Spanish Inquisiton

Amo2 · May 13, 2025

prodromos said:
You've just posted a wall of text with no references.

My bad. I'll work on getting more accurate info than just the authors.

Amo2 · May 13, 2025

Here is repost with better referencing.

The following quotes are taken from -

THE GREAT EMPIRES OF PROPHECY, by Alonzo Jones, chap. 29, Pg. 392 -

20. The next year (A.D. 325) Constantine convened at Nice the first general council of the Catholic Church, presided over its deliberations, and enforced its decrees. The following year (A.D. 326) he went to Rome to celebrate in that city the twentieth year of his accession to the office of emperor, and while there, in the month of April, and wholly in jealous tyranny, he had his son Crispus murdered. Crispus was his eldest son, who had assisted in his wars, especially with Licinius, and had proved himself aable commander. He commanded the fleet at the siege of Byzantium, and after the battle the names of Constantine and Crispus were united in the joyful acclamations of their Eastern subjects. This excited the jealousy of Constantine, who soon began to slight Crispus, and bestow imperial favors upon his younger son, Constantius, who was but a mere boy. Constantine pretended that Crispus had entered into a conspiracy against him, and Oct. 21, 325, he issued an edict restoring the order of delators, after the manner of Tiberius and Domitian. "By all the allurements of honors and rewards, he invites informers of every degree to accuse without exception his magistrates or ministers, his friends or his most intimate favorites, protesting, with a solemn asseveration, that he himself will listen to the charge." (Gibbon - “Decline and Fall,” chap. 18, par. 6)

Chapter 31, Pg 415

ROME - THE UNION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

If the mutual flattery of Constantine and the bishops had concerned only themselves, it would have been a matter of very slight importance indeed; but this was not so. Each side represented an important interest. Constantine merely represented the State, and the bishops the church; and their mutual flattery was only the covering of a deep-laid and far-reaching scheme which each party was determined to work to the utmost, for its own interests. "It was the aim of Constantine to make theology a branch of politics; it was the hope of every bishop in the empire to make politics a branch of theology." (Draper - “Intellectual Development of Europe,” chap. 10 par. 6.)

Chapter 33, Pg. 452

“Victor Constantinus Maximus Augustus to the Heretics: Understand now, by this present statute, ye Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulians, ye who are called Cataphrygians, and all ye who devise and support heresies by means of your private assemblies, with what a tissue of falsehood and vanity, with what destructive and venomous errors, your doctrines are inseparably interwoven; so that through you the healthy soul is stricken with disease, and the living becomes the prey of everlasting death. Ye haters and enemies of truth and life, in league with destruction! All your counsels are opposed to the truth, but familiar with deeds of baseness, fit subjects for the fabulous follies of the stage; and by these ye frame falsehoods, oppress the innocent, and withhold the light from them that believe. Ever trespassing under the mask of godliness, ye fill all things with defilement; ye pierce the pure and guileless conscience with deadly wounds, while ye withdraw, one may almost say, the very light of day from the eyes of men. But why should I particularize, when to speak of your criminality as it deserves, demands more time and leisure than I can give? For so long and unmeasured is the catalogue of your offenses, so hateful and altogether atrocious are they, that a single day would not suffice to recount them all. And, indeed, it is well to turn one’s ears and eyes from such a subject, lest by a description of each particular evil, the pure sincerity and freshness of one’s own faith be impaired. Why then do I still bear with such abounding evil; especially since this protracted clemency is the cause that some who were sound are become tainted with this pestilent disease? Why not at once strike, as it were, at the root of so great a mischief by a public manifestation of displeasure?

“Forasmuch, then, as it is no longer possible to bear with your pernicious errors, we give warning by this present statute that none of you henceforth presume to assemble yourselves together. We have directed, accordingly, that you be deprived of all the houses in which you are accustomed to hold your assemblies; and our care in this respect extends so far as to forbid the holding of your superstitious and senseless meetings, not in public merely, but in any private house or place whatsoever. LET THOSE OF YOU, THEREFORE, WHO ARE DESIROUS OF EMBRACING THE TRUE AND PURE RELIGION, TAKE THE FAR BETTER COURSE OF ENTERING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, AND UNITING WITH IT IN HOLY FELLOWSHIP, WHEREBY YOU WILL BE ENABLED TO ARRIVE AT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH. In any case the delusions of your perverted understandings must entirely cease to mingle with, and mar the felicity of, our present times; I mean the impious and wretched double-mindedness of heretics and schismatics. FOR IT IS AN OBJECT WORTHY OF THAT PROSPERITY WHICH WE ENJOY THROUGH THE FAVOR OF GOD, TO ENDEAVOR TO BRING BACK THOSE WHO IN TIME PAST WERE LIVING IN THE HOPE OF FUTURE BLESSING, FROM ALL IRREGULARITY AND ERROR TO THE RIGHT PATH, FROM DARKNESS TO LIGHT, FROM VANITY TO TRUTH, FROM DEATH TO SALVATION. And in order that this remedy may be applied with effectual power, we have commanded (as before said) that you be positively deprived of every gathering point for your superstitious meetings; I mean all the houses of prayer (if such be worthy of the name) which belong to heretics, AND THAT THESE BE MADE OVER WITHOUT DELAY TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH; that any other places be confiscated to the public service, and no facility whatever be left for any future gathering, in order that from this day forward none of your unlawful assemblies may presume to appear in any public or private place. Let this edict be made public.” (Eusebius’s Life of Constantine,” book 3, chaps,64, 65.)

5. Some of the penal regulations of this edict “were copied from the edicts of Diocletian; and this method of conversion was applauded by the same bishops who had felt the hand of oppression, and had pleaded for the rights of humanity.” (Gibbon - “Decline and Fall.” chap 21, par. 1.)

ECCLESIASTICAL EMPIRE, by Alonzo Jones, Chap. 12, pg. 199

38. In the establishment of the Ecclesiastical Empire, Justinian holds the like place that Constantine and Theodosius occupy in the establishment of the Catholic Church. "Among the titles of greatness, the name 'Pious' was most pleasing to his ears; to promote the temporal and spiritual interests of the Church was the serious business of his life; and the duty of father of his country was often sacrificed to that of defender of the faith." (Gibbon - “Decline and Fall,” chap. 42, par. 23.)

Chapter 12, pg. 200

41. In the year 532, Justinian issued an edict declaring his intention "to unite all men in one faith." Whether they were Jews, Gentiles, or Christians, all who did not within three months profess and embrace the Catholic faith, were by the edict "declared infamous, and as such excluded from all employments both civil and military; rendered incapable of leaving anything by will; and all their estates confiscated, whether real or personal." As a result of this cruel edict, "Great numbers were driven from their habitations with their wives and children, stripped and naked. Others betook themselves to flight, carrying with them what they could conceal, for their support and maintenance; but they were plundered of what little they had, and many of them inhumanly massacred." (Bower - “History of the Popes,”John 2, Par. 1.)

Chapter 12, pg. 204

54. Belisarius dispatched to Justinian the news of his victory. "He received the messengers of victory at the time when he was preparing to publish the Pandects of the Roman law; and the devout or jealous emperor celebrated the divine goodness and confessed, in silence, the merit of his successful general. Impatient to abolish the temporal and spiritual tyranny of the Vandals, he proceeded, without delay, to the full establishment of the Catholic Church. Her jurisdiction, wealth, and immunities, perhaps the most essential part of episcopal religion, were restored and amplified with a liberal hand; the Arian worship was suppressed, the Donatist meetings were proscribed; and the Synod of Carthage, by the voice of two hundred and seventeen bishops, applauded the just measure of pious retaliation." (Gibbon - “Decline and Fall,” chap. 12, par. 11.)

THE CODE OF OUR LORD THE MOST SACRED EMPEROR JUSTINIAN.

SECOND EDITION.

BOOK 1.

TITLE 1.

CONCERNING THE MOST EXALTED TRINITY AND THE CATHOLIC FAITH AND PROVIDING THAT NO ONE SHALL DARE TO PUBLICLY OPPOSE THEM.

1. The Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius to the people of the City of Constantinople.

We desire that all peoples subject to Our benign Empire shall live under the same religion that the Divine Peter, the Apostle, gave to the Romans, and which the said religion declares was introduced by himself, and which it is well known that the Pontiff Damascus, and Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity, embraced; that is to say, in accordance with the rules of apostolic discipline and the evangelical doctrine, we should believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute a single Deity, endowed with equal majesty, and united in the Holy Trinity.

(1) We order all those who follow this law to assume the name of Catholic Christians, and considering others as demented and insane, We order that they shall bear the infamy of heresy; and when the Divine vengeance which they merit has been appeased, they shall afterwards be punished in accordance with Our resentment, which we have acquired from the judgment of Heaven.

jamiec · Jun 11, 2025

boughtwithaprice said:
Another member expressed a desire to discuss the inquisition. That is a broad topic spanning hundreds of years. I will limit this thread to the most notorious of the Inquisitions, the Spanish Inquisition. This is a sore subject with the potential for elevated emotions. I want to limit the discussion to facts, not accusations.

If a post is made with an accusation that is not backed up by facts, I ask the moderators to remove the post, yet not give any penalty to the poster. If an accusation is made backed up by facts, not hearsay, then I ask the moderators to allow us to discuss it.

Hearsay is a legal term for just repeating what someone else had said. Such a post would something like I read this guy said this about the inquisition or I believe this about the inquisition
I will ask what are your sources? And we can evaluate them.

What I have found was that the inquisition was aimed at those that falsely claimed to be Catholic, yet retained their old religion and were seeking to subvert the Church. It was not aimed at those that professed to be Jews, Moslems or Protestants, only those that attempted to infiltrate the Church through falsehood.

Here is what I found so far:

The Spanish Inquisition, established in 1478, was a religious tribunal aimed at combating heresy within the Catholic Church, primarily targeting individuals suspected of practicing crypto-Judaism (secretly practicing Judaism while outwardly converting to Catholicism), and to a lesser extent, other forms of religious deviation; while often associated with extreme brutality and torture, modern research indicates that while executions did occur, the number was likely significantly lower than popular perception, with the majority of cases resulting in fines or public penance, and the Inquisition's focus was more on surveillance and social control than widespread persecution of the general population.

Key points about the Spanish Inquisition:

Focus on Crypto-Jews:
The primary target of the Inquisition was "conversos," individuals of Jewish descent who had nominally converted to Catholicism but were suspected of still practicing Jewish rituals in secret.

Secret Denunciations:
Accusations against individuals were often made anonymously, which contributed to a climate of fear and suspicion.

Complex Trial Process:
Trials involved lengthy interrogations, sometimes including torture, to extract confessions, although the use of torture was supposed to be carefully regulated and was not always applied.

Penalties:
Depending on the severity of the offense, penalties could range from public penance, confiscation of property, exile, to execution by burning at the stake.

Social Impact:
The Inquisition had a significant impact on Spanish society, creating a climate of distrust and fear, particularly among "conversos" who were constantly under suspicion.

Exaggerated Popular Perception:
While the brutality of the Inquisition is often exaggerated in popular culture, it is important to note that the number of executions was likely much lower than commonly believed.

Important Considerations:

Historical Context:
The Inquisition emerged during a time of intense religious fervor and political instability in Europe, where the Catholic Church was actively trying to consolidate its power.

Varying Severity:
The intensity and methods of the Inquisition varied across different regions of Spain and over time.

Scholarly Debate:
Historians continue to debate the exact scope and impact of the Spanish Inquisition, with ongoing research examining the nuances of its practices and the experiences of those affected.

That looks like a very fair summary of a very difficult topic. Thank you,

Precision and clarity and detail are needed, if this going to be a worthwhile discussion.

For a start, the Inquisition - even in Spain alone, to say nothing of its overseas possessions, as in Lima and Peru - changed throughout time. As institutions do. It began as a means of dealing with crypto-Jews; by 1559 it had broadened its activities to dealing with “Luteranos” & other Protestants.
And it did not confine itself to dealing with cases of heresy; it had jurisdiction over some other offences as well.
It also had its own Index of Prohibited Books, which did not always agree with the (much better-known) Index of Prohibited Books published by the Roman Inquisition.
Treating it as a static, unchanging quantity, is not historical-minded; there has to be emphasis on the changes in it, through time.
A lot of the paperwork accumulated during its history, no longer exists; so a complete picture of it, is not possible.
Its procedure was based on the procedure of the mediaeval Inquisitions.

It is extremely unfortunate - though not surprising - that the subject has become bogged down in matters of apologetics, whether for or against; because that kind of attitude is taken up with partisanship on one side or another; which is the very opposite of the detached, fair-minded, unpartisan, completely honest, perfectly truthful attitude that ought to be the attitude of an historian. And the Inquisition is very obviously an historical topic, to be understood by historical means. So it is doubly unfortunate that the subject is mixed up with considerations, not only of people’s differing religious allegiances, but also of theology and ethics.

It is perhaps as well to mention, that neither Spain, nor Catholicism, nor the Inquisition, was alone in burning heretics or in using torture. That sounds like the worst kind of apologetics, of course. It is not intended as any such thing - one mentions these things, solely to provide some context. The Inquisition in Spain did these things, not because it was unique, but because it was nothing of the kind. The use of torture was widespread; so was burning at the stake; burnings in Scotland took place long after Scotland was no longer Catholic. So the European history of capital punishment & of torture, though it includes the Spanish Inqusition, cannot be confined to it, because that would be unhistorical. The search for accuracy of historical context in studying a particular institution, cannot limit itself to that institution alone; it cannot avoid looking beyond that institution, to others that may resemble it in various ways, so that the search may return to the institution that is the object of the study.

A difficulty for us, in the here and now, is that we have our own values and priorities, which in several respects are significantly different from the values and priorities of late 15th-century Catholic Spain. Humanitarianism (secular or not) is much more important today, than it was then, in any country. Equally, it is a safe bet that Inquisitors of that time and place would have been as appalled and revolted by the prevalence of abortion in modern Europe, as modern Europeans would be revolted by the Inquisition’s use of torture & the stake. Just the other day, the British Parliament agreed to legalise abortion up to the time of birth; so IMO, modern Britain has absolutely no standing to criticise the Spanish Inquisition. The only shred of excuse I can think of, is that Britain is a post-Christian, & morally confused, society.

It is very tempting to try to assign blame, and to moralise, when involved in this subject. I don’t think that is something one should do, if one is trying to be historically accurate & truthful. OTOH, if one aspires to be a Christian, of any kind, one can hardly avoid making such judgements. Perhaps, to understand a society, and how it “ticks”, adequately, one has to belong in it.

jamiec · Jun 11, 2025

JSRG said:
The Spanish Inquisition didn't begin in 1184, which was what boughtwithaprice was explicitly referring to:

"Another member expressed a desire to discuss the inquisition. That is a broad topic spanning hundreds of years. I will limit this thread to the most notorious of the Inquisitions, the Spanish Inquisition."

The Spanish Inquisition was a different entity from the French one you allude to.

The “mediaeval” - IOW, the non-later, non-Spanish - Inquisition was established in 1184. There were many Inquisitions, for various regions & in various times. Each has its own history. The historical picture, as with historical matters, is quite complicated; for instance, not all heresy trials were dealt with by Inquisitions.There were executions for heresy and witchcraft in England, Scotland & Ireland; but none of them involved the Inquisition, which was never established in those kingdoms. Jurisdiction over cases of heresy belonged, by canon law, to the bishops; the burnings in England between 1555 and 1558 were not the business of the Inquisition, but had, as their legal foundation, the anti-Lollard statute of 1401 called De Haeretico Comburendo. The trials for heresy were tried by the bishops.

jamiec · Jun 11, 2025

Gregory Thompson said:
Perfectly documented Satire.

This is not a laughing matter. Not everything can, or should, be turned into a joke.

jamiec · Jun 11, 2025

boughtwithaprice said:
And all hope for a discussion is nearly gone.
Is this how you wish to play it? They mocked Jesus the same way. Laughed it up, put a purple robe on Him and a crown of thorns. They knelt in mockery, spit on Him and beat Him on the head.
Oh they thought they were so right. The Jewish leaders said he was an imposter, so they all mocked His majesty. Do you think it is fitting that you join in? Is it safe to mock what we do not understand?
You need to present evidence to make a charge
Your post has not done that

I’m all for a serious discussion, because I’m all for anything that can - using only good methods - lessen distrust and misunderstanding and bad will between Catholics & Protestants.

jamiec · Jun 11, 2025

BNR32FAN said:
I should also point out that this ended over 150 years ago and the Roman church today shouldn’t be held accountable for the actions of those in the church 150 years ago.

I don’t see why the Church should not be held responsible for everything it did in its past. I think it is essential to do exactly that, in order to help keep it honest. It makes a great deal of its continuity with the past - therefore, it cannot shrug off anything in the past, but has to take responsibility for the whole of that past. It cannot be allowed to take credit only for the bits of its history that, at a given time, it happens to approve of, for (1) that is dishonest & cowardly; and (2) what it approves of, at one time, may be disapproved of by it at another.

Other bodies do not get to remember only the bits of their pasts that they agree with or approve - & neither should Churches.

jamiec · Jun 11, 2025

The Liturgist said:
Globally yes, but not in one individual genocide, and furthermore Islam has probably killed more, when we consider the genocides of the North African Christians in the first millennium, followed by the genocide against most members of the Church of the East, which was, prior to the genocide started by Tamerlane and continued by his sons. The scale of the genocide can be reflected in the fact that afterwards the Church of the East survived only in the Fertile Crescend and in India, whereas before, it stretched from the island of Socotra in Yemen in the Southwest, to Nisibis and Edessa in the Northwest, to Mongolia in the Northeast, across central Asia, then down through China to Tibet in the Southeastern corner, and from there back to India.

Communism should be viewed as being as bad as Nazism, but somehow it gets a free pass.

STM that unless there is a thoroughly reliable statistical evidence, reports of colossal bloodlettings - of whatever kind - absolutely have to be treated with very great caution. Especially if one is tempted to let bias for or against a group sway one’s judgement.

jamiec · Jun 11, 2025

BNR32FAN said:
Yes but the OP is actually about a discussion Boughtwithaprice and I had in another thread when I brought up the inquisitions in response to his claim that the Roman church cannot err and has apostolic succession ensuring that it cannot err. My purpose is not to drag up dirt to discredit the Roman church, only to point out the fact that history has proven that apostolic succession doesn’t guarantee infallibility.

Of course Apostolic succession doesn’t guarantee infallibility. No theologically-informed Catholic would claim that it does, because the two topics are entirely distinct, and are not logically connected. To claim that Apostolic succession does guarantee infallibility, would be a very stupid argument.

BNR32FAN said:
I also pointed out that the inquisitions were sanctioned by 99 popes over a period of 686 years which began in France in 1184 and continued in numerous Roman Catholic provinces all over the globe finally ending in 1870, that is according to Britannica and

jamiec · Jun 11, 2025

BNR32FAN said:
I had heard a number of around 50,000 for all of the inquisitions which they said that it couldn’t actually be determined that all of those executions were solely based on the individual refusing to convert. Many people were convicted of other crimes under the inquisitions other than refusal to convert but 50,000 over a period of 686 years comes to 72 people per year which in my opinion isn’t inconceivable. Supposedly that number was according to some Roman Catholic archives but honestly there’s no way I could possibly confirm the validity of it.

jamiec · Jun 11, 2025

BNR32FAN said:
I had heard a number of around 50,000 for all of the inquisitions which they said that it couldn’t actually be determined that all of those executions were solely based on the individual refusing to convert. Many people were convicted of other crimes under the inquisitions other than refusal to convert but 50,000 over a period of 686 years comes to 72 people per year which in my opinion isn’t inconceivable. Supposedly that number was according to some Roman Catholic archives but honestly there’s no way I could possibly confirm the validity of it.

STM that if figures can’t be ascertained to be accurate, they should not be suggested; in order to avoid producing fake history. I think that if a range of figures has been suggested, each should be discussed on its merits, and accepted or dismissed (with whatever degree of caution) accordingly.

jamiec · Jun 11, 2025

BNR32FAN said:
BNR32FAN said:

I think we can speculate all day long about what methods were used and how many people were tortured and executed but the point of my original statement that the OP is referring to was simply that apostolic succession doesn’t guarantee infallibility. The one thing that can’t be denied is that the Roman church was forcing people to convert to Catholicism which is contradictory to what Jesus and the apostles taught. I really don’t see any point in taking the discussion any further than that because we have no way of knowing what methods were used or how many were actually mistreated.

Click to expand...

There are ways of knowing what methods were used, because the procedure of the Spanish Inquisition of 1478 onward was based on previous practice, as laid out in the Directory of Inquisitors of the 14th-century Inquisitor Nicholas Eymerich: “Eymerich's most prominent and enduring work was the Directorium Inquisitorum, which he had composed as early as 1376.[3] It defined witchcraft, and described means for discovering witches. In compiling the book, Eymerich used many of the magic texts he had previously confiscated from accused sorcerers. The Directorium Inquisitorum was to become the definitive handbook of procedure for the Spanish Inquisition until into the seventeenth century. It can also be considered as an assessment of a century and half of official Inquisition in the "albigensian" country. For another clergyman, the Directorium Inquisitorum is written in 'Barbarian Latin'.”
See: Nicholas Eymerich - Wikipedia and also: Directorium Inquisitorum - Wikipedia

Saying “the Roman Church“ is too vague, and gives the - false - impression that the Church at that time was a centralised monolith.
And as Jesus and the Apostles said nothing about “converting to Catholicism”, it helps if there is no implying that they said that.

BNR32FAN said:
I honestly don’t like mentioning the inquisitions, I do hold the Roman church in high regard, I would say that much of their theology is more biblical than most Protestant theology but I don’t agree completely with RCC theology.

The Liturgist said:
No, its a question of reliable reporting. The RCC and its agents such as the Inquisition and the Crusaders engaged in deplorable conduct, for example, the murder of St. Peter the Aleut, a 15 year old fisher from the Aleutian Islands who was Orthodox, having been converted to Christianity by the Orthodox mission of St. Herman the Alaska. But to the Catholic missions in California, where he had travelled while fishing, as they had historically been safe waters, the idea of a rival Orthodox mission on the Pacific coast of North America was an intolerable thread and when he refused to convert he received the crown of martyrdom.

But accusing the RCC of using instruments of torture that they did not actually use, would be calumny.

It is also gratuitous and unnecessary, considering that it is true and undisputed that the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions burned people alive who did not repent of heresy (while killing those who did before the burning at the stake) during the auto da fe.

Also promoting these violent falsehoods about torture instruments increases the risk of someone actually torturing someone in that manner.

I don’t believe Christians other than those who have a specific academic or professional need to study torture, for example, historians or criminologists investigating crimes against humanity committed by a dictatorship, should even view such material.

By the way, it is also the case that Protestants tortured people during executions, for example, the English engaged in breaking at the wheel and hanging, drawing and quartering. And unfortunately some people have engaged in religious violence in the name of some Orthodox churches, although there are others, such as the Albanian Orthodox, Czech and Slovak Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox, which have only ever been the victims of violence (this is also true of some sui juris Eastern Catholic churches, like the Coptic Catholics). And it is true of some Protestant churches as well, and not just the “peace churches” but also some mainstream Protestant churches.

jamiec · Jun 11, 2025

Johan2222 said:
A “civilised discussion” is an interesting term to describe conjectures about a violent part of church history upon which historians have vigorously disagreed for centuries, not just disagreed, but done so in polar opposite opinions, vehemently defended by so-called facts, rendering any such discussion of the matter factually irrelevant and highly divisive.

A great deal of history is violent. Yet historians from what were Allied and Axis countries can discuss the histories of the Third Reich & of WW2, in all their aspects, in a civilised manner - so why should “civilised discussion”. of the Spanish Inquisition of 1478 onwards, be impossible ? If a Catholic can write a study of “The Young Calvin”: Amazon.com - what is to stop Catholics, and Protestants, and Jews, writing about the Spanish Inquisition; as they have already ? Provided there is goodwill on all sides, intellectual honesty, readiness to accept the truth however uncomfortable, and sufficient knowledge & understanding, civilised and fruitful discussion of thorny and emotive subjects should be possible.

Johan2222 said:
Even a brief search on the Internet by the uninformed will reveal the vast extent of the discrepancy of the figures postulated by various “researchers/historians” on how many people were killed, with figures ranging between a few thousand and over a hundred million.

And sometimes, conflicting figures can be accounted for, and more accurate figures at least approximated.

Johan2222 said:
Many people even today deny the Holocaust, even though the Americans published quite extensive evidence, apparently obtained by sending in teams of photographers into the concentration camps to record evidence of the victims and forcing whole German towns to visit the camps and witness the facts for themselves.

How distorted do you think the holocaust evidence is going to be in 300 years time seeing there is so much division about the “facts of the matter” today?

That might happen - but that possibility, is no proof that the stats from the Spanish Inquisition are inaccurate. Whether they are, and if so, to what extent, is for those who are competent in such matters to judge,

Johan2222 said:
Did that happen with the Spanish Inquisition? Were they overrun by a foreign power who documented and photographed the evidence and forced them to witness the atrocities?

A great deal of material was lost during the Napoleonic invasion of Spain, yes. Which is a deplorable loss, as such events so often are.

Johan2222 said:
Does a nation document and publish its own evil unless they are forced to do so by power that they are unable to resist?

The question assumes that the evil, is regarded as evil by those who do it. This is an unsafe assumption.

The study of Assyrian history is reliant, in part, on the “campaign annals” of its kings. Their texts, however biased, leave little to the imagination; the brutalities they mention are the reason for the bad reputation “enjoyed“ by ancient Assyria. We may think the Assyrians were extremely cruel, with their flayings alive, impalings, piling up of heads, blindings, castrations, mutilations, and suchlike “delights” - but that is our opinion; not that of their rulers, who seem to have thought otherwise. So it cannot be taken for granted that because we may think that culture X is extremely cruel, therefore, culture X will leave no record of those cruelties. IMHO, electrocution, and other forms of the death penalty, are as barbaric as anything done by the Inquisition; and the restoration of torture, such as waterboarding, is a decidedly backward step. To say nothing of the barbarity of abortion. Yet these things - no matter how utterly vile they may be - are recorded. There is no need to go to Nazism for examples of modern, officially-sponsored wickedness.

There is abundant documentation, of 10s of 1000s of trials, by the Spanish Inquisition. One study is that by Hennigsen and Contreran: “The first detailed statistical study of the Spanish Inquisition was the brainchild of Gustav Henningsen. Together with Jaime Contreras he registered 40.000 trials from the case summaries known as relaciones de causas, and supplemented these with data from Jean-Pierre Dedieu to publish a statistic of 44.000 trials. The resulting physical card index file had a basic statistical purpose, in accordance with the Inquisitorial historiography and the limited technical resources of that time. It was case-typological, and every trial record was therefore reduced to date (or year), court, main offence and sentence class. Most notably, defendants’ names and gender were excluded.”

More details here: EMID Source: the EARLY MODERN INQUISITION DATABASE

- The Early Modern Inquisition Database is an ongoing project to register trials from the Spanish, Portuguese and Roman Inquisitions. As of October 2021 it contains more than 108.000 entries with information on 100.000 trials from Portugal and Spain.
The first version of the database is planned to be released in the first half of 2022.

Bibliographical info about the 1986 study by Hennigsen & Contreras can be found here: Forty-four thousand cases of the Spanish Inquisition (1540-1700): analysis of a historical data bank

It covers the period 1540 to 1700, and includes 44,000 cases.

In essence, the Inquisition courts were legal tribunals, like many others. Rather than comparing them to the Nazi death-camps, a more enlightening comparison might be, with other courts in Spain, or with the English courts of the same period. In England, at that period, a great many crimes were punishable by death - but for some reason, which I don‘t understand, the Spanish Inquisition is treated as though it were uniquely bloody & wicked. That is not historical thinking - that is propagandistic thinking. There was no reason why the Inquisition should not record its cases in detail - just as there was no reason why the Proceedings of the Old Bailey 1674-1913, should not have been recorded in detail, as they also were. The death-camps were not legal tribunals, so comparisons with them, are unenlightening; because what are being compared, are not comparable. The analogy between the Inquisition and trials at the Old Bailey is imperfect, but not (I think) worthless. The Old Bailey trials were recorded (which is how they are known of today) - and the same is true of the cases and persons tried by the Spanish Inquisition. If these cases had not been recorded, records of them could not have been translated into English, as some have been. Such as in this anthology: The Spanish Inquisition, 1478-1614

There are several books in English on the Spanish Inquisition, such as ”Frontiers of Heresy”, by William Kamen, which is especially informative on developments outside Spain; and Henry Kamen‘s study. Both books draw upon primary as well as secondary sources. And the more (and better) studies of the subject there are, the better.

The facts of history - so far as they are obtainable - are important; whether the subject is the Spanish Inquisition of 1478 onwards, or the Shoah, or any other historical topic. And fortunately for later generations of historians, there is a lot of documentation surviving from the Inquisition.

Johan2222 said:
Have you seen extensive evidence even of the church objectively documenting and publishing their own evil over the years?

If Catholicism had not been very busy recording its history, its Protestant critics would have rather little to go on, when finding fault with it.

Johan2222 said:
Do you honestly think in 300 years time if the world continues as it is that the abuses of the church today will be extensively and accurately documented, seeing they are so covered up even at the present time?

The paedophilia cover-ups were exposed - whIch is a very good thing, not least for the Church herself. Since the bad acts of the Church have been thoroughly examined before now, why would they not continue to be ? There are many of them, and they have been much discussed. Being a Catholic almost requires one to have heard about them. Do Protestants have a good knowledge of the uglier pages in their history, I wonder ? I hope so, for such knowledge should help to keep them honest - which is an excellent virtue.

Johan2222 said:
You start off with conjectures that make absolutely no sense whatsoever and then have a conniption about people responding with what you condemn as folly.

If you honestly think that a period of evil would necessarily be extensively documented you have absolutely no clue about the nature of man or the stark reality right in front of your face today.

That being the case, how anyone can have a discussion with you about anything and expect any kind of logical response is hard to imagine.

Bore no resemblance to whose version of the “actual inquisition”? Your whole premise for this thread has been that your version of events which you laid out upfront (which by the way was not substantiated by any evidence) is correct and anybody else who doesn’t fit into your theories is postulating nonsense in an uncivilised manner.

Seeing your reaction to some of the other posts here, I think Romans 2.1 would be a pretty good reason why not many rational people would be able to have a “civilised discussion with you about this, or perhaps anything.

Not only that, but is this kind of thing possible to discuss while keeping with the spirit of Philippines 4.8.

Does a discussion on this topic edify the church? Does it empower evangelism? Is it of benefit to mankind in any way whatsoever?

Have you never read;

Proverbs 10:12 NKJV
Hatred stirs up strife, But love covers all sins.

Please don’t now try and justify all this and add error to error with the standard “if we learn history we avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future” nonsense that is preached by the blindly uninformed

Learning from history can be of great help, if we have the sense to learn from it. Advising people to do so, is not nonsense, but very good sense.

Johan2222 said:
who are unaware that there is nothing new under the sun, because clearly that is drivel to anyone with even the vaguest knowledge of history.

Anyone who sees what is going on in the “educated” world today and who thinks that is a valid argument obviously has a very tenuous connection to reality.

Knowing that bad company corrupts good manners (1 Corinthians 15.33) and that bad company loves to speak about evil, may I propose Philippians 4.8 might be worth you training yourself to dwell on a little more.

If you want to judge people for indulging in behaviour that you condemn as uncivilised folly, may I suggest you probably have a little introspection and log removal project of your own to do first.

The Liturgist · Jun 11, 2025

jamiec said:
STM that unless there is a thoroughly reliable statistical evidence, reports of colossal bloodlettings - of whatever kind - absolutely have to be treated with very great caution.

The records of the genocides against Christians of the Church of the East under Islam in the regions I mentioned were in many cases openly acknowledged and boasted of by some of the Muslims involved, and your own Chaldean Catholic Church, Syriac Catholic Church, Malankara Catholic Church and Syro Malabar Catholic Church were direct victims of this event, insofar as they are groups that are descended from the Church of the East, of whose maximum extent we have archaeological and historical records.

Additionally the genocides of 1915 against the Assyrians, Armenians and Pontic Greeks, which by the way reduced the Armenian Catholic Church from being the largest sui juris Eastern Catholic church to one of the smaller ones, are supported by overwhelming evidence.

Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Assyrian Christians have been co-martyrs in the Islamic and Communist realms for around 1200 years now. More recently we have been joined by our Protestant brethren, for example, in Pakistan, where the Anglicans are experiencing severe persecution.

The Liturgist · Jun 11, 2025

jamiec said:
Of course Apostolic succession doesn’t guarantee infallibility. No theologically-informed Catholic would claim that it does, because the two topics are entirely distinct, and are not logically connected. To claim that Apostolic succession does guarantee infallibility, would be a very stupid argument.

I would note that is according to the model of Apostolic succession of St. Augustine of Hippo. Under that used by most of the Orthodox, which is based on St. Cyprian of Carthage, another North African Christian, from a region whose Christians were later martyred, a validly ordained bishop who turns heretically schismatic cannot transfer apostolic succession. Some might argue this is crypto-Donatist.

Gregory Thompson · Jun 11, 2025

jamiec said:
This is not a laughing matter. Not everything can, or should, be turned into a joke.

Satire is important when no one takes responsibility.

boughtwithaprice · Jun 11, 2025

Gregory Thompson said:
Satire is important when no one takes responsibility.

Christ teaches us to not resist evil and overcome evil with good. What good is salt that has lost its savor? So you satirized your enemies, do not pagans do the same?

Gregory Thompson · Jun 11, 2025

boughtwithaprice said:
Christ teaches us to not resist evil and overcome evil with good. What good is salt that has lost its savor? So you satirized your enemies, do not pagans do the same?

Why do teachings like this only apply when the church is corrupt and needs to repent?

The Liturgist · Jun 11, 2025

Gregory Thompson said:
Why do teachings like this only apply when the church is corrupt and needs to repent?

Remember, the Orthodox did not engage in the Inquisition and the only remotely thing like that was the persecution of Old Rite Orthodox by the regime of Czar Peter “the Great” as some call him, who sought to make Russia more like Western Europe, by discouraging traditional Orthodox practices like men wearing beards, and persecuting those who made the Sign of the Cross in the traditional manner, but these were the actions of the Czar, not the Church, and the same Czar uncanonically seized control of the ROC after the death of Patriarch Nikon, and his actions can be said to be responsible for several schisms.

Gregory Thompson · Jun 11, 2025

The Liturgist said:
Remember, the Orthodox did not engage in the Inquisition and the only remotely thing like that was the persecution of Old Rite Orthodox by the regime of Czar Peter “the Great” as some call him, who sought to make Russia more like Western Europe, by discouraging traditional Orthodox practices like men wearing beards, and persecuting those who made the Sign of the Cross in the traditional manner, but these were the actions of the Czar, not the Church, and the same Czar uncanonically seized control of the ROC after the death of Patriarch Nikon, and his actions can be said to be responsible for several schisms.

I was aware that the Inquisition was a spanish/catholic thing. The corruption of the church back then eventually lead to the reformation.

My comment was more broad in scope however, like when Pastors do bad things they use the language of forgiveness manipulatively.

In a similar fashion, if one is satirized, shouldn't they turn the other cheek?

Spanish Inquisiton

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Legend

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Similar threads