The Spanish Inquisition

[ardillacid]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 8 2005, 05:11 PM'] And, yes, if one disagreed with the Church on any point of dogma or scripture, one was a heretic. For example, Galileo said that the earth moved and that got him labeled as a heretic!
[/quote]
[QUOTE]

And still would be a heretic. Scripture never says the earth doesn't move. We have ALL read the verse and it is a long stretch.

You fail to mention by whom he was labeled a heretic. Never by the pope, only by high ranking theologians.

Theologians (thank heaven) do NOT carry infalibilty with them. You can dig up some crazy theologian anywhere who is willing to differ with the Church's teachings

As for method of execution, maybe you would rather have gone to England to be hung, drawn, and quartered. Or France to be boiled alive in oil.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 8 2005, 02:33 PM'] I am always entertained by the Catholic apologetics revision of history. Let's look at Pope Alexander IV's Bull of 1256:

"Bishop Alexander, the servant of the servants of God, fondly sends greetings an apostolic blessings to the fraternal sons of the Order of Preachers, who are inquisitors in the terrible depraved heresy in Tholosa and in all the lands of that noble man, the Count of Poitou. So that you may proceed more freely in carrying out the business of faith, we grant that, by the present authority, if out of human weakness, in some cases you incur a sentence of excommunication and irregulatiry, or that you remember that you may have incurred such, and because of the exercise of the office that you bear you are not able to go to your superiors, we grant that you can absolve yourselves according to the form of the church and dispense by your authority, in the same manner as ws granted by the apostolic see to your superiors."

Henry Charles Lea, "History of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages," Harper, NY. pg 575

Translation, if the someone died under torture by the Dominicans, they could absolve themselves.

[/quote]
[QUOTE]


I don't see torture mentioned

Maybe you are trying so hard to find something, you're seeing phantoms

PS excommunication isn't torture

[ardillacid]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 8 2005, 02:42 PM'] Sorry Ordo,

Read on the web Pope Innocent VIII's Bull "Summis desiderantes" of 1484. This became know as the Witches Bull.

[url="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/witches1.html"]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/witches1.html[/url]

It authorized Fr. Henry Institoris and Fr Jacob Sprenger, both Dominican theologians, to begin an Inquisition in Germany to discover "heresy" and witches.

They in turn wrote "The Hammer of Witches" (also on the web) describing the methods of torture to be followed in forcing those accused of heresy and witchcraft to confess and implicate others.

Once again, apologists try to avoid admitting what is historically inescapable and to blame someone else for the Church's actions. :angry:

LittleLes [/quote]
[QUOTE]

I read it.

I think it is likely that what is "fitting and proper" to the pope, was different than what these brothers deemed.

"The Hammer of Witches" is not authoritative. It carries no wait. Simply because two brothers wrote a book that contained a part about torture doesn't mean the [i]Church[/i] condoned it. Once again, it is possible to find priests that will preach against Church doctrine (it doesn't make it OK )

Why don't you give us your religion and it will be easy enough to find ways to cut it down by what some members did. (that's ok if you don't want to, I understand)

Edited May 9, 2005 by ardillacid

[Aloysius]

LittleLess apparently thinks he's Catholic... hence my cafeteria lecture.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]And, yes, if one disagreed with the Church on any point of dogma or scripture, one was a heretic. For example, Galileo said that the earth moved and that got him labeled as a heretic![/quote]


Um okay you really should read the documents of the Time, Galileo was told very simply to prove it or stop teaching it, he couldn't prove it not mathmaticly or in any other way,, but he refused to stop teaching it, so he after numerous warnings he was placed under house arrest in the Vatican. Now this as actually in response to the fact that in southern Germany Lutheran evangelist where using Galileos fame to Convert Catholics away from the Church saying that the Church wouldn't even stop people who blatantly contradicted scripture, so they told him to prove it or shut his mouth. he couldn't do the first and wouldn't do the second so they made him do the second. I still don't understand what all the fuss is about that.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='ardillacid' date='May 8 2005, 11:46 PM'] [QUOTE]


I don't see torture mentioned

Maybe you are trying so hard to find something, you're seeing phantoms

PS excommunication isn't torture [/quote]
No, we're talking about torture here. The Dominicans didn't incur excommunication for simply conducting an inquisition, only if they went a bit overboard on the torture.

Perhaps this earlier writing by Pope Innocent IV, "Ad Extirpanda, "1252, will clarify the issue for you.

"The ruler is hereby ordered to force all captured heretics to confess and accuse their acomplices by torture which will not imperil life or injure limb, just as theives and robbers are forced to accuse their accomplices and confess their cirmes; for these heretics are true theives, murders of souls, and robbers of the sacraments of God."

But thing got out of hand. Besides, heretics were usually going to be burned at the stake eventually anyway.

And Pope John XII's Bull of 1319 absolved an inquisitor whose torture by fire led to an accused heretic's death.

LittleLes

[Ordo.Teutonicorum]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 9 2005, 09:37 AM'] No, we're talking about torture here. The Dominicans didn't incur excommunication for simply conducting an inquisition, only if they went a bit overboard on the torture.

Perhaps this earlier writing by Pope Innocent IV, "Ad Extirpanda, "1252, will clarify the issue for you.

"The ruler is hereby ordered to force all captured heretics to confess and accuse their acomplices by torture which will not imperil life or injure limb, just as theives and robbers are forced to accuse their accomplices and confess their cirmes; for these heretics are true theives, murders of souls, and robbers of the sacraments of God."

But thing got out of hand. Besides, heretics were usually going to be burned at the stake eventually anyway.

And Pope John XII's Bull of 1319 absolved an inquisitor whose torture by fire led to an accused heretic's death.

LittleLes [/quote]
Actually you are wrong on so many levels it boggles the mind. In the Middle Ages, torture was a valid method of interrogation. It was legal in every country. The rules were simple - if you got a confession under torture, it didn't count. They would then have to make the same confession again, without torture. But it was a part of the criminal justice system because in the Middle Ages, there usually wasn't much evidence, even if a man were totally guilty. So, for the law to work, they relied on witnesses and confessions.

Now, as far as heretics "usually" being burned at the stake - nope. Heretics were usually let go to go about their normal lives. Why? Because the Church allowed a heretic to repent, apologize, and swear never to do it again. If the heretic did this, he was free to go. Many times, the Roman inquisition even let men go who didn't make this oath.

Finally, the Church never burned a single person. The Church didn't have the power to use the death penalty on anyone. The secular governments controlled that aspect of things. So, the Church would then have to hand the man over to the secular government to be executed by them. So, the secular government had to agree with what the Church was doing for that to happen.

Your understanding of the middle ages, medieval morality, and the legal system, are tragically flawed. It is clear that you've read a couple of secondary sources on the subject, but never delved any deeper than that.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='ardillacid' date='May 8 2005, 11:39 PM'] [QUOTE]

And still would be a heretic. Scripture never says the earth doesn't move. We have ALL read the verse and it is a long stretch.

You fail to mention by whom he was labeled a heretic. Never by the pope, only by high ranking theologians.

Theologians (thank heaven) do NOT carry infalibilty with them. You can dig up some crazy theologian anywhere who is willing to differ with the Church's teachings

As for method of execution, maybe you would rather have gone to England to be hung, drawn, and quartered. Or France to be boiled alive in oil. [/quote]
Hi Aradillacid,

(1) Actually there are a number of passages in scripture upon which the Church based her teaching that the earth doesn't move. For example, Psalm 104.5 "You fixed the earth on its foundation never to be moved."

And the Holy Office in the Galileo matter declared: "The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, NOT IMMOVABLE, BUT THAT IT MOVES, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith."

(2) It's rather immaterial who labeled Galileo a heretic - it was the Holy Office - because a constant and universal teaching on matters of faith (ie scripture) are infallible by way of the ordinary magisterium. (besides, papal infallibility hadn't been invented yet.

(3)

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 9 2005, 01:14 AM']

Um okay you really should read the documents of the Time, Galileo was told very simply to prove it or stop teaching it, he couldn't prove it not mathmaticly or in any other way,, but he refused to stop teaching it, so he after numerous warnings he was placed under house arrest in the Vatican. Now this as actually in response to the fact that in southern Germany Lutheran evangelist where using Galileos fame to Convert Catholics away from the Church saying that the Church wouldn't even stop people who blatantly contradicted scripture, so they told him to prove it or shut his mouth. he couldn't do the first and wouldn't do the second so they made him do the second. I still don't understand what all the fuss is about that. [/quote]
I'm afraid that you are misrepresenting the reason why Galileo was condemned. It can be found in the Holy Office's document itself.

"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare, that thou, the said Galileo, by the things deduced during this trial, and by thee confessed as above, has rendered thyself vehemently suspected of heresy by the Holy Office, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false, and contrary to the Holy Scriptures, to wit:...and that the Earth moves, and is not the center of the universe, AND THAT AN OPINION MAY BE HELD AND DECLARED AS PROBABLE AFTER HAVING BEEN DECLARED AND DEFINED AS CONTRARY TO HOLY SCRIPTURE..."

In short, Galileo did not accept the Church's interpretation of scripture. (It might be noted that both the Council of Trent and Vatican taught that the Church interpreted scripture correctly -an infallible teaching???)

see [url="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html"]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html[/url]

But the Church was wrong on both counts, the immovability of the earth, and its interpretation of scripture. QED

[theculturewarrior]

Just out of curiousity, LittleLes, what society [i]didn't[/i] use torture or slavery back then?

[Ordo.Teutonicorum]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 9 2005, 10:45 AM'] I'm afraid that you are misrepresenting the reason why Galileo was condemned. It can be found in the Holy Office's document itself.

"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare, that thou, the said Galileo, by the things deduced during this trial, and by thee confessed as above, has rendered thyself vehemently suspected of heresy by the Holy Office, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false, and contrary to the Holy Scriptures, to wit:...and that the Earth moves, and is not the center of the universe, AND THAT AN OPINION MAY BE HELD AND DECLARED AS PROBABLE AFTER HAVING BEEN DECLARED AND DEFINED AS CONTRARY TO HOLY SCRIPTURE..."

In short, Galileo did not accept the Church's interpretation of scripture. (It might be noted that both the Council of Trent and Vatican taught that the Church interpreted scripture correctly -an infallible teaching???)

see [url="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html"]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html[/url]

But the Church was wrong on both counts, the immovability of the earth, and its interpretation of scripture. QED [/quote]
Actually it sounds to me like the lack of proof was the real issue. Note the importance of the word probable in the sentence. Also, when you capitalize things, make sure you make known that the emphasis is your own and not that of the text itself.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 9 2005, 12:45 PM'] I'm afraid that you are misrepresenting the reason why Galileo was condemned. It can be found in the Holy Office's document itself.

"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare, that thou, the said Galileo, by the things deduced during this trial, and by thee confessed as above, has rendered thyself vehemently suspected of heresy by the Holy Office, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false, and contrary to the Holy Scriptures, to wit:...and that the Earth moves, and is not the center of the universe, AND THAT AN OPINION MAY BE HELD AND DECLARED AS PROBABLE AFTER HAVING BEEN DECLARED AND DEFINED AS CONTRARY TO HOLY SCRIPTURE..."

In short, Galileo did not accept the Church's interpretation of scripture. (It might be noted that both the Council of Trent and Vatican taught that the Church interpreted scripture correctly -an infallible teaching???)

see [url="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html"]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html[/url]

But the Church was wrong on both counts, the immovability of the earth, and its interpretation of scripture. QED [/quote]
Wow I am I would have never guessed, I mean that whole course in the History of science at that secular College must have been a cleverly designed ploy by the Church and that guy who taught it, who claimed to be an athiest I guess he was a secret Jesuit spy. Galileo was told to prove it, specificly he was told that if he could prove it that the traditional understanding of that scripture would have to be reevaluated; however he could not prove it, it couldn't be proven withthe technology available at the time. So they told him to stop teaching it, to keep his mouth shut, this was in direct reaction to the Lutherian use of Galileo's teaching to prove that the Church was not defending Scripture.

Had Galileo been able to prove it none of it would have happened, or if he had simply obeyed his own government, but he didn't and so he was forcibly silenced.


As for Trent I don't recall any canons dealing with the movment of the Earth could you please point it out?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='theculturewarrior' date='May 9 2005, 02:21 PM'] Just out of curiousity, LittleLes, what society [i]didn't[/i] use torture or slavery back then? [/quote]
Ah! The old "everybody did it so it must be OK argument"

I thought you were maintaining the claim that the Church was founded by God and, as a divine institution, it would be kept from falling into error. Isn't that the real basis of the claim for "infallibility."

Do you think that the institutional Church is a very fallible human creation after all????

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Ordo.Teutonicorum' date='May 9 2005, 12:11 PM']


Finally, the Church never burned a single person. The Church didn't have the power to use the death penalty on anyone. The secular governments controlled that aspect of things. So, the Church would then have to hand the man over to the secular government to be executed by them. So, the secular government had to agree with what the Church was doing for that to happen.

[/quote]
Ah, yes. The "turn them over to the government to be tortured or burned at the stake so we can claim we don't do that" ploy.

Wasn't that the argument used when the English burned Joan of Arc at the stake with papal approval?

A modern form would be turning over prisoners to nations that use torture to extract information. Is moral responsibility avoided by such a practice???

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Ordo.Teutonicorum' date='May 9 2005, 02:30 PM'] Actually it sounds to me like the lack of proof was the real issue. Note the importance of the word probable in the sentence. [/quote]
In those days, and by some even now, the Church's interpretation of scripture has to be consider correct, so even holding the opinion that another interpretation is "probable" was heresy.

But you are correct on your second point about capitalizing passages in documents. From now on I will add the disclaimer "Emphasis mine." Will that be acceptable.

Littleles