The Horrors of the Inquisition and Its Modern Advocates

Last Days Watchman ^ | Julio Severo

[Elsie]

Some folks read a book and come to a conclusion.

Others read a book to see if it concludes with them.

[daniel1212]

Secondly, I disagree with your concept that history does not support my suggestion that Mohammed was not toughed by the religious wars of his day. Some examples of that are as follows:... Novationists Donatists Paulicians Catharii Bogomils

Yet what you left out was the erroneous beliefs of these as well, though persecuted by an one with multitude erroneous beliefs.

[Elsie]

Yet what you left out was the erroneous beliefs of these as well, though persecuted by an one with multitude erroneous beliefs.

As I was walking across a bridge one day; I saw a man standing outside the railing, about to jump off.

 

So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

 

I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

He said, "Like what?"

 

I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"

He said, "Religious."

 

I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

He said, "Christian."

 

I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

He said, "Protestant."

 

I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

He said, "Baptist!"

 

I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of GOD or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

He said, "Baptist Church of GOD!"

 

I said, "Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of GOD, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of GOD?"

He said,"Reformed Baptist Church of GOD!"

 

I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of GOD, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of GOD, reformation of 1915?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of GOD, reformation of 1915!"

 

I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

-- Emo Phillips

[imardmd1]

Yet what you left out was the erroneous beliefs of these as well, though persecuted by an one with multitude erroneous beliefs.

I think you missed the point.

Under our Constitution in America so far, we do not round up non-Catholics, force them to "recant, "believe." or die; and find all their guidebooks and burn them.

That's the point and that's what the title and main discussion of this article is about.

Inquisition.

[imardmd1]

Correction:

. . . Mohammed was not toughed touched by the religious wars . . .

[imardmd1]

And to your general blanket statement that non-catholics haven't read up on the Inquisition you speak on another topic of which you do not know what you claim.

Probably Foxe's Book of Martyrs doesn't count, right?

[vladimir998]

“Probably Foxe’s Book of Martyrs doesn’t count, right?”

I did earlier say “reputable” books or books by “reputable” historians.

The problem with Foxe’s work was that it was envisioned as propaganda from the beginning. The later editions are deliberately shaped as propaganda pieces. There’s a reason why the book was ordered by the Protestant government - which was persecuting Catholics in exactly the ways Foxe decried persecution in his work - to be purchase and kept on hand in every Protestant church in England. Think about that.

The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica - which was written by a board heavy with historians - said Foxe’s book was filled with lies and distortions. Since then the Encyclopedia Britannica has dramatically tones down its criticism. The wikipedia page has some of the back-and-forth on this issue. No matter what David Loades - a reputable historian - says we are still stuck with Foxe’s unobjective scorn “Mark the apish pageants of these popelings” and “This answer smelleth of forging and crafty packing” when he came across something he didn’t like. In the end, Foxe’s work is a mixed bag to say the least and is filled with nutty things like this heading: “THE LAST THREE HUNDRED YEARS FROM THE LOOSING OUT OF SATAN.”

But there are other issues that someone suggesting Foxe’s book as a reputable source on the inquisition has to deal with:

It’s really not about the inquisition. Foxe was English, and although he covers many things that happened outside of England, he’s writing to influence powerful and influential people IN ENGLAND (hence, he originally wrote in Latin - ironically) and England never really had an inquisition certainly not the kind some people call a “papal inquisition” permitted by the pope and set up expressly with special authority to deal with heresy. That never happened in England.

Thus,

1) Foxe’s book is at best - AT BEST - a mixed bag as a work of history.

2) It was created as propaganda and shaped that way for decades.

3) It really isn’t about the inquisition. It’s an English work and most focused - during the era in which the inquisition existed - on England and England had no papal inquisition (i.e. a regional or national inquisition permitted by the pope expressly for dealing with heresy). Thus, to use Foxe’s book for learning about the inquisition would be like reading old Popular Mechanics issues looking for info on how the Soviets funded their technology. PM might have had an article on a new Soviet submarine but it wouldn’t focus on the funding of it. Instead it would focus on a popularizing of its technological aspects. If you want to learn about the inquisition, read about the inquisition.

4) Even when Foxe’s discusses a “martyr” executed after an inquisition trial (such as Tyndale:http://www.exclassics.com/foxe/foxe185.htm ) it is in no way a history of the inquisition in general or even really a history of Tyndale’s trial by the inquisition. It is a vignette with some historical sources which are of little or no value in understanding that inquisitorial board, its members, proceedings, documents, decisions, judgments, relationship with the Church, relationship with the state, etc.

[Elsie]

The problem with Foxe’s work was that it was envisioned as propaganda from the beginning.

By whom?

[daniel1212]

I know you like to post this often, but in reality it is Rome that denigrates all such as unworthy of the proper name church.
And used to consign them to Hell.

[Elsie]

Perhaps I should re-write it...

---

Two men considering a religious vocation were having a conversation. “What is similar about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders? “ the one asked.

The second replied, “Well, they were both founded by Spaniards — St. Dominic for the Dominicans, and St. Ignatius of Loyola for the Jesuits. They were also both founded to combat heresy — the Dominicans to fight the Albigensians, and the Jesuits to fight the Protestants.”

“What is different about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders?”

“Met any Albigensians lately?”

[daniel1212]

Two men considering a religious vocation were having a conversation. “What is similar about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders? “ the one asked. The second replied, “Well, they were both founded by Spaniards — St. Dominic for the Dominicans, and St. Ignatius of Loyola for the Jesuits. They were also both founded to combat heresy — the Dominicans to fight the Albigensians, and the Jesuits to fight the Protestants.” “What is different about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders?” “Met any Albigensians lately?”

And now the Jesuits are the ones being charged with supporting heretics by the unofficial Internet magisterium!

[Elsie]

Yeah...

...there is a Catholic caucus thread that has them fighting amongst themselves!

[daniel1212]

Consider the commission Congregatio de Auxiliis, to settle a theological controversy regarding divine grace that had arisen between the Dominicans and the Jesuits towards the close of the sixteenth century.

The principal question, giving its name to the whole dispute, concerned the help (auxilia) afforded by grace; the crucial point was the reconciliation of the efficacy of grace with human freedom. Catholic theology holds on the one hand that the efficacious grace given for the performance of an action obtains, infallibly, man's consent and that action takes place; on the other hand that in so acting, man is free. Hence the question: How can these two -the infallible result and liberty- be harmonized?...

Finally, after twenty years of discussion public and private, and eighty-five conferences in the presence of the popes, the question was not solved but an end was put to the disputes. The pope's decree communicated on 5 September 1607 to both Dominicans and Jesuits, allowed each party to defend its own doctrine, enjoined each from censoring or condemning the opposite opinion, and commanded them to await, as loyal sons of the Church, the final decision of the Apostolic See. That decision, however, has not been reached, and both orders, consequently, could maintain their respective theories, just as any other theological opinion is held. The long controversy has aroused considerable feeling, and the pope, aiming at the restoration of peace and charity between the religious orders, forbade by a decree of the Inquisition (1 December 1611) the publication of any book concerning efficacious grace until further action by the Holy See. The prohibition remained in force during the greater part of the seventeenth century, although it was widely circumvented by the means of explicit commentaries of Thomas Aquinas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregatio_de_Auxiliis

[Elsie]

A double minded....

[daniel1212]

Supplemental: https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/39443/what-was-the-death-toll-during-the-inquisition/39458#39458