Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Alex Murphy
It seems only fair that we look at both sides of the issue both sides of the issue.
32 posted on 03/16/2006 7:43:03 AM PST by Gamecock (I’m so thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it. (Machen on his deathbed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: Gamecock

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.


41 posted on 03/16/2006 8:53:14 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

To: Gamecock
It seems only fair that we look at both sides of the issue.

I think you meant to say, the other side of the issue as you only posted one side, not both.

59 posted on 03/16/2006 10:45:55 AM PST by TradicalRC (No longer to the right of the Pope...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

To: Gamecock

You are seriously embracing the Albigensians/Cathars as Protestant Christians?


108 posted on 03/17/2006 9:20:39 AM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson