Spanish Inquisiton

Daniel Carlton · Monday at 5:30 AM

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.

Just wanted to politely point something out: I read your post thoroughly and you said you ask moderators to delete posts that have no facts attached to them but that is exactly what you did - made a post with claims without any sources attached to it to verify them.

The Liturgist · Monday at 3:40 PM

Daniel Carlton said:
Just wanted to politely point something out: I read your post thoroughly and you said you ask moderators to delete posts that have no facts attached to them but that is exactly what you did - made a post with claims without any sources attached to it to verify them.

I don’t think you understand what my friend @boughtwithaprice is saying. His post can be independently verified with regards to the facts, whereas conversely, there are publications written by people prejudiced against the Roman Catholic Church which contain verifiable historical falsehoods. Thus, citations in and of themselves do not ensure factual content, and you cannot have a post with “facts attached”, since there is a difference between a citation of a third party source, and a historical fact.

Citations of third party sources rather have to be independently evaluated for their accuracy.

For my part, I would prefer it if members conducted the most basic research using mainstream encyclopedias such as the Encyclopedia Brittanica, as well as books published by respectable academic publishers such as Oxford University Press, and its equivalent at Cambridge, and in the US the presses attached to the major seminaries such as Concordia University, Moreau Seminary, St. Tikhon’s Seminary, Princeton Theological Seminary, Nashotah House, Holy Cross Seminary, Holy Trinity Seminary, and others, as well as relevant schools of archaeology and history.

This research can easily be conducted using Google.

I also wish members would refrain from using easily avoidable logical fallacies in their arguments, which is something we see a lot in threads such as this.

However, it is up to the members to conduct themselves in such a manner. Thus, one can rely on sources lacking credibility and employ fallacious arguments, provided one does not cross the line into inflammatory remarks about another denomination, for example, denying their status as Christian.

SabbathBlessings · Monday at 3:58 PM

However, it is up to the members to conduct themselves in such a manner. Thus, one can rely on sources lacking credibility and employ fallacious arguments, provided one does not cross the line into inflammatory remarks about another denomination, for example, denying their status as Christian.

If only people listened to their own advice.

The Liturgist · Monday at 4:07 PM

SabbathBlessings said:
If only people listened to their own advice.

If you’re aware of any logical fallacies in my posts, please inform me of them, and I will take corrective action immediately.

All sources which I cite are either mainstream academic sources or Patristic sources representing the views of the early Church.

SabbathBlessings · Monday at 4:14 PM

The Liturgist said:
If you’re aware of any logical fallacies in my posts, please inform me of them, and I will take corrective action immediately.

All sources which I cite are either mainstream academic sources or Patristic sources representing the views of the early Church.

For example, you have been told over and over again that SDA's do not believe Jesus is a created being- yet continue to make the same accusation for some strange reason.

If one is going to use “google” and encyclopedias as “proof” on something I would suggest getting older versions of encyclopedias and compare it to newer versions as those have been changed by man over and over again to suit a narrative. We have to remember the devil deceives the whole world , the devil has been around since the beginning of this earth and behind the deception of re-writing history.

The Liturgist · Monday at 4:29 PM

SabbathBlessings said:
You have been told over and over again that SDA's do not believe Jesus is a created being- yet continue to make the accusation for some strange reason.

That’s not true - I’ve not accused the SDA church of Arianism, nor would I.

I noticed that when I criticized the SDA belief that our Lord is St. Michael, you seemed to think I was making such a charge, but that was not the case. Rather, I asserted the ancient belief that St. Michael is created, as a reason why the SDA should reconsider the doctrine that St. Michael is uncreated and sharing an identity with Christ our True God.

Additionally, I have referred to non-SDA adventists who did not agree with Ellen G. White on the Incarnation and the doctrine of the Trinity, but I have been careful to differentiate between them, and the SDA.

SabbathBlessings · Monday at 4:32 PM

The Liturgist said:
That’s not true - I’ve not accused the SDA church of Arianism, nor would I.

I noticed that when I criticized the SDA belief that our Lord is St. Michael, you seemed to think I was making such a charge, but that was not the case. Rather, I asserted the ancient belief that St. Michael is created, as a reason why the SDA should reconsider the doctrine that St. Michael is uncreated and sharing an identity with Christ our True God.

This is a perfect example, you claim you don’t do something, then do the exact thing.

You were just corrected on this, we believe Michael is another title for Jesus not that He is a created being as you just accused again. So at this point, its not a question of the desire to accurately portray what one believes, its just a narrative you wish to stick with, regardless of what the truth is.

This was shared by Amo2- as also stated to you numerous times previously

Though highly inaccurate. SDA's do not believe Jesus Christ was a created archangel. Any more than we believe He was or is a loaf of bread because He may be referred to as the bread of life. Or was just a man because one of His titles is the Son of man. Or a lion as in the Lion of the tribe of Judah, and so on and so forth according to the many titles applied to our Savior. SDA's clearly and conclusively teach that the Lord Jesus Christ is from and to eternity. No beginning, no end. Always has been, and always will be. God in verity. We believe Michael was the pre-incarnate Christ, because of the divine attributes applied to Him, and even title of angel attributed to Him in holy scripture as well. Not that He was an angel, but was and is considered the head angel by the angels, just as all in Christ now consider Him the head of humanity as well. The highest Human being of all, who is God. As He was and is God to the angles also. Only we now have the completely undeserved exalted position of being literal blood relations to God Himself in and through Christ Jesus our Lord. Mercy and grace beyond comprehension, all glory to God. Amen.

It’s not unique to us, many reformers believed this too.

The Liturgist said:
Additionally, I have referred to non-SDA adventists who did not agree with Ellen G. White on the Incarnation and the doctrine of the Trinity, but I have been careful to differentiate between them, and the SDA.

Sadly, another fallacy you promote and the way you set this sentence up as if EGW did not believe in the Godhead (Trinity) even when proven EGW believed in the Godhead. which I provided many quotes for you previously, which in the past you even acknowledged but perhaps you forgot again.

boughtwithaprice · Monday at 4:54 PM

Daniel Carlton said:
Just wanted to politely point something out: I read your post thoroughly and you said you ask moderators to delete posts that have no facts attached to them but that is exactly what you did - made a post with claims without any sources attached to it to verify them.

If you could point me to that post we can correct it

If you are referring to the OP. That as an invitation to discussion not a rebuttal or opening statement

It’s like starting a geometry proof. We say given that such and such is the state of affairs, let’s examine the question. We all have our beliefs, what are the facts?

Or if we are playing poker, a claim is made for the pot. Let’s see the cards rather than the banter back and forth of what we believe the cards to be

The actions on my part should have no bearing on the truth. Neither does diverting the discussion to me, advance the search for truth

A blow hard at a poker table is silenced simply by turning over the winning cards, not by telling him to shut up or mocking him

Daniel Carlton · Monday at 5:03 PM

The Liturgist said:
I don’t think you understand what my friend @boughtwithaprice is saying. His post can be independently verified with regards to the facts, whereas conversely, there are publications written by people prejudiced against the Roman Catholic Church which contain verifiable historical falsehoods. Thus, citations in and of themselves do not ensure factual content, and you cannot have a post with “facts attached”, since there is a difference between a citation of a third party source, and a historical fact.

Citations of third party sources rather have to be independently evaluated for their accuracy.

For my part, I would prefer it if members conducted the most basic research using mainstream encyclopedias such as the Encyclopedia Brittanica, as well as books published by respectable academic publishers such as Oxford University Press, and its equivalent at Cambridge, and in the US the presses attached to the major seminaries such as Concordia University, Moreau Seminary, St. Tikhon’s Seminary, Princeton Theological Seminary, Nashotah House, Holy Cross Seminary, Holy Trinity Seminary, and others, as well as relevant schools of archaeology and history.

This research can easily be conducted using Google.

I also wish members would refrain from using easily avoidable logical fallacies in their arguments, which is something we see a lot in threads such as this.

However, it is up to the members to conduct themselves in such a manner. Thus, one can rely on sources lacking credibility and employ fallacious arguments, provided one does not cross the line into inflammatory remarks about another denomination, for example, denying their status as Christian.

I understand exactly what he said. He is just not holding himself to the standards he is asking from others.

Don’t say it can be verified because the opposite could be true as well.

boughtwithaprice said:
If you could point me to that post we can correct it

If you are referring to the OP. That as an invitation to discussion not a rebuttal or opening statement

It’s like starting a geometry proof. We say given that such and such is the state of affairs, let’s examine the question. We all have our beliefs, what are the facts?

Or if we are playing poker, a claim is made for the pot. Let’s see the cards rather than the banter back and forth of what we believe the cards to be

The actions on my part should have no bearing on the truth. Neither does diverting the discussion to me, advance the search for truth

A blow hard at a poker table is silenced simply by turning over the winning cards, not by telling him to shut up or mocking him

It was just an observation, that you wanted facts from people but provided none yourself.

boughtwithaprice · Monday at 5:11 PM

Daniel Carlton said:
I understand exactly what he said. He is just not holding himself to the standards he is asking from others.

Don’t say it can be verified because the opposite could be true as well.

It was just an observation, that you wanted facts from people but provided none yourself.

Again to which post are you referring?

Daniel Carlton · Monday at 5:39 PM

boughtwithaprice said:
Again to which post are you referring?

I mean this is all rather evil is it not? Trying to justify or rationalise torture and murder.

The Liturgist · Monday at 5:43 PM

SabbathBlessings said:
This is a perfect example, you claim you don’t do something, then do the exact thing.

That’s not true - nowhere in the reply to you did I say or imply the SDA church denies the eternal uncreated deity of Christ our True God.

Rather, my argument is that because St. Michael has historically been understood, since antiquity, to be one of four created archangels, along with Saints Gabriel, Raphael and Uriel, this is a reason why the SDA should consider the possibility that the idea St. Michael is the uncreated person of Jesus, because of the lack of evidence supporting this idea in the early church. In other words, because the early church according to all available evidence believed St. Michael was created and not Jesus Christ, this is a compelling reason for the SDA denomination to change its doctrine and recognize, at a minimum, the two archangels the early church recognized who appear in the scriptures the SDA believes are canonical, St. Michael and St. Gabriel, as beings created by Jesus Christ, doing His will, but ontologically distinct from him, rather than the current belief that St. Michael is the uncreated person of Jesus Christ.

This argument, which I made earlier, clearly does not state nor imply that the SDAs believe either Jesus Christ or St. Michael to be created beings.

SabbathBlessings · Monday at 5:53 PM

The Liturgist said:
That’s not true - nowhere in the reply to you did I say or imply the SDA church denies the eternal uncreated deity of Christ our True

Rather, my argument is that because St. Michael has historically been understood, since antiquity, to be one of four created archangels, along with Saints Gabriel, Raphael and Uriel, this is a reason why the SDA should consider the possibility that the idea St. Michael is the uncreated person of Jesus, because of the lack of evidence supporting this idea in the early church. In other words, because the early church according to all available evidence believed St. Michael was created and not Jesus Christ, this is a compelling reason for the SDA denomination to change its doctrine and recognize, at a minimum, the two archangels the early church recognized who appear in the scriptures the SDA believes are canonical, St. Michael and St. Gabriel, as beings created by Jesus Christ, doing His will, but ontologically distinct from him, rather than the current belief that St. Michael is the uncreated person of Jesus Christ.

This argument, which I made earlier, clearly does not state nor imply that the SDAs believe either Jesus Christ or St. Michael to be created beings.

Where in the Bible does it say Michael the Archangel is a created being? The Bible indicates Michael is another Title for Jesus Christ why many reformers also believed this. I am happy to discuss in detail with Scriptures, if you wish to start a new thread.

The Liturgist · Monday at 5:59 PM

Daniel Carlton said:
I mean this is all rather evil is it not? Trying to justify or rationalise torture and murder.

No one is trying to do that at all. The Roman Catholic Church, through the person of Pope St. John Paul II, officially apologized for the Inquisition 25 years ago.

The issue in this thread is rather that some users are overstating the casualties to an extreme extent, and also have attacked both the Roman church and the Orthodox church, which was a victim of the Inquisition, for unrelated issues. Additionally, absurd claims have been made, for example, that the Roman Catholic Church killed over 125 million people in the Inquisition, which is absurd because that’s a number equal to the population of Western Europe, and the number is larger by about 75-100 million than any genocide or set of genocides in the past 200 years, when the worst genocides are reckoned to have occurred.

Daniel Carlton · Monday at 6:06 PM

The Liturgist said:
No one is trying to do that at all. The Roman Catholic Church, through the person of Pope St. John Paul II, officially apologized for the Inquisition 25 years ago.

The issue in this thread is rather that some users are overstating the casualties to an extreme extent, and also have attacked both the Roman church and the Orthodox church, which was a victim of the Inquisition, for unrelated issues. Additionally, absurd claims have been made, for example, that the Roman Catholic Church killed over 125 million people in the Inquisition, which is absurd because that’s a number equal to the population of Western Europe, and the number is larger by about 75-100 million than any genocide or set of genocides in the past 200 years, when the worst genocides are reckoned to have occurred.

So what are you trying to do then? Get the number of your crimes to a precise figure?

I mean that is nice that this former pope apologised but if you go on twitter, you will find Roman Catholics wanting to do that again today. So is there not a deeper issue with your church?

Valletta · Monday at 7:08 PM

Daniel Carlton said:
So what are you trying to do then? Get the number of your crimes to a precise figure?

I mean that is nice that this former pope apologised but if you go on twitter, you will find Roman Catholics wanting to do that again today. So is there not a deeper issue with your church?

This might be helpful:

What are some common misconceptions about the Inquisition? – EWTN Great Britain

ewtn.co.uk

boughtwithaprice · Monday at 10:30 PM

Daniel Carlton said:
I mean this is all rather evil is it not? Trying to justify or rationalise torture and murder.

So, you have nothing to say? You already have your conclusions and will not be moved? So why post ?

You can mischaracterize my intentions all you wish. The devil will give you no lack of accusations to use against me. But how does that serve God and follow his commands?
Exalt yourself over me if it makes you feel better, but as of yet, you added nothing to the conversation. Is that your intention?

Aaron112 · Monday at 10:43 PM

Amo2 said:
You have got to be kidding me. Nothing could be further from the truth. She has wisely backed away from open censorship, but is ever more seriously involved in ownership and heavy influence upon all of the above. Another topic which will apparently have to be addressed. There is only so much I can take on, so I will probably provide other sources addressing the serious involvement of Catholicism and the Jesuits in particular regarding the same.

Abominations fill the world, with almost no restraint from civil or religion or medical authorities at all.
I suspect they were not kidding anyone but themselves, as censorship, media control, more than ever, is currently practiced by the overseers throughout society (not many if any godly ones).

Aaron112 · Monday at 10:47 PM

JSRG said:
The "Spanish tickler" (an alleged torture device) appears to be a hoax, with all claims of it having been used coming well after the period in which it supposedly was used. Indeed, a whole lot of the medieval torture devices that get shown off in "torture museums" have no actual evidence they were ever used in the medieval period, or even used at all. Instead, they were made up only in the last few centuries (or in the case of the Spanish tickler, possibly the last several decades) for sensationalism.

If someone is able to look deep enough, the sensationalism while very widespread and more every year is being used to cover up the uncountable abominations that are taking place this year, and throughout history. Everything that can be used to cover up the truth is being used without limit apparently.

prodromos · Monday at 10:54 PM

Daniel Carlton said:
So is there not a deeper issue with your church?

@The Liturgist is not Roman Catholic.

Spanish Inquisiton

Active Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Legend

Active Member

Legend

Active Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Similar threads