Posted on 03/16/2006 5:51:01 AM PST by NYer
In order to establish a pattern of "papish" abuses before the widespread massacres of nuns and priests, your source relies on identifying Albigensians as Reformed Christians, since the Catholic Church did use violence to suppress the Albigensian movement.
This is quite a desperate tactic, very surprising to me, since the Albigensians' beliefs are so anti-Christian that they are not even referred to as a heresy by the Catholic Church, but an apostasy. The closest comparison the Albigensians have to a modern cult is that of Wahabbism, but even that does not approach the fanatical zealotry of the Albi, who commended people starving themselves to death as the only sure way of earning salvation.
Nonetheless, the Catholic Church was concerned that the suppression of such heresies and apostasies by secular authorities, falsely claiming clerical authority, was dangerous to Christianity. Attempts at selectively blessing certain kings (Holy Roman Emporers, such as Charlemagne) while excluding their rivals was only marginally successful, and bred disloyalty among those kings who would not be so blessed. Further, Kings regularly claimed "divine right," in defiance of the Church's lack of blessing.
Hence, the Inquisition was founded. Unfortunately, Protestant sources such as yours conflate the Inquisition with precisely the barbaric practices it was intended to prevent.
The Inquisition was charged with a difficult task; it represented the Church, so it had to be a sense of forgiveness, redemption, and charity; yet it also had to be effective at suppressing revolt, to maintain credibility with the kings and to fulfill its basic functions.
Whereas secular authorities imprisoned and killed with very little evidence, often on assertions they were "defending the faith," the Inquisition looked to the bible for rules of conducting a trial, introducing such notions as corroborative evidence, concurrence of witnesses, etc. It also found that torture was widely used by kings as a means of terrifying their population, rather than intelligence-gathering. Therefore, sustained torture, although very common among Protestant movements, even in the American colonies was forbidden; Inquisitors realized if an accused terrorist didn't talk in the first fifteen minutes, he wasn't going to talk; they successfully implemented practices recognizing this.
Tragedies such as Bartholomew's Massacre (wildly exaggerated in many sources) demonstrate not the sadism of the Inquisition, but that a desperate public found the Catholic Church's official actions wholly inadequate, and took matters into their own hands.
Ah, the tragedies of misunderstood dyslexia.
(No, no, no, Mr. Collins, the bread becomes GOD!)
Are you suggesting that the corruption behavior of a civil authority in 1538 somehow justifies the slaughter of thousands of nuns by another corrupt civil authority a century later? As you point out, the dog was not hung under Church law, since church law doesn't apply to dogs. He was hung under civil law.
>> Thankfully, Christianity was able to seperate politics from theology (not morality from theology). America is the result of this division and has prospered from it. <<
America was an attempt to see if religious distinctions could be brushed under the rug and the religious values held in common could alone be sufficient for maintaining a state. We'll see how long it works for. So far, in the 5,000-year history of Yahvistic governance, America's secularism has survived for about 200 years. Fortunately, the truly brilliant concept behind America's governance isn't merely ecumenism, but self-correction. As Europe's radical-secular ecumenism falters, we'll see if ours is made more resilient by our self-corrective mechanisms.
>> introducing such notions as corroborative evidence <<
You might ask, "Where does the bible establish such legal principles as corroborative evidence?" In the book of Daniel, there is a passage of three men who conspire and rape a young woman of great virtue. Fearing consequences, they conspire to accuse HER of trying to seduce THEM. Alone to face three accusers, Mosaic law seems certain to condemn the woman.
Using interrogation tactics that seem straight from "Law and Order," Daniel is able to establish to establish the falseness of their testimony, nullify the authority of their claims, vindicate the woman, and prosecute the offenders.
Protestants accept most of the Book of Daniel as cannonical and authoritative. But for some strange reason, this story seems to have been very threatening to the "reformers," who frequently denounced it. I wonder why.
Dear aimhigh. I re-read this article just to make sure my mind wan't playing tricks on me, and sure enough: it isn't about the Inquisition. The Inquisition is not mentioned, not even once, nor is it alluded to.
Would you care to list things that DO appear in this article which you think are factually untrue?
Actually, as I read this carefully, it is a perfect example of the wicked defamation of the Body of Christ practiced by so-called "reformers."
While I am unfamiliar with Bremenboy's case, his explanation of it yields sufficient detail to exonerate the Church from this wicked deed. He plainly notes that the man was NOT excommunicated for his offense. This plainly indicates that the man was the victim of the State, not the Church.
It is standard operation procedure for all enemies of Christianity to blame Christianity for the actions of civil leaders. We see that today in the Middle East, where Catholic Priests in retaliation for President Bush and agnostic and Lutheran cartoonists. In the "reformation," and, on this thread, today, brutal massacres of nuns and priests were justified because of the actions of kings.
The irony is that in 1538, the King of England was none other than Henry VIII. By this time, King Henry, one of the history's most notoriously violent, anti-Catholic maniacs, had already divorced his first wife and MURDERED his 2nd, and COMMITTED FULL APOSTASY by proclaiming himself de-facto Pope over England.
Yet this bizarre little tale of Mr. Collins, so insignificant among the horrors of his day, is remembered to this day...
Face it, the Church is wrong no matter what, just ask half the posters on this thread.
Oh, how these people hate authentic Christianity in favor of their own perversions. 'Tis no wonder our society is in the shape it's in.
More revisionism? Where's your proof of this claim?
Amen.
Yeah, and Coulter is trying to rewrite the McCarthy era and conservative pundits are trying to rewrite the eighties rather than recognize the official line that it was the decade of greed.
I find it's pretty common today as well.
No. I meant organized, apparently I didn't explain myself clearly enough. England could have an establishment church because there was an organized church. Secularism is seen as an official ideology of the US government and gets away with it BECAUSE there is no Church of Secular Humanism. If there were, conservatives could point out that the establishment is endorsing that church. But because its merely an ideology, liberals honestly feel that they have the right to impose their ideology on all public and some private institutions. Unitarianism doesn't count.
Which part of the Apocrypha are you looking at? None of this appears in my Bible. That said, corraborative evidence can be found elsewhere in the Bible.
"One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." Deuteronomy 19:15
If one was able to prove that witnesses were lying, the penalties for false accusation were stiff:
"If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime, the two men involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the LORD before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother.You must purge the evil from among you." Deutoronomy 19:16-19
So, according to Mosaic law, there should have been an investigation into the testimony anyway and those three men should have been put to death.
I think you meant to say, the other side of the issue as you only posted one side, not both.
Thankfully, Christianity was able to seperate politics from theology (not morality from theology). America is the result of this division and has prospered from it.
It prospered when men thought that they should serve God and the state should serve men, now too many people believe that both God and men should serve the state. "Ask not...."
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.