Posted on 06/18/2004 9:55:45 AM PDT by xsysmgr
You might read Lateran IV if you're worried about being Jewish LOL. But if Luther was anti-semetic, just one more reason we should all examine what he did and stick to scripture rather than following His example or Rome's.
bump
I don't see it as an exculpatory piece, rather a historical lay out, an educational piece. The skinny on what went on during that period.
"We hates it! We hates it forever!"
I got a big kick out of that. It fully personifies the mob, and I don't mean Luca Brazzi's MOB either.
Who's forgiving the USSR? Or are you equating the RCC with the Soviet Union?
If you are saying that every murder is a crime that cries to heaven, we know that by the story of Cain and Abel. What we considering here is evidence that the Inquisition should not be ranked with the Holocaust as a uniquely evil institution. Do you ever ask yourself: Who told me about the Inquisition? History is a matter of investigation and the investigator must realize that witnesses must be found and their testimony not only taken but evaluated. Suppose sometime in the distant future looks back on the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and that all he really knows is what he has been told, that the United States was an evil country and that this action was typical of them? Not possible. It depends on who has written the history book that this person has read, does not not?
Exterminate: primary meaning listed: "To get rid of by destroying completely; extirpate. See Synonyms at abolish."
The princton notation has a singular purpose of mind pretty much - kill off or utterly destroy. Rome wished to eliminate them - which is why they pushed for the death penalty, invoked it at Rome pretty much simultaneous to the constitution of Lombardy, then began burning heretics at the stake. It isn't merely a matter of what your document says - it's a matter of what it says in context with what your clergy's actions were and their other writings. The document stands easily on it's own. Rome didn't set about merely running heretics off Catholic lands. They rather seized the lands of heretics, tried, convicted and burnt them at the stake. That is, of course, after in many cases the application of Ad Exterpanda where they first solicited confessions from people by doing the likes of pouring molten led down their throats. Whether they could confess after this sort of torture or not, it really didn't matter if they were guilty - did it. Run them off huh.. in a pig's eye. Plain and simple. Rome has claimed it wasn't their fault - it is nothing if not their fault.
Gee, I think I said that earlier myself on another thread.
"We did nothing wrong" - Us, 2000
See, we didn't do nothin wrong... lol
"The traditional majority"opinion is that of enemies of the Catholic Church. Could that not make it suspect? The animosity of English public opinion--and I am talking about elite opinion-- toward Catholicism was so great that as late as 1940 Prime Minister Churchill could not be seen with the Catholic archbishop of Westminster, even though he liked the man and preferred his company to the archbishop of Canterbury, whom he did not like.
Are you taking lessons from the NYT, Havoc?
Nope, just emulating ya'll for an example how not to do things.
Next, we're going to hear Bill Clinton telling us that he really didn't have as much sex with Monica Lewinsky as popularly believed...
Wel, one thing you need to learn is that every case has two sides. Another is that the prosecution is not always right.
You will note that the Muslims were force converted, tried, and eventually expelled. Reading Spanish history, I take the prejudice and oppression of the Jews as logical consequence of what they did with the Moors...not the other way around.
Keep in mind that the Castillians and Aragonese had already conquered most of Muslim Spain by the time of Torquemada. While Granada would last until 1492, the Muslims had occupied about 2/3 of Spain itself...(not including Portugal).
After finally defeating the Moors, they expelled them from the country...and *then* expelled the Jews...
That doesn't make a lot of sense, because ultimately Spain *lost.* This website, The Revolt of the Spanish Netherlands, explains it in detail. Basically Spain wasn't able to fight on three fronts at once (England, where they seriously lost to the English navy; the Netherlands, and fighting the Turks in the Mediterranean as well.) As the article puts it,
In 1606, Albert [of Austria] agreed to treat the north as an independent state which would be called the United Provinces. In March 1609, a twelve year truce was agreed between the Catholic south and the Protestant north. This truce allowed the United Provinces to trade with Spain and the West Indies and the state did not have to guarantee freedom of worship for Catholics. The truce also gave the United Provinces international recognition. This was not a de facto peace treaty as Spain wanted better treatment for the Catholics in the United Provinces. The truce was due to end in 1621 and when it did it was not re-newed and the war re-started, but as part of the Thirty Years War. By 1621, the United Provinces was a rich state while Spain had never recovered from the financial chaos brought on by both Charles V and Philip II. The Treaty of Munster of 1648 confirmed the 1609 cease-fire - by which time Spain was a third-rate European power while the Dutch were one of the richest European states with a professional army to match.
But before the split of the Netherlands, Spain ran a 30-year campaign of terror and brutality in Holland. In the North they were seen as occupiers and ultimately were driven out.
The traditional majority historical record is the combined story of all those abused by you plus some. But, in your mind, in a court of law, we're supposed to throw out the prosecution's entire case because you admit to it but say - well, it wasn't really that bad. History has already long since pronounced judgement.
Tell you what, let's take Charlie Manson and throw out the prosecution's case completely, let Manson write the record as though the whole world was wrong about him and doean't know any of the story. All the information is bad. What kind of story do you suppose we get using only his evidence, his point of view...
Let's let the Nazis throw out the whole story and all the evidence of the extermination of the Jews in WWII. Afterall, the whole world was just a bunch of Bigoted Anti-nazis. What record do you suppose we'd get there. I can tell you because we already have a pretty good view based on the neo-nazis and skinheads of today who will tell you in many cases that it never happened - it's just propaganda dreampt up by people who hate them. Not far off your approach.
What about Saddam? Perhaps we should throw out all the evidence against him and let Saddam and Baghdad Bob write the history.. Yeah, we know that one too - "The US Troops are committing suicide at the city limits.. there are no US troops in the city. We have utterly destrotyed them" This is the nature of propaganda, sir. And this is why we don't take the abuser's word for it.
I would count the 30 Years' War as a dead loss for Spain, Rome, and the Hapsburg empire. The aim was to crush Lutheranism and bring those sections of Germany back into the fold. Militarily, socially, and religiously those aims were not met.
Well, I wasn't expecting that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.