History Of The Inquisition

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Bruce, it's hard to seriously consider any material you post here without cited sources.

[Bruce S]

[quote]The Vatican came to a similar conclusion in a 1986 study titled "Sects or New Religious Movements: Pastoral Challenges." While agreeing with the Latin American bishops that the new churches were supported by "powerful ideological forces as well as economic and political interests [ in the United States]," the document admitted that the evangelicals were fulfilling "needs and aspirations which are seemingly not being met in the mainline churches. The [Catholic] church is often seen simply as an institution, perhaps because it gives too much importance to structures and not enough to drawing people to God in Christ."

Evangelical inroads into traditional Catholic territory have led to religious tensions throughout the region. For example, in Cotopaxi province in central Ecuador, a dispute between Catholics and evangelicals led to two deaths and nearly 100 injuries after two Indian evangelists denounced their Catholic brothers to the local military.

[/quote]

[url="http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=927"]http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=927[/url]

[Guest JeffCR07]

Yet again Bruce, your backing just isn't solid. If the Holy Father tells me to [quote]combat the “Evangelical Sects”[/quote] I know that he is speaking of the more important combat: spiritual combat. Killing isn't the same as converting, and the Holy Father would be the first to tell anyone that. No one can deny that he has done more to bridge the gaps between Catholicism (both in the East and the West) and other denominations, in particular the Greek Orthodox and the Church of England...

Even your sources don't show the Pope "calling people to arms" in a worldly sense. He is calling us all to be missionaries. This is no different from what Christians in other denominations are called to do.

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[amarkich]

I apologize if this has already been said (I expect that it has not), but for anyone who claims that the concept of killing ([i]not[/i] murdering) a heretic is intrinsically evil (or at all evil), please read Saint Thomas Aquinas first. Here is his writing on whether or not heretics should be tolerated.


Whether heretics ought to be tolerated?
Objection 1. It seems that heretics ought to be tolerated. For the Apostle says (2 Tim. 2:24,25): "The servant of the Lord must not wrangle . . . with modesty admonishing them that resist the truth, if peradventure God may give them repentance to know the truth, and they may recover themselves from the snares of the devil." Now if heretics are not tolerated but put to death, they lose the opportunity of repentance. Therefore it seems contrary to the Apostle's command.

Objection 2. Further, whatever is necessary in the Church should be tolerated. Now heresies are necessary in the Church, since the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:19): "There must be . . . heresies, that they . . . who are reproved, may be manifest among you." Therefore it seems that heretics should be tolerated.

Objection 3. Further, the Master commanded his servants (Mt. 13:30) to suffer the cockle "to grow until the harvest," i.e. the end of the world, as a gloss explains it. Now holy men explain that the cockle denotes heretics. Therefore heretics should be tolerated.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Titus 3:10,11): "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted."

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."

Reply to Objection 1. This very modesty demands that the heretic should be admonished a first and second time: and if he be unwilling to retract, he must be reckoned as already "subverted," as we may gather from the words of the Apostle quoted above.

Reply to Objection 2. The profit that ensues from heresy is beside the intention of heretics, for it consists in the constancy of the faithful being put to the test, and "makes us shake off our sluggishness, and search the Scriptures more carefully," as Augustine states (De Gen. cont. Manich. i, 1). What they really intend is the corruption of the faith, which is to inflict very great harm indeed. Consequently we should consider what they directly intend, and expel them, rather than what is beside their intention, and so, tolerate them.

Reply to Objection 3. According to Decret. (xxiv, qu. iii, can. Notandum), "to be excommunicated is not to be uprooted." A man is excommunicated, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 5:5) that his "spirit may be saved in the day of Our Lord." Yet if heretics be altogether uprooted by death, this is not contrary to Our Lord's command, which is to be understood as referring to the case when the cockle cannot be plucked up without plucking up the wheat, as we explained above (10, 8, ad 1), when treating of unbelievers in general.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/301103.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/301103.htm[/url]


The great thing about Saint Thomas is that there is no need to summarize, expound, or explain (for most intellectuals at least) because he absolutely answers the question beautifully and concisely every time and still considers all sides of the issue, refuting the erroneous. I presume that Objective 1 is the most commonly held, so read the Saint’s quote from Saint Paul’s Epistle to Titus and then his short discourse concerning the overall concept and then his very brief reply (in addition to the discourse) to Objection 1. It would be good to read the entire section, and please do not attempt to make claims that “killing ‘Christians’ (read, heretics) is wrong.” God bless.

EENS,
Adam

[Budge]

[quote]after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church [b]no longer hoping for his conversion,[/b] looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death.[/quote]

This makes no snese. As long as a person is breathing they have ever chance to come to Christ. Even life long occultists and atheists have been saved in Christ.


Jesus DIRECTLY condemns the killing of heretics in the Bible.

Consider this verse

[b]Luke 9:52 And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.
53 And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.
54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
56[u] For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. [/u][/b]

Amen! PRAISE HIM!

[Guest JeffCR07]

Your exerpt is true, insofar as you are speaking of true heretics, as defined by the Church. the average Protestant, of any denomination, does not fit this description, due to the fact that they a.) are not fully formed, and b.) do know know the fullness of the Church's teachings on the issues by which our communion with them is split.

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[the lumberjack]

then I'll be waiting for you, amarkich, cuz I'm evangelizing Catholics like its the last days...

oh...wait...

Christ first.

[Guest JeffCR07]

actually, I retract my previous statement that your quote is "true." Just because Aquinus is a Doctor of the Church (and dont get me wrong, I love him to death - he's even my avatar) doesn't mean that he didn't make mistakes. However, even if you were to assume his argument is true, it still doesn't hold in this debate for the reasons I listed before.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Hey everyone, we kind of got off topic, and normally when we get off topic things really start to heat up, people start to get nasty towards each other. Lets return to where we were before that tangent:

[quote] Yet again Bruce, your backing just isn't solid. If the Holy Father tells me to 
"combat the 'Evangelical Sects'"

I know that he is speaking of the more important combat: spiritual combat. Killing isn't the same as converting, and the Holy Father would be the first to tell anyone that. No one can deny that he has done more to bridge the gaps between Catholicism (both in the East and the West) and other denominations, in particular the Greek Orthodox and the Church of England...

Even your sources don't show the Pope "calling people to arms" in a worldly sense. He is calling us all to be missionaries. This is no different from what Christians in other denominations are called to do.

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff [/quote]

please respond. Thanks a ton!

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[the lumberjack]

actually, Jeff, even Amarkich's post is right on topic with the Inquisition.

he's justified the killing...not murdering...of those not aligned with the Catholic Church.

and thats fine by me.

all I'm sayin is...you'll have to catch me.

Christ first.

[Guest JeffCR07]

hahaha, don't worry, im not chasing you. Also, it may be on topic, but there isnt any certainty that THAT teaching of Aquinus is backed by the Church. However, if you think its a legit argument for the thread, then cool. However, no one has responded to my previous post yet, and I think it DOES need answering.

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[the lumberjack]

what do you want answered?

it seems more as if you're making a statement...

God bless.

Christ first.

[amarkich]

Budge, you essentially are asserting that the Bible contradicts itself. One part of the Bible tells us to reject heretics and give up on their conversion (c.f., Titus iii.10,11), while the other (in your logic) states that we cannot kill heretics. Not only are you a fallible interpretter of the Bible but you also fail to recognize a very basic reference to supernatural life in the verse that you gave. That is talking about supernatural life; God wills the salvation of all and thus wishes not the (supernatural) death of a heretic; He wishes the conversion of all, but this does not mean that we have to treat this as the end-all, be-all in any situation. As Saint Thomas Aquinas states clearly that we must look to the good of the many rather than the one. If the one (any heretic) is causing scandal to the many, there is no reason to allow him to persist in this scandal after the second admonition (as Saint Paul says). Further, I do not know if you read the entire answer from Saint Thomas, but he gives a relevant historical situation--the Arian heresy. Had Arius been killed immediately after being given an opportunity to repent, there would not have been over 80% of the Bishops at the time denying the divinity of Christ. Further, Saint Athanasius would not have been excommunicated and the Pope of the time later anathemized. Look at the fruits of heresy. The fruits of heresy are divisions and uproar. This cannot be tolerated, as the Saint says.

Jeff, as far as I know we are discussing the Inquisition as a concept and in its historical practice. I made the statement that the Inquisition was a good thing and in accord with Saint Paul's exhortation to Titus and the divine command "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (c.f., St. Matthew xxviii.20). In this regard, I have left a rational defense for the Inquisition as a concept. I did not propose a modern-day Inquisition in that previous post, though I would love the idea. If there were still a united Christendom, I would be the first one in line to be an Inquisitor. In any event, the words of Saint Thomas are an expression and culmination of divine command which forbids tolerance toward heretics. This is not something that is simply discarded as "fallible." It is not only supported in Scripture, but it was practiced and sanctioned by the Church, and it is logically supported here by Saint Thomas. Until you can refute all of those sources (which is impossible), then you cannot make claims which state that the executing heretics is wrong. Further, if you cannot refute the words of Saint Thomas, it is clear that you cannot make a logical argument against executing heretics (this does not include simply relying on fallible authority, i.e., the Pope's personal, fallible opinion about the death penalty in society today). Finally, while I do not condone the execution of an ignorant heretic, I assert that Protestants, who are outside the Church, must be "united with her before the end of [their] lives" in order to be saved (c.f., Ecumenical Council of Florence). Further, if there were to be an Inquisition, there would no ignorance on the part of those who are outside the Church. Rather, those who were outside the Church would be given the possibility to convert, and if they did not and continued scandalous disobedience, they would be punished accordingly, being "separated from the Church by excommunication" and "severed from the world by death." (c.f., Summa Theologica) There is much to be said about "ignorance" on behalf of those outside the Church, but I will leave that for a different thread. The point has been made: those outside the Church who are disobedient and scandalous to others, after being admonitioned and given an opportunity to convert, not only [i]should[/i] but [i]must[/i] be excommunicated and executed in order to ensure the salvation of the many.
N.B., no government has authority to sanction heretical worship which cannot be "at all pleasing to God" (c.f., Ecumenical Council of Trent), and, naturally, Catholicism would be the only acceptable religion and would be fostered and accepted by the government in an ideal situation. God bless.

EENS,
Adam

[the lumberjack]

[quote] Rather, those who were outside the Church would be given the possibility to convert, and if they did not and continued scandalous disobedience, they would be punished accordingly, being "separated from the Church by excommunication" and "severed from the world by death." (c.f., Summa Theologica) There is much to be said about "ignorance" on behalf of those outside the Church, but I will leave that for a different thread. The point has been made: those outside the Church who are disobedient and scandalous to others, after being admonitioned and given an opportunity to convert, not only should but must be excommunicated and executed in order to ensure the salvation of the many.[/quote]

and I'll gladly be a martyr for my faith in Jesus Christ.

Amen and Amen.

[amarkich]

To clear up any confusion on my choice of words in a previous entry, the only statement I intended to make by saying, "the concept of killing (not murdering) a heretic is [not] intrinsically evil" (N.B., I have re-worded the actual statement to negate the meaning of the original sentence, not to be confused with the meaning of the statement itself, because I have inverted the statement from a negative statement to a positive and therefore must change the wording; I apologize for any possible confusion), was that I believe that killing a heretic is in nowise murder. That is all that was meant by that statement. God bless.

EENS,
Adam