Spanish Inquisiton

JSRG said:

It is misleading to say they signed an accord "with the Nazi party". They signed an accord with Germany. Germany may have been controlled by the Nazi Party at that point, but the agreement itself was with the government of Germany; it would be somewhat akin to saying that a country making an agreement with the United States "signed an accord with the Republican Party" because they are in charge at the moment (or "the Democratic Party" at any point where they controlled the government). One may argue that the Nazi Party had greater control over Germany's government than the Republican Party does over the US--Hitler had gotten the Enabling Act passed, effectively turning himself into a dictator--but the agreement was still with the government of Germany, and makes no mention whatsoever of the Nazis in it, only Germany itself.

Setting aside this distinction, it is also flatly inaccurate to claim the Vatican was the first to sign an accord with the Nazi-run Germany. As is pointed out in this article (which is written by an atheist, so one cannot say they have any particular bias towards religion or Catholicism):

The Great Myths 7: "Hitler's Pope"? - History for Atheists

Was Pius XIII really "Hitler's Pope" as New Atheists like Hitchens claim, or is the history of the Catholic Church and the Nazis not what is often depicted?

historyforatheists.com

The claim that the Concordat was “the very first diplomatic accord undertaken by Hitler’s government” – made with great emphasis by Hitchens and repeated by other New Atheists – is factually incorrect. To begin with, Hitchens gets the date of the signing of the Concordat wrong: it was signed on July 20, not July 8 as he claims. And it was far from “the very first” treaty the Nazis signed with foreign powers or groups. Hitler had re-signed a trade and friendship pact with the Soviet Union on May 5 and the Four Powers Pact between Germany, France, Italy and Great Britain was signed on June 7. Indeed, a couple of weeks before the Concordat was ratified the Nazis signed the Haavara Agreement with the Zionist Federation of Germany – these agreements were clearly not signs of friendship, just consolidation of power. Once again, Hitchens does not let small things like facts and accuracy get in the way of his distorted polemics.

This article also notes various instances of opposition by the Vatican towards Hitler and the Nazis--I find particularly interesting its "The Pope’s “Secret War” section where it discusses the work "Church of Spies: The Pope’s Secret War Against Hitler", which describes the Vatican's support of covert resistance to the Nazis during World War II. There may be room to criticize the Vatican for not taking stronger opposition than it did, but to claim it gave support doesn't fit with history.

As for Mussolini, a slightly more credible case can be built on him receiving "support" as Pius XI did praise him after the Lateran Treaty in 1929 which gave the Vatican back a small amount of land and established Vatican City. However, relations turned more sour soon afterwards, particularly as Mussolini's actions became more extreme, and there was increasing opposition to him by the Vatican. And one must remember that in 1929, while Mussolini was certainly a dictator, he seemed relatively benign. As far as I understand, Italian society was still free to an extent, Mussolini hadn't yet adopted Hitler's race obsession, and he hadn't engaged in any invasions yet. Mussolini was not seen as a particularly bad guy at this point, particularly in comparison to Josef Stalin. For example, Winston Churchill was publicly praising Mussolini at this point and did so until Mussolini decided to ally himself with Hitler later in the 1930's (this link, while asserting a particular quote of Churchill was taken out of context, still notes "Yes, Churchill expressed admiration for Mussolini, publicly and privately, until he allied with Hitler.")

Click to expand...

Amo2 said:

Please do reveal the falseness or inaccuracies you speak of, which places that shared in the conspiracy realm. We can most certainly look deeper into the matters for verification. I'm certainly not afraid of learning the truth, and or admitting that which is wrong, to be wrong. Are you?

Click to expand...

Valletta said:

How about blaming the actual looters and thieves for their crimes rather than Catholic teaching and the Catholic Church? It's sad that some of the old hatred has survived for so long. I know twice I've encountered Guy Fawkes celebrations while in foreign countries, and my mom remembered going to elementary school and seeing the American flag had been taken down and the KKK flag raised in its place. I was curious when I went to Ireland and I asked about the Protestant/Catholic relationship. One lady told me she harbored no hatred at all, but she did remember how the church doors had been chained and they had to say mass out in the rain and cold. I understand people can get quite taken by a particular book or account, in many cases of religious hatred it is a story told by one person with the vast majority just the author's word--undocumented stories.

Click to expand...

Universal destination of goods - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The disgrace and exile of the orthodox bishops of the West were designed as so many preparatory steps to the ruin of Athanasius himself. Six-and-twenty months had elapsed, during which the Imperial court secretly labored, by the most insidious arts, to remove him from Alexandria, and to withdraw the allowance which supplied his popular liberality. But when the primate of Egypt, deserted and proscribed by the Latin church, was left destitute of any foreign support, Constantius despatched two of his secretaries with a verbal commission to announce and execute the order of his banishment. As the justice of the sentence was publicly avowed by the whole party, the only motive which could restrain Constantius from giving his messengers the sanction of a written mandate, must be imputed to his doubt of the event; and to a sense of the danger to which he might expose the second city, and the most fertile province, of the empire, if the people should persist in the resolution of defending, by force of arms, the innocence of their spiritual father. Such extreme caution afforded Athanasius a specious pretence respectfully to dispute the truth of an order, which he could not reconcile, either with the equity, or with the former declarations, of his gracious master. The civil powers of Egypt found themselves inadequate to the task of persuading or compelling the primate to abdicate his episcopal throne; and they were obliged to conclude a treaty with the popular leaders of Alexandria, by which it was stipulated, that all proceedings and all hostilities should be suspended till the emperor’s pleasure had been more distinctly ascertained. By this seeming moderation, the Catholics were deceived into a false and fatal security; while the legions of the Upper Egypt, and of Libya, advanced, by secret orders and hasty marches, to besiege, or rather to surprise, a capital habituated to sedition, and inflamed by religious zeal. The position of Alexandria, between the sea and the Lake Mareotis, facilitated the approach and landing of the troops; who were introduced into the heart of the city, before any effectual measures could be taken either to shut the gates or to occupy the important posts of defence. At the hour of midnight, twenty-three days after the signature of the treaty, Syrianus, duke of Egypt, at the head of five thousand soldiers, armed and prepared for an assault, unexpectedly invested the church of St. Theonas, where the archbishop, with a part of his clergy and people, performed their nocturnal devotions. The doors of the sacred edifice yielded to the impetuosity of the attack, which was accompanied with every horrid circumstance of tumult and bloodshed; but, as the bodies of the slain, and the fragments of military weapons, remained the next day an unexceptionable evidence in the possession of the Catholics, the enterprise of Syrianus may be considered as a successful irruption rather than as an absolute conquest. The other churches of the city were profaned by similar outrages; and, during at least four months, Alexandria was exposed to the insults of a licentious army, stimulated by the ecclesiastics of a hostile faction. Many of the faithful were killed; who may deserve the name of martyrs, if their deaths were neither provoked nor revenged; bishops and presbyters were treated with cruel ignominy; consecrated virgins were stripped naked, scourged and violated; the houses of wealthy citizens were plundered; and, under the mask of religious zeal, lust, avarice, and private resentment were gratified with impunity, and even with applause. The Pagans of Alexandria, who still formed a numerous and discontented party, were easily persuaded to desert a bishop whom they feared and esteemed. The hopes of some peculiar favors, and the apprehension of being involved in the general penalties of rebellion, engaged them to promise their support to the destined successor of Athanasius, the famous George of Cappadocia. The usurper, after receiving the consecration of an Arian synod, was placed on the episcopal throne by the arms of Sebastian, who had been appointed Count of Egypt for the execution of that important design. In the use, as well as in the acquisition, of power, the tyrant, George disregarded the laws of religion, of justice, and of humanity; and the same scenes of violence and scandal which had been exhibited in the capital, were repeated in more than ninety episcopal cities of Egypt. Encouraged by success, Constantius ventured to approve the conduct of his minister. By a public and passionate epistle, the emperor congratulates the deliverance of Alexandria from a popular tyrant, who deluded his blind votaries by the magic of his eloquence; expatiates on the virtues and piety of the most reverend George, the elected bishop; and aspires, as the patron and benefactor of the city to surpass the fame of Alexander himself. But he solemnly declares his unalterable resolution to pursue with fire and sword the seditious adherents of the wicked Athanasius, who, by flying from justice, has confessed his guilt, and escaped the ignominious death which he had so often deserved. (The History of the decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 2, Chap. 21, pgs. 344 - 347 of the Everyman's Library edition)

Click to expand...

Amo2 said:

You do know don't you, that Guy Fawkes was a Roman Catholic who assisted in an attempted assassination of King James I, and tried to blow up Parliament? Were the Guy Fawkes celebrations you speak of celebrating his attempt to do so, or his failure.

Click to expand...

Amo2 said:

The Spanish Inquisition, religious persecutions, and "Christian" persecutions of other Christians of the past, are not in relation to one book or author. They are well documented historical realities with many volumes written by many authors throughout history. Though to date, most are no longer in public view, while many a revisionist history account is.

Click to expand...

Amo2 said:

The continued bloody, violent, murderous battles between various striving factions of professed "Christians" who sought, gained, and abused the powers that be of this world by way of force. Over and above the convicting power of the Holy Spirit of God unto authentic conversion. So it is and has been, that authentic Christianity has had to exist in this world with the double burden and or persecutions of the heathen and the false professed "Christians" who seek the favor of, and employ the methods of this world. Whom the evil one himself claims dominion over.

Click to expand...

Were 50 Million People Really Killed in the Inquisition?

Some anti-Catholic polemicists exploit myths about the Inquisition in a spirit of fear, surprise, ruthless exaggeration, and an almost fanatical opposition to the pope

www.ncregister.com

On page 87 of his book, Dr. Peters states: “The best estimate is that around 3000 death sentences were carried out in Spain by Inquisitorial verdict between 1550 and 1800, a far smaller number than that in comparable secular courts.” Likewise, Dr. Kamen states in his book:

Taking into account all the tribunals of Spain up to about 1530, it is unlikely that more than two thousand people were executed for heresy by the Inquisition. (p. 60)

. . . it is clear that for most of its existence that Inquisition was far from being a juggernaut of death either in intention or in capability. . . . it would seem that during the 16th and 17th centuries fewer than three people a year were executed in the whole of the Spanish monarchy from Sicily to Peru, certainly a lower rate than in any provincial court of justice in Spain or anywhere else in Europe. (p. 203)

Click to expand...

How many people did Henry VIII execute?

During his 36 years of rule, it is estimated Henry VIII executed up to 57,000 people

www.history.co.uk

Henry VIII (1491 – 1547) is perhaps the most well known of all England’s monarchs, notably for the fact that he had six wives and beheaded two of them. Besides presiding over sweeping changes that brought the nation into the Protestant Reformation and changed England’s faith, the infamous monarch, ridiculed for his obesity, was also subject to raging mood swings and paranoia. It is estimated that during his 36 years of rule over England he executed up to 57,000 people, many of whom were either members of the clergy or ordinary citizens and nobles who had taken part in uprisings and protests up and down the country.

Click to expand...

Valletta said:

And you embrace anti-Catholic revisionist histories.

Click to expand...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. (The Declaration of Independence, IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776, The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America)

Click to expand...

The Liturgist said:

The Arians who deposed St. Athanasius were neither Christian, nor Roman Catholic. Earlier in this thread you attacked the Council of Nicaea, off topic, in order to make an anti-Catholic statement, and now you are attacking the actual villains of the fourth century, the Arian Emperors starting with Constantius, and also Julian “the Apostate” who wasn’t really an apostate from Christianity in that Arianism is not Christianity in the same way Mormonism is not Christianity, but rather embraced neo-Platonism, the most intellectually sophisticated form of Hellenic Paganism*, just as many modern victims of counterfeit Christian cults like Mormonism wind up embracing false religions like Buddhism or New Atheism or Neo Paganism; Julian the Apostate continued to abuse Christians did so in a random way; insofar as Arians were in control of much of Christendom, Julian released St. Athanasius from exile assuming this would cause chaos, but it did not. The persecution of Christians was reduced under the last Arian Emperor, Valens, but did not stop until 386 AD, when the Christian Emperor Theodosius intended to hand over a parish of the Church of Milan to the Arians as a sort of bribe to avoid unrest, but St. Ambrose called the Arians’ bluff by organizing the pious Christian laity to hold a continuous vigil in the Church to prevent it from being taken over by the Arians, and the Emperor backed down, and there was no unrest.

However the Gothic tribes that the Arians had evangelized would sack Rome repeatedly starting in the early 5th century, and the Ostrogoths would conquer much of Italy in the 7th century, killing many Christians; meanwhile the Visigoths of North Africa converted to Islam and participated in the genocide of Christians in the Sahara.

St. Athanasius is venerated by the Roman Catholics but his direct successors are the Coptic Orthodox and Greek Orthodox Popes of Alexandria (the RCC missionaries formed a small Coptic Catholic church in Egypt but its primate is not allowed to use the title Pope, despite this being the traditional title of the Bishop of Alexandria for 300 years before it was adopted by the Bishops of Rome in the 6th century, and the Coptic Catholic Church also lacks unbroken apostolic succession to St. Athanasius, whereas the Orthodox have this).

+

In summary, its extremely offensive that you would attack the RCC over the Council of Nicaea, a council in which the ancient Roman church was not greatly involved, but did support, and send two legates to, and then bring up the subject again, but this time blaming the Roman Catholics for the persecution of St. Athanasius rather than the Arians, when in reality the Roman church did as much as it could do to help him, which was not much, since under canons 6 and 7 of the Council of Nicaea Rome had no jurisdiction over the Orthodox churches of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, and later canons at Ephesus recognized the ancient de jure independence of the Cypriot church and recognized the de facto ecclesiastical independence to Constantinople.

A major problem with your criticisms of Roman Catholicism is that many of them relate to the Eastern churches (which is not to say they are applicable to the Orthodox, since most of them are baseless - the Arians are not Roman Catholics and blaming Roman Catholics for the Arian persecution of Christians is blaming one of two victims for a crime committed against both, like blaming Slovakia for the Soviet oppression of Czechoslovakia, rather than the Soviet leadership from Stalin through the early years of Gorbachev’s premiership).

This is worsened by the fact that you haven’t taken the time to study the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox or the Church of the East other than cursory mentions in Edward Gibbon, which you have frequently misinterpreted.

By the way, the Church of the East, before the Islamic genocide initiated by the Mongol-Turkic warlord and “national hero” of Uzbekistan, Tamerlane, was the largest in the world in geographic terms and one of the most ethnically diverse; I think only the Oriental Orthodox were more diverse at that time.

* Neo-Platonism did not actually originate with Plato but with Ammonius Saccas and Plotinus in the 3rd century AD, who applied Platonic philsophy to Hellenic religion in an attempt to rationalize it, not unlike what happened in China with Taoism and Confucianism and their takeover of much of traditional Chinese Paganism, or in Japan with Neo-Confucianist influence on Shinto.

Click to expand...

Amo2 said:

I neither support or defend Arian or Catholic establishment or persecution by government. I'll have to examine your contentions above later, to address them more precisely.

Click to expand...

Amo2 said:

The main problem of course, is signing accords with Hitler or Germany, or any other nations, kings, dictators, or governments of this world. The call of the gospel is a call out of this world, not endless entanglement in the politics of this world, in the ever shifting landscapes of governments and nations. To seek to be sustained, supported, or obeyed through the civil powers of states, is to forsake the power, providence, and conviction of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in favor of it.

Click to expand...

Amo2 said:

Among the negative recorded histories associated with the Church of Rome, was her staunch use and defense of censorship. To the extent that even the bible was on her forbidden book list until the 1960's I do believe.

Click to expand...

The Liturgist said:

It seems like you brought up the Arian persecutions because you assumed it was the Roman Catholic Church at work, unaware of the fact that it was the Orthodox being persecuted by members of a different religion.

Arians were not persecuted by the Roman Church in antiquity; indeed, St. Ambrose of Milan and several Roman bishops objected when a Roman Emperor who was not Arian but Christian ordered the execution of a heretic, which was an action of the Roman state.

On the other hand John Calvin lured a semi-Arian to Geneva (technically a Binitarian) named Michael Servetus so that he could be executed, the only difference between Calvin and the city government being that Calvin would have preferred it had he been decapitated rather than burned at the sake.

The opposition to the use of violence against heretics, and the support of it, is a fundamental difference between the early church fathers like St. Ambrose, St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa and others, and later Western Church leaders, both Protestant and Catholic, from the 13th century until the 19th century.

Click to expand...

tall73 said:

The Adventist church leadership in Germany was not terribly consistent in their liberty stance either:

Fatal Flirting: The Nazi State and the Seventh-day Adventist Church
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=jams

Europe: German, Austrian Churches Apologize for Holocaust Actions
Europe: German, Austrian Churches Apologize for Holocaust Actions

Click to expand...

Valletta said:

You illustrate just how far from reality the stories are that you accept. The Catholic Church not only chose the 73 books of the Bible, but laboriously copied Biblical text by hand over the centuries, as well as translating into the common language Biblical text after text.. When the first book was printed by a Catholic named Gutenberg, Gutenberg chose the Bible. I would estimate around a billion Catholic Bibles have been been printed, I have a family Bible with my surname here in my residence that was printed back in the 1800s. The Bible is the book of the Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

Amo2 said:

Among the negative recorded histories associated with the Church of Rome, was her staunch use and defense of censorship. To the extent that even the bible was on her forbidden book list until the 1960's I do believe.

Click to expand...

JSRG said:

This would be very implausible, given that there were Catholic-approved Bible translations long before that time period. I believe there was, for a good while, strong discouragement to read any Bible translation not done by Catholics, but that's a rather different thing than the kind of blanket Bible prohibition you seem to be making it out to be.

Click to expand...

Amo2 said:

Twenty some odd years after the Vatican had finally removed the bible from their forbidden books list.

Click to expand...

Amo2 said:

Yes, the SDA church is involved in many things I do not approve of at all. Including government entanglement and support. Which is why I no longer financially support the General Conferences, and or local entities involved in supporting unbiblical practices or teachings. Selecting those ministries focussed upon the giving of the everlasting gospel to all the world, in preparation for our Lord's second coming. This message which scripture declares right before our Lord's return.

Rev 14:1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. 2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: 3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. 4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. 5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God. 6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, 7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. 8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. 9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, 10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. 12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. 13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them. 14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle. 15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe. 16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped. 17 And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle. 18 And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe. 19 And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. 20 And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.

Click to expand...