History Of The Inquisition

[amarkich]

To make another clarification (to Catholics; this is not meant to begin a separate argument with Lumberjack), the death of a heretic is not martyrdom, for "Nay, though they should suffer death for the confession of the Name, the guilt of such men is not removed even by their blood...No martyr can he be who is not in the Church." (c.f., Saint Cyprian), remembering always the words of Our Lord "He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth." (c.f., St. Matthew xii.30). God bless.

EENS,
Adam

[the lumberjack]

my only comment will be that you can say whatever you want amarkich, my relationship with Christ is something that you nor anyone else can quantify or nullify.

even if not by your supreme Catholic Church standards, I am a servant, son, and slave of Christ...and nothing can separate me from His love.

oh, and I completely understood what you meant in your first post about killing heretics...and like I said, I'll be waiting...but you'll have to catch me.

Christ first.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Lumberjack, I'm just wondering if any evidence can be brought to the table that helps prove the insinuation that the Pope and Rome have sanctioned a "modern" Inquisition that can be linked to the tragedies that were referenced by Budge. I apologize if I made it sound like an assertion of fact.


amarkich. While I don't have the time, nor, perhaps, the wisdom to go really deep into everything you asked of me, I would like to note that when the Holy Father speaks on issues of Faith and Morals, he speaks with the weight of the Magisterium behind him - something that St. Thomas never had, nor claimed to have. Just as he is infallible when he speaks about birth control and abortion, the Holy Father is also infallible when he speaks on issues like Capital Punishment. Thus, despite Thomas' undeniably erudite and well laid out argument, it is much wiser for a Catholic to follow the teachings of the Pope than those of St. Thomas. If you want to know more about Papal Infallability, Apotheoun and (I think) Hananiah have great posts under the topic "Infallability"

-Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[amarkich]

I agree, of course, that Saint Thomas Aquinas in all his brilliance still was not infallible; however, you must realize that there is a difference between the Pope's authoritative exercize of his Office in which he binds the Church and calls down the protection of the Holy Ghost and his personal and pastoral opinions. It is the current Pope's personal opinion that in civilized society today, there should not be the death penalty. Besides the fact that this breaks with the Tradition of the Church and specifically with the Catechism of the Council of Trent (which does enjoy infallibility because derives its authority from an Ecumenical Council, which is not true of the CCC or even the Baltimore Catechism) which states that it is not only a right but a duty of the civil authority to exercize justice by using the death penalty. I do not wish to debate the concept of the death penalty at this time (especially not in this thread), but I use that as an example to distinguish between the Pope's personal opinion in which he is completely fallible and his authoritative statements which are infallible (N.B., the Pope has said many things which have previously been defined infallibly, but he has only one time exercized the authority of his Office to make an infallible statement; in this statement he proclaimed that women could never be ordained; N.B., this had already been proclaimed, but he restated it). God bless.

EENS,
Adam

[Budge]

Amen Lumberjack! Christ first and foremost.

I consider those dying on the stakes who were believers in Christ to be martyrs.



[quote]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[/quote]

The Bible never contradicts itself. Right there Jesus refuses to call down fire to "kill heretics" in verse I gave. Why doesnt the Catholic church follow its example


Titus 10:11 you misunderstand too. Where does it say in Titus that it is ok to kill heretics and burn them at the stake?

[b]Titus 1
10 (1) For there are many (2) rebellious men, (3) empty talkers and deceivers, especially (4) those of the circumcision,
11 who must be silenced because they are upsetting (5) whole families, teaching (6) things they should not teach (7) for the sake of sordid gain. [/b]

Silenced doesnt mean killed. I would take that to mean removal from the church.

Titus is a good instructions too for Godly Pastors

[b]if any man is above reproach, the (24) husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of (25) dissipation or (26) rebellion.
7 For the (27) overseer must be above reproach as (28) God's steward, not (29) self-willed, not quick-tempered, not (30) addicted to wine, not pugnacious, (31) not fond of sordid gain, [/b]

I dont see anything about killing heretics in Titus, just reproaching them.

[Justified Saint]

As usual, the line of reasoning being presented by Bruce and Co. is quite faulty. The fact is that much evil as been done in the name of religion and that is all your examples of the "modern inquisition" lead to. It would be like me saying that the KKK was a genuine expression of Protestantism. Now as tempting as this conclusion may sound - it would be very unfair of me to say that the KKK accurately represents the means and purposes of the Protestant religion. A group of people get together and decide to suppress anything that isn't white, American, or Protestant and it becomes a country-wide sensation, but still it isn't Protestantism. Sure, the Reformers preached such persecution but all adherents of the Reformation will tell you that they shouldn't be taken seriously in that regard (most of them at least).

[Bruce S]

Actually the battle IS being "won" in a sense.

In the past 30 years alone, a conservative estimate is that, 30,000,000 Catholics have been "converted" back to Bible based Christianity.

17 million in Brazil alone, and Guatamala may be majority Protestant in five years.

No wonder the "Sect hunters" are fretting.

"The gates of hell will NOT prevail" is a favorite quote of Catholics, and I agree, totally, but not for the same reasons.

[url="http://world.std.com/~pastoral/whyleave.htm"]http://world.std.com/~pastoral/whyleave.htm[/url]

Edited June 14, 2004 by Bruce S

[Guest JeffCR07]

amarkich, I completely agree, this argument should probably be reserved for another time and another place, though i would like to make the single point that it is infallibly stated that one of the faithful can never be in error for being in line with the Pope, whether he is speaking ex cathedra or not.

If you feel like im not being fair, or am trying to get in the "last word" I apologize, and feel free to comment back, knowing that I'll gladly hold my response for another day


On a different note, thanks a ton Justified, I'm finally getting some backup on my argument from a while ago. I used the analogy of 9/11: its not like we blame Islam for the tragedy and the act of terror, despite the fact that it was done at the hands of muslims who (in error) believe that their actions are called for by the Islamic faith.

You can't hold the faith accountable for something that extremist, or people who misunderstand the teachings, do. Period.

[Winchester]

My oh my, I have not lost my ability to stir controversy. Shucks, ya'll make me feel so good.

I am going to say something that will osund terrible (which is, in part, why Winchester was put upon this earth, as the small public who knows the name may attest), but in discussing something so serious as the inquisition, it needs be a rather cold mind that does the analysis. Yes, it is a passionate subject and of grave importance, but too much emotion will lead to hasty conclusions.
Since I still see the outstanding commentary on the Inquisition (killing, torture, etcetera) I am left with the same conclusion: You people simply don't know the facts, or you'd be discussing things differently. I could be wrong, but that's what it looks like.

Bruce,

I've yet to see an answer to my initial questions, and your accusations that the Inquisition still exists leave me puzzled, since your examples are of those things the Inquisition (here the idea rather than the specific courts convened) was in part able to stop.

If by Inquisition you mean mob action against non-Catholics, then you are not speaking of the Inquisition instituted by the Cahtolic Church.

If you speak of the CDF, then yes, the office is still in operation. Not exactly a state secret, that.

The Inquisition was never designed to be brought to bear against non-Catholics. A heretic is a Catholic who rejected the faith in part. The idea was to reconcile the heretic to the faith. Mosty cases ended in penance of some sort: a sentence often reduced when proving too difficult. Torture was introduced later in the procedures and shunned by some as unreliable.
Unpalatable though it may be, we must look at the society of the time. These people believed very deeply. Death was pretty common: we live in a society that avoids death remarkably easy. How many have watched children die? How many have first hand seen an epidemic of death? War? Death existed, as did Hell, and people went there for their beliefs. We all of us Christians believe that, do we not? So what would torture be in the course of trying to save someone from eternal fire? This was not done for its own sake, but to the end of getting a soul to Heaven. Again, I'm not saying you have to think it's good or even wise, and some inquisitors would have agreed with you, I'm just saying look at the idea behind it.
States saw heretics as dangerous. Heretics were as dangerous to the social order then as Al Qaida is to us now. The Cathari belief that no oaths were valid, for instance, attacked the very heart of society. States reacted in kind, and as a rule, much more harshly than inquisitors.


The point has been made that "Catholic Church's" never change. In Winchester tradition, I sarcastically ask does that mean Ukrainian, Maronite or Coptic Catholics do? And if so, then why not join one of those Rites? But I digress and point out: Well, duh!
If there is one thing reading the Bible teaches, it is that no one changes. To sum up the OT: God love the Israelites, they do something evil, God punishes them, they repent, God forgives the Israelites, go back to the first.
Now, the Inquisition was not a mob burning down houses. It was a proper court. It could be corrupted. The Spanish Inquisition was co-opted by the government and was the worst of the five inquisitions. Why? Because people are evil, another lesson from the Bible, and that one's in Catholic and non-Catholic versions; Jewish Scriptures, too; also let's note that in the Catholic government we have had many knaves, dogs, jerks, dimwits and scumbags, and no one worth his salt has ever denied that, because it is part of the beauty of the Church that she goes on in spite of this.



Budge,

A) The numbers of dead depend upon the Inquisition in question.

B) It was in fact the state who undertook executions, after the guilty were turned over to them. The Church did not come up with the idea of heresy. That's pre-Church and certainly not unique to her, as all Christians in that block of time (into the early days of America) saw it fit that dissenters be killed. The Church is remarkable for limiting that to those who left her, since merely not being a memeber of other Churches was enough to die.

C) In some instances, I'm sure you would agree to the good works of inquisitors. The defeat of the Cathari, for example in France, the many who were turned from heresies you would find damaging to one's spiritual state (denial of Christ's divinity, for instance) and then being sentenced to a penance like a pilgrimmage (penalties usually reduced on request), defense from mobs demanding suspected heretics that they may be burned, to name a few. Don't blanket the entire idea, look at the individual cases. It's complex.

Records. Technology sadly did not permit xeroxing or uploading to computers. Also lacking were electric lights and sprinklers to diminish the likelihood or damage of fires. Travel wasn't so easy, either and air conditioning was limited to those fat cats in the Vatican (ha ha). Records got destroyed, that's reality.
Yes the Vatican has records, but imagine the volumes of documents througth the ages, and the shameful lack of the Dewey decimal system. Some records exist. Many, in fact. Good luck, though, unless you have years and knowledge of ancient languages at your disposal.
The Pope isn't saying we don't have records, he's saying things take time and knowledge. A knee-jerk might make you happy, but it probably won't be accurate.
The pope didn't say murdering people (a judgement on the intent of the act you simply aren't in a position to make, especially in such a blanket matter), he said that mitigating factors did not excuse people doing wrong things while trying to do the right.

People aren't coming out with blanket statements. Why? Becuase the situation was complex. You have to investigate and then perhaps judge. Perhaps, I say, because enough information amy not be available and one must then discern whether such things should occur again.

Lumberjack,

Are you telling me you don't know the difference between appointed judges and mobs? The Supreme Court ain't hiring right now, but they'll one day need some people who don't know what pornography is, and you could be one of the seven.


And now a word about honesty and laziness:

Read the entire article, so you can avoid embarrassing quotes correcting your proo-texting. Don't murder the meaning of disembodied quotes to suit your plans, some of us have read in entirety the documents being thrust at us like OJ's bloody gloves.

Answer the questions. If this dodging and hijack garbage is what you call hardball, then I'd hate to see the kiddie league stuff you allegedly have been trotting out.



What really ticks me off most is that no one mentioned my reference to my avatar in my initial post. Yes it was coarse, but this is not rocket science.

[Guest JeffCR07]

I must say, that was darn good Winchester. lol, Everytime anyone mentions the CDF I get all excited: Ratzinger is the man. Sometimes I wish we could just get him on phatmass and have him lay the smack down, lol.

I apologize to all for that outburst of blatant pro-catholic bias. I have returned to a sane-level of catholicism, and can engage in legitimate debate as normal.

[Budge]

[quote]it needs be a rather cold mind that does the analysis. Yes, it is a passionate subject and of grave importance, but too much emotion will lead to hasty conclusions.[/quote]

Cold minds?

Would this be something Jesus would want?

Did Jesus ever act with a cold mind?

Isnt our goal to become like Christ.

Those who watched people languish in the dungeons, mothers, fathers, children losing parents and watching people burn at the stake DEFINITELY had to have cold minds.

I dont think it should be a cold mind that does the analysis.

One thing about the Catholic Church that seriously concerns me is the honor of COLDNESS. Rationality with no heart. In UUism and free thought circles REASON is highest ideal. Heart is lost. Soul is lost. Think about it.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Bruce S' date='Jun 14 2004, 06:02 PM']Actually the battle IS being "won" in a sense.

In the past 30 years alone, a conservative estimate is that, 30,000,000 Catholics have been "converted" back to Bible based Christianity.

17 million in Brazil alone, and Guatamala may be majority Protestant in five years.

No wonder the "Sect hunters" are fretting.

"The gates of hell will NOT prevail" is a favorite quote of Catholics, and I agree, totally, but not for the same reasons.

[url="http://world.std.com/~pastoral/whyleave.htm"]http://world.std.com/~pastoral/whyleave.htm[/url][/quote]
This does not fully imply that the Church is failing, it implies that the road to righteousness is long and narrow. Noted, there are some dioceses that suffer from heterodoxy (thus turning people away from the faith), but that is not a majority. Today's Protestantism tends to be [b]easier[/b], with less moral obligations and "useless ritual".

Easy = Truth, is not always correct.

[dUSt]

Facts don't remain to exist just because they're ignored.

[jasJis]

[quote name='Budge' date='Jun 15 2004, 07:57 AM']
Cold minds?

Would this be something Jesus would want?

Did Jesus ever act with a cold mind?

Isnt our goal to become like Christ.

Those who watched people languish in the dungeons, mothers, fathers, children losing parents and watching people burn at the stake DEFINITELY had to have cold minds.

I dont think it should be a cold mind that does the analysis.

One thing about the Catholic Church that seriously concerns me is the honor of COLDNESS. Rationality with no heart. In UUism and free thought circles REASON is highest ideal. Heart is lost. Soul is lost. Think about it. [/quote]
Budge,
Please consider what you wrote.[quote]Cold minds?

Would this be something Jesus would want?

Did Jesus ever act with a cold mind?

Isnt our goal to become like Christ.

Those who watched people languish in the dungeons, mothers, fathers, children losing parents and watching people burn at the stake DEFINITELY had to have cold minds.[/quote]Is Jesus not God? Did Jesus not watch His mother and followers suffer emotional anguish as they watched Jesus die on the Crucifix?

Is Jesus not God? Did Jesus not watch His chosen Apostles and beloved Disciples and followers also die excruciating deaths on crosses and by nail and claw of animals to serve as entertainment?

Is Jesus not God? Did Jesus not stand beside a 6 year old girl who watched her father dragged out of the house and killed by mobs, simply because he proclaimed his belief in Jesus Christ, the son of God?

You ask if Jesus ever acted with a cold mind. What is a cold mind? Is a cold mind thinking beyond human emotion and seeking God's Will and Plan, the effects of Evil, God's permiting Evil to exist, God's bringing Triumph and Good from acts of evil committed by Satan and humanity?

You need to learn more about Islam. You need to learn more about their fear of the power of Evil. They fear a cold mind and cannot look deeply at Evil. They fear it and believe the God cannot Triumph over it. They deny Jesus as the Son of God because they believe Evil Triumphs over God if God is crucified on the Cross. The mindset you just proposed is the same.

God Triumphs despite Evil. Everytime. But we are always allowed to choose our defeat in Evil, and reject our Trimph that God has won for our sake.

It's a bigger concept and perspective that is not easily glimpsed by the mind of humanity.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Also Budge, you are yet again not speaking to the actual point that Winchester was trying to make, but rather are nitpicking on a singular issue and, it seems, hoping to skirt around the argument he makes.

However, if clarity is necessary, and you truly don't understand what he meant when he said "cold minds" I think I can answer for Winchester on this one.

He means by "cold minds" that the issue and questions at hand must be approached and dealt with by Reason, rather than emotion. This Christ most certainly WOULD approve of. Of course he was emotive when he spoke and taught, but it was emotion that BACKED his Reason.

Christ did not simply yell angrily or let his emotions reign when he dealt with the traps of the Pharisees and Sadducees. He used clear Reason to show them that they were wrong, and why.

So, if you please, embrace Reason, and address Winchester's ARGUMENT, not the word choice of a phrase or two