank you for what could turn out to be very helpful information.

 

[Eden]

Eden of Mind:

I think it is especially important to look at accounts so close to that time period, like those we have in the work of John Foxe. England did not find herself suddenly more sadistic than anyone had ever been before. I’d wager that it wasn’t a “charitable” Inquisitorial standard that emboldened Mary to slaughter in the name of her faith.

The Malleus Maleficarum was, as I argued, a standard work at the end of the 15th century. Things would only grow worse with time and Rome contributed. The issues are these:

1. Did Rome sanction the use of torture to procure confessions? If so, then innocent people were slaughtered… as is the case in the outline of Inquisitorial methods in the Maleficarum.
2. Did Rome sanction the death of those who had already recanted, as the Maleficarum would seem to suggest?
3. Did Rome sanction the activities of those who acted in favor of Roman Catholic faith (like “Bloody” Mary) even if these were not areas of Inquisitorial activity?
4. Did Rome advocate the use of methods which were in extreme danger of securing the deaths of innocent people? In other words, did Rome advocate the view that a person was innocent until proven guilty (which is a cardinal aspect of our justice system precisely to avoid the punishment of innocent people)? It seems to me, from what I have gathered, that Rome encouraged or prescribed a “guilty until proven innocent” approach in certain cases.

In light of the fact that I feel DUPED by certain anti-Catholic sites into believing that the Malleus Maleficarum was ordered, approved and used by the Church when in fact the thing was CONDEMNED by the Church, I have to wonder how much more I am accepting as “fact” from anti-Catholic sites that is not true.

Check out this site too: summerlands.com/crossroads/remembrance/_remembrance/malleus_maleficarum.htm

Did the Church sanction the atrocities done by the Catholic Queen Mary? Not that I am aware of. It was always my understanding that she acted on her own in imitation of her Protestant father’s bloody reign.

I *do *know that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ. There is not a doubt in my mind about that. I’ll pray for you on your journey for truth. I just prefer now to wash my hands of these poisonous lies about the Church.

I encourage you to continue to explore the Church’s teachings and history. As far as Medieval history is concerned, I would balance your readings by examining the Catholic side of the story and compare with the sites such as one with the “Pope and Lincoln assassination” story. Here is a start:

hometown.aol.com/philvaz/articles/num25.htm

members.aol.com/philvaz/articles/num37.htm

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ247.HTM

catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0027.html

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

Blech! I feel so dirty and violated! (That’s not directed at you Eden of Mind. It’s directed at those hideous anti-Catholic sites.)