I’m well aware that the Western Roman Church had had not broken with the Eastern Churches (now known as Eastern Orthodox) in Cyril’s and Methodius’ day... However, the cultural divide between eastern and western Christians was already very evident by the 800s. Cyril and Methodius were from the east, not from the Latin Church—even while given Rome’s approval.
Actually there is a lot of evidence that before Huss, the Bohemian people (what their rulers did is a different matter) did have issues with Roman corruption (the utraquist controversy pre-dates Huss for example)— as did many conscientious Christians throughout Europe.
“The Spanish Inquisition was actually a governmental organ, staffed to a great extent by government bureaucrats, and commissioned to carry out a program of religious integration to help meld a new state - Spain.” Ummm, pretty much that’s exactly what I said—Spain wanted to prove its Roman orthdoxy.
“No. The Spanish Inquisition was not fanatical. It was established to protect Spain - a new nation - from fanaticism and at the same time false Christians.”
I’m of the opinion that any and all punishment, in particular capitol punishment, for religious disagreement, is BY DEFINITION, fanatical. (I’m American.) Don’t you agree?
It sounds very much like you are defending the persecutions by the Inquistion?
And actually I have read the definitive biography of Servetus, by Roland Bainton, and he yes, he really was condemned twice by Roman Catholic courts—for religious offenses. (The 2nd time he was tried, he escaped, before the end of the trial).
I’m a Calvinist....however I’m also happy to say Calvin and Geneva did the wrong thing, when they executed Servetus. It was culturally acceptable—and not uncommon in that day, to execute people just for their religious views, still, it was wrong.
Of course there is no direct connection between the Roman Catholic Spanish Inquisition, the trials and execution of Micheal Servetus, or the severe mistreatment and murders of the Moravians—except that Roman Catholicism—and the long legacy of religious intolerance in Europe—persecuted them all.
As to, “1) There was no such thing as the “Roman Catholic Church“” And I guess there’s no Roman church today, eh? Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
You wrote:
“However, the cultural divide between eastern and western Christians was already very evident by the 800s. Cyril and Methodius were from the east, not from the Latin Church—even while given Rome’s approval.”
It was still ONE Church at that time. That was the point, and it’s irrefutable no matter what cultural divide there was.
“Actually there is a lot of evidence that before Huss, the Bohemian people (what their rulers did is a different matter) did have issues with Roman corruption (the utraquist controversy pre-dates Huss for example)— as did many conscientious Christians throughout Europe.”
You’re creating a straw man. I never said, nor do I doubt, that many people were upset about corrupt members of the Church. Can you name any nation that was not upset about corruption in the Church? No. They all were and they all still are. There are always corrupt people in the Church. Acknowledging the fact that there were Bohemians calling for reform in the 15th century is a world away from saying that there was centuries old antipathy toward Rome because of events in the 9th century. What you’re doing is akin to saying people are upset about health care reform measures because of an antipathy against the Federal Government that stems from Lincoln’s wartime federal seizure of perogatives from the states. Sorry, no go.
“Ummm, pretty much that’s exactly what I said—Spain wanted to prove its Roman orthdoxy.”
No. That is not what I said. Nor is it what happened. Spain was not trying to prove anything about its orthodoxy. Spain was using a new court tribunal to weed out those it viewed as subversive. That’s not about PROVING orthodoxy to someone. Pray tell who was it that was demanding that this PROVING take place and exactly how was the inquisition designed to make it happen?
“I’m of the opinion that any and all punishment, in particular capitol punishment, for religious disagreement, is BY DEFINITION, fanatical. (I’m American.) Don’t you agree?”
No. I do not agree. It is also stupid to insinuate that “I’n American” means someone must agree with your view of things to be an American. I’m a Christian. My roots - like that of all Christians - are Jewish. Jews were not opposed to the death penalty for some religious crimes and I see no reason why - given the circumstances and understandings of the Middle Ages - such standards under Christian auspices should not apply.
“It sounds very much like you are defending the persecutions by the Inquistion?”
Persecutions? No. Rooting out, reconciliation or punishment of heretics in most circumstances in a Christian nation in the Middle Ages? Yes.
“And actually I have read the definitive biography of Servetus, by Roland Bainton, and he yes, he really was condemned twice by Roman Catholic courts—for religious offenses. (The 2nd time he was tried, he escaped, before the end of the trial).”
I never said he was not condemned twice. He was in fact executed in effigy at least once. You seem to have difficulty reading. I never said he was not turned over to the secular arm by the inquisition. I said he was once acquited by an inquisition. And that is irrefutably true. Also, there were no such things as “Roman Catholic courts”. An inquisition is not a “Roman Catholic court” and can be a secular dominated tribunal dependeing on time and place. Also, Bainton’s biography - more than 50 years old now - is a lightweight work compared to the two books authored by Marian Hillar in 1997 and 2003. I can’t say I agree with Hillar on everything but the research depth is amazing. Hillar’s works leave Bainton in the dust quite frankly.
“I’m a Calvinist....however I’m also happy to say Calvin and Geneva did the wrong thing, when they executed Servetus. It was culturally acceptable—and not uncommon in that day, to execute people just for their religious views, still, it was wrong.”
It was wrong - for Calvin and Geneva. They had no authority to do anything that they did to Servetus or anyone else for that matter.
“Of course there is no direct connection between the Roman Catholic Spanish Inquisition, the trials and execution of Micheal Servetus, or the severe mistreatment and murders of the Moravians—except that Roman Catholicism—and the long legacy of religious intolerance in Europe—persecuted them all.”
Incorrect. Servetus was executed by Protestants. There were no murders of Moravians by the Catholic Church. There was no such thing as the “Roman Catholic Spanish Inquisition”. There is the Catholic Church. And there was the Spanish Inquisition.
“As to, “1) There was no such thing as the “Roman Catholic Church“” And I guess there’s no Roman church today, eh? Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.”
No, there is no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church. There is the Roman Church, which is part of the Catholic Church. “Roman Catholic Church” is a phrase largely invented and entirely popularized in English by Protestants. Just check the Oxford English Dictionary and you’ll see what I mean. This is at least the second time (or more likely the fourth time) where you have said one thing was another. Disagree with me all you like, but at least disagree with what I actually said and don’t pretend one thing is another.