Inquisition wasn't quite as bad as people think, says Pope (Except for GASP!! THE COMFY CHAIR!!)

Telegraph ^ | 6/16/04

[Havoc]

There is an authority competent to do so, you just won't listen to it. But that is the same with all the cults and with much of protestantism.

[pctech]

If it didn't say anything bad about the Catholic Church, then it would not have been written

That's crazy. The book is a historical book, pure and simple, and was not written just because it said negative things about the RC Church.

It's entire purpose was an attempt to mix the early Christian martyrs (who were, of course Catholics), with various others through the ages (including I seem to remember the Albigensians), and the then 'protestant martyrs'. .

Excuse me?!?!?!? The early martyrs were NOT Roman Catholic and to say as much is, as you put it, utter nonsense. The RC Church is the body who started the inquisition and tribunals, why would they persecute their own? (Unless of course their own turned against them)

And as much as hate to disagree with you, your statement: As such it presented the standard protestant view that the primitive Church was as they are, and that the beastly Catholics came along later and seized control. is the correct one. The reason for the inquisition was basical and simple: The RCC wanted to wipe out Protestantism and the Jewish people, and to confiscate their belongings to add to the material wealth of Rome. The reason given by the RCC that they were trying to drive out the Islamic hords, while they did do to a degree, was just a smoke screen.

[tjwmason]

Excuse me?!?!?!? The early martyrs were NOT Roman Catholic and to say as much is, as you put it, utter nonsense. The RC Church is the body who started the inquisition and tribunals, why would they persecute their own? (Unless of course their own turned against them)

When I refer to the early martyrs, I mean S. Stephen, S. James the Great, Pope S. Peter, and the others who suffered under the persecutions of the Roman Empire. They were all Catholics. I fail to see what this has to do with the Inquisition, unless you are claiming that Pope S. Peter was executed by the Spanish Inquisition (given the view of history you have presented elsewhere, I would not be that surprised).

The reason for the inquisition was basical and simple: The RCC wanted to wipe out Protestantism and the Jewish people, and to confiscate their belongings to add to the material wealth of Rome.

I think that even you will agree with me that the earthly leader of the Catholic Church (if you prefer Roman Catholic Church) is the Pope. Given that fact, how do you reconcile the nonsense spouted above about wiping out the Jews with the FACT that in the Papal States (the lands governed directly by the Pope), Jews had some of the best treatment in Europe; furthermore, if we are on the subject of the Jews, I suggest that you read what a certain Martin Luther thought of them. As for wanting to wipe out the protestants, they had not yet started when the Inquisition got underway. Claiming that the Inquisition was to wipe out protestantism is like suggesting that it was to wipe out communism.

The reason given by the RCC that they were trying to drive out the Islamic hords, while they did do to a degree, was just a smoke screen.

The reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula was accomplished by Ferdinand and Isabella, they were Monarchs not Priests or Bishops.

I suggest that you take a simple history lesson. Ante-Nicene Church-history would be a good start, then a quick over-view of mediaeval western Europe would demonstrate that the Church was actually one of the most benign forces and attempted to restrain the attacks on the Jews, it would also teach you that protestantism came along AFTER the Inquisition did. Also, it is clear that we are not going to agree, and so I would suggest that we should stop shouting at each other whilst Christian charity can still prevail.

[RobbyS]

Which is that, Havoc? You? Lol.

[Skooz]

I appreciate you fighting the good fight.

But, the historically ignorant--who get their history knowledge from SNL sketches or what they heard someone say on the radio-- will never be persuaded by facts, reason or historical accuracy.

They believe what they wish because it affirms their hatred. Anything that disagrees with their historical inaccuracies is summarily rejected.

[SJackson]

Forgive me, but after reading the thread I have to correct your post.

The reason for the inquisition was basical and simple: The RCC wanted to wipe out Protestantism and the Jewish people Heretics, and to confiscate their belongings to add to the material wealth of Rome.

To some, that seems to be an OK think, besides the prohibitions only lasted three centuries or so.

Maybe someone will tell the Pope, he appears to have offered a sincere apology, to his credit, for something that wasn't so bad after all. Amazing the lengths some go to defend this stuff, isn't it. I guess it's not all in the past.

[pctech]

The reason for the inquisition was basical and simple: The RCC wanted to wipe out Protestantism and the Jewish people Heretics, and to confiscate their belongings to add to the material wealth of Rome

Excuse me, but my post should stand as it read. Who did the RCC (and still does to some extent) believe were heretics????? Those who wouldn't bow to the Pope and Rome, namely Protestants and Jews.

[SJackson]

I was making a joke of the apparent ability of some on the thread to justify the persecution of Jews, Protestants and Muslims as acceptable by reclassifying them as "heretics". As though banning competing faiths and forced conversion isn't such a bad thing, as long as too many weren't killed. I'd note, in fariness, I don't think that represents the Vatican's position.

I'd agree it's not a funny topic, particularly in view of the eerie resemblance it bears to today's treatment of Jews and Christians under sharia law.

[tjwmason]

Who did the RCC (and still does to some extent) believe were heretics?

Heresy is a very simply defined word (see the Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm). There are two types, material (or objective), and obstinate (or formal); in this case we deal with obstinate heretics as a material heretic is only one accidentally so, and can repent of his views once their error is pointed out to him.

The first qualification to become a heretic is to be a Catholic. A Jew cannot be a heretic, because a heretic must continue to profess faith in Christ. If a person abandons Christian Faith entirely then he is an apostate. Thus your suggestion that the Jews were heretics fails utterly.

As for protestants, as I have stated before. At the time of the Inquisition's foundation there were no protestants, that particular blight had yet to hit the world. Just as there were no arians before Arius founded that erroneous school of though, or nestorians before Nestorius founded that erroneous school of though, so too there were no protestants before Luther founded that erroneous school of thought.

Thus in summary. The Inquisition was about heretics and heresy. Jews cannot be heretics, and protestants were not around at the time.

[sakic]

Compared for what happened in the totalitarian states of the 20th Century, the Spanish Inquisition was a picnic.

The Spanish Inquisition was a picnic? Too bad you couldn't attend.

[Havoc]

No, it's called scripture. You know, that stuff the Apostles and prophets wrote and that you make void with your traditions..

[pctech]

One can always tell when a particular apologist enters the fray and puts his two cents worth into a discussion, and it always makes for a lively debate. So the more the merrier. However I have to, without a doubt, disagree with what you said.

The first qualification to become a heretic is to be a Catholic. A Jew cannot be a heretic, because a heretic must continue to profess faith in Christ. If a person abandons Christian Faith entirely then he is an apostate. Thus your suggestion that the Jews were heretics fails utterly.

While what you said that to be a heretic one must have first been a RC, that was never the standard used. One was a heretic if one didn’t bow to the Pope, pure and simple. It didn’t make a difference if one was protestant, jewish, catholic, agnostic, whatever. While that may sound harsh if one looks back at the people who were persecuted under the Popes rule it bears itself out.

As for protestants, as I have stated before. At the time of the Inquisition's foundation there were no protestants, that particular blight had yet to hit the world. Just as there were no arians before Arius founded that erroneous school of though, or nestorians before Nestorius founded that erroneous school of though, so too there were no protestants before Luther founded that erroneous school of thought.

Again, I have disagree with you. The term “protestant” does not designate a particular faith group, but rather a lifestyle adopted by those who didn’t want to become catholic. They “protested” again the idolatrous iron rule of the popery and the catholic institution of the time. Yes, there were protestants, from the time of Constantine’s alleged “conversion” even up until now. I wear that badge with honor myself.

And I take great offense to you categorizing being protestant as a “blight” and Luther’s supposed “erroneous school of thought.” I say again, when one can offer no legitimate proof to substantiate one’s viewpoint then that’s when insults get thrown around like yesterdays garbage. In addition, it was the Protestant Reformation and the likes of Luther, Wesley, Knox, Whitehead, Spurgeon, Matthews, Rodgers, and others that brought about the greatest revival in modern history. Just because the reformation dealt a crippling blow to the RCC doesn’t mean it wasn’t of God.

[RobbyS]

The Spanish Inquisition in its worst phase, lasted roughly twenty years, the last two decades of the 15th Century, and was directed mainly at Jewish Christians who were suspected (wrongly) of having remained secret Jews. We associate this period withj Torquemada, Grand Inquisitor at that time. What it did was to commit judicial murder and judical robbery in the name of religious purity but also in the name of political stability. During that time the remaining Jews in Spain were
given the choice of conversion or exile, so that the Jewish community was effectively destroyed. Thereafter the function of the Inquisition, so far as the Jews were concerned, was to certify that no Jewish family would hold a position of importance in the kingdom. Of course as time wore on, many Jewish familes acquired such certificates, and we see the irony of a country devoted to racial purity even though few aristocratic or middle-class families had no Jewish ancestors. The Inquisition paid relatively little attention to Protestantism, at least in Spain. It was its actions in the Spanish Netherlands that excited the attention of the English Protestants. The war with Spain (1588-1604) which wrecked the finances of both England and Spain, made captured English sailors familiar with it, and those who refused to recant, were treated like heretics. Stories of that war made the Inquisition a part of the national imagination, so that it has remained a byeword of torture and horror, even though in fact it was no worse than the English courts of that time.

[armydoc]

Why is it still official policy (canon law) that the RCC can harass and kill heretics?

see http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kill.htm

[babyface00]

Why is it still official policy (canon law) that the RCC can harass and kill heretics?

Interesting site. Excuse me, though, if I'm skeptical. Do you have a site that quotes current cannon law with references and not just an interpretation or a quote from 1645? For example, the phrase "Proscription from all offices" is nowhere to be found in the canon law referenced below, nor is this step-by-step guide to purging heretics.

(from the site:)It has to be, remember, the Catholic religion is supposedly "infallible".

This description of infallibility is pretty much dead wrong, and no one with knowledge of the Catholic church would assert that canon law is covered under the doctrine of infallibility.

If you really want to know what the Church truly teaches, it would seem best to go to the source. You can always read the Catechism, which is well-documented throughout the web (and referenced above on the Vatican site). There's also a very good summary of infallibility here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB

A hypertext version of current canon law is http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG0017.htm

[BriarBey]

Getting closer to Jesus, reading more of His Word, and growing in Christ

Nothing wrong with that. Just remember tho...God said His ways are not our ways. All this fluff and everyone get along is for the birds, its whitewash. I wonder how full that cup of wrath is that God has? AND "If it were possible even the very elect will be deceived." It will all look good anyway, seem right. If your reading, you'll know, He said the Holy Spirit would be our teacher and comforter, I don't have to tell you anything. p.s. I didn't read the anti catholic stuff, I read one of THEIR dictionarys. They tell on themselves. I'm still trying to figure out how you believe in the blood atonement of Christ as full payment for our sins, then have a place called purgatory to pay. Their christ is not my Christ, they worship another, and don't even know it. Track the whore in Genesis and her religious practices, to the whore in Rev. you'll see she is one in the same, and hasn't changed much. She is at the beginning and the end of the book. She has been weaving that web of the mystery of iniquity for centuries. Very slowly...generation by generation.

[OLD REGGIE]

Your notion of infallibility is simply the flip side of the ultramontane view.Ward wanted the pope's opinions delivered to his breafast table each morning. There is a good reason why it has been exercised only twice since it was proclaimed by Vatican I, and then to define two Marian doctrines, each of which are ancient in origin, at once tangential and essential. Tangential because they are corollary to Christology; essential because they draw a bright line between Catholicism and the World which liberal Christians, both Protestant and Catholic, cannot eradicate. Liberals do not like bright lines. They hate papal infallability for the same reason they hate the principles of Protestant Fundamentalists. Each is a rock they cannot move.

Tell your story to your fellow "Catholic Scholar" who insists Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an infallible teaching.