Spanish Inquistion

[tz620q]

I'm part Irish, a former Catholic and have never been a member of a protestant church! Bob, God Bless you but there's so much denial and strawmen in your posts.

I don't think the Catholic Church should apologise for past atrocities I think the Catholic Church should REPENT!

Cromwell doesn't excuse the inquisition, abortion doesn't excuse the inquisition. You have chosen to join an organisation and become a public apologist for it, you need to expect to receive questions about that organisations beliefs and practices. Your posts seem to show that there is no remorse for past atrocities among Catholics?

God Bless You

I am not following you on this. The Spanish Inquisition was an event that had a duration. The state prosecuted it a lot longer that the Catholic Church and there are documents where cities appealed to the Pope to send the Catholic Inquisitors back (or leave them there) because the State Inquisition was much harsher. This is not an excuse, just an attempt to show that the Catholic Inquisition stopped. As far as repentance, the first step for that is to acknowledge the wrong done and the next step is to apologize. Pope John Paul II did this. So I am not sure what you want the Catholic Church to do now. Please help me understand what you are seeking.

 

[ChurchMilitant]

I haven't looked at the Spanish Inquisition that closely to be honest, but an atheist historian believed that there is a lot of disinformation among the Church, which I have seen in numerous other occassions. I also forgot what I read that changed my opinion.

Furthermore, I also believe this also applies to some Protestants that were going to my continent of Africa and butchering the natives there. Some of the things that we Africans state is disinformation as well.

 

[Root of Jesse]

In your dreams.
The inquisition was genocide in the name of Christ.

In your dreams. Nice to spout opinion, but if you could provide facts with attribution, that would be nicer.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The Spanish Inquisition- barbaric and anti-Christian in word and deed- an eternal stain on Catholicism.

Nice opinionating. Got any proof to back yourself up?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Many would echo your words and to some extent you are correct. However, I view it a little differently. I cannot ignore the fact that except for the Waldensians in a small area of Northern Italy and neighboring Switzerland and France, the Catholic Church was effectively the Christian Church in Western Europe during at least the first half of the Spanish Inquisition. Hence, I feel that not just the Spanish Inquisition, but the Holy Office of the Inquisition itself is an eternal stain on Christianity.

Why would the establishment of an ecclesial court system be a stain on anything? Is the establishment of the Superior Courts of the US a stain on the US? Having a legal system that's main concern is the human soul is a good thing.

 

[Basil the Great]

It is not the court system that was the problem, but the authorization and use of torture for almost six centuries.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Hello Bob. But don't you see what you're defending? If even ONE person was burned at the stake by the inquisition, a hideous and barbaric execution, then it's one too many. 4,000? Lord have mercy!

Do you even understand capital punishment? You don't know the extremes they went to not to execute anyone. Should maybe do a little reading and see things through the eyes of history rather than through modern eyes.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It is not the court system that was the problem, but the authorization and use of torture for six centuries.

Proof that they used torture, please. Sources and quotes.

 

[klutedavid]

Nice opinionating. Got any proof to back yourself up?

Hello Root of Jesse.

May I ask how the inquisitions were authorized by the church, by papal decree?

If so, was the papal decree ex cathedra?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Hello Bob. Thank you for your reply. One victim would be an eternity too many.

As part of a faith group that was persecuted by both Catholics and Protestants over the issue of believer's baptism I would agree that all tortures and murders for faith reasons are wrong and am saddened to hear about any of it.

Murder is different than being tried, found guilty, offered to convert, sent to prison, catechised, imprisoned again. Death only happened because of apostasy. When someone was put to death by the Inquisition, it was because it was a lost soul. Heresy was a capital crime. Secular courts were way more harsh than the Inquisition.

I am struggling to understand your logic though. You're main point seems to be that other individuals and churches committed more atrocities than your own church? Does that somehow erase the atrocities committed by your church? Does that the lessen the pain of those dear people, dear believers in Christ who were martyred by your church, the pain that they sufferred? We won't stand before God and say that someone else sinned worse, we must take responsibility for our own actions.

His point is that you can't say "Well YOUR Church committed murders" and forget that your own did similar or worse.

The RCC has made some pretty big claims are to it's role and standing in the sight of God, therefore people do look at it's actions closely.

We condemn wrong, immoral or sinful actions. Yes, there were some wicked popes, maybe up to and including the current one. But the fact that all Catholics are sinners doesn't change the fact that Jesus instituted the Catholic Church. IT's a hospital for sinners, not a country club of saints.

What I have found absolutely frightening about your attitude and that of other Catholics though is this. For the victims of inquisition atrocities I would excpect tears of sorrow and utter repentance from you for the pain inflicted on these people. Instead you argue semantics and compare yourselves to others. if you're not truly repentant about the Inquisition and the RCC rose again to state power, can we expect to see more people tied to stakes and set on fire by the RCC?

If any of them was wrongfully put to death, I, and my Church, is sorry. We've stated so repeatedly. The point is not to argue semantics, but just to help you remove the log from your eye. We're still working on ours, but that doesn't make Christ's Church any less holy. All of the apostles were flawed men, but Our Lord sent the Holy Spirit to guide us and protect us.
God Bless [/QUOTE]

 

[Root of Jesse]

I'm part Irish, a former Catholic and have never been a member of a protestant church! Bob, God Bless you but there's so much denial and strawmen in your posts.

I don't think the Catholic Church should apologise for past atrocities I think the Catholic Church should REPENT!

Cromwell doesn't excuse the inquisition, abortion doesn't excuse the inquisition. You have chosen to join an organisation and become a public apologist for it, you need to expect to receive questions about that organisations beliefs and practices. Your posts seem to show that there is no remorse for past atrocities among Catholics?

God Bless You

Can you show a case where a heretic was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death wrongly? If you can talk specifics about why it's wrong for a court to find someone guilty, to judge them and pass sentence on them, especially if you try to understand that prison is for rehabilitation as much as punishment, I'm willing to listen.

The Catholic Church has repented, in the truest sense of the word. She has apologized, and no longer kills people for heresy. What more would you like?

I'm not afraid of any question you might throw at me. You ask for apologetics, you'll get apologetics, which means, by the way, explaining the reason for our hope, as St. Peter said in his letter. So bring it on, Mr. lismore. And anyone else. But you better have proof of your allegations, rather than just opinions.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Hello Root of Jesse.

May I ask how the inquisitions were authorized by the church, by papal decree?

If so, was the papal decree ex cathedra?

The pope authorized them. The Dominicans carried them out. I don't think Ex Cathedra.

 

[klutedavid]

The pope authorized them. The Dominicans carried them out. I don't think Ex Cathedra.

Hello Root of Jesse.

If the papal decree was not ex cathedra (infallible), then there exists the distinct possibility, that the popes and cardinals may have been fallible. Should the popes be seen as fallible, what does that say for the rest of Catholic doctrine?

Surely, the only doctrine worthy of consideration by any Catholic, would be doctrine established through ex cathedra.

 

[Basil the Great]

I am not following you on this. The Spanish Inquisition was an event that had a duration. The state prosecuted it a lot longer that the Catholic Church and there are documents where cities appealed to the Pope to send the Catholic Inquisitors back (or leave them there) because the State Inquisition was much harsher. This is not an excuse, just an attempt to show that the Catholic Inquisition stopped. As far as repentance, the first step for that is to acknowledge the wrong done and the next step is to apologize. Pope John Paul II did this. So I am not sure what you want the Catholic Church to do now. Please help me understand what you are seeking.

You did not address me directly, but if you do not mind, let me respond. First, let me say that I have a lot of respect for John Paul II, mostly because he did authorize a change in the catechism re: the use of capital punishment in this day and age. It is true that John Paul did issue regret for the Church's use of violence. However, he failed to directly admit that the use of torture that was authorized as part of the the Holy Office of the Inquisition, was morally wrong. Yes, one can say that he implied such with his statement of regret, but this is still not the same thing. What I am still seeking is an acknowledgement that there was no moral justification for the authorization of torture (and it's use) that began with the Papal Bull of 1252 and apparently ended when the last person was put to death in Valencia, Spain in 1826, a school teacher named Cayetano Ripoli. As to the State vs the Church using the Inquisition and torture and the death penalty, I see no real difference, from the standpoint that what the Spain did was authorized by the Church. At any point in time from 1252 to 1826, any Pope could have issued a new Papal Bull to cancel the use of torture that was authorized in 1252. However, none of them did.

Now, before you get too upset with me, let me point out that I do not contend that the Inquisition and the approved use of torture is a stain on the Catholic Church. No, as far as I am concerned, Protestants and Orthodox are wrong when some of them make said statement. No, this issue is a stain on the entire Christian community. After all, certainly the EOC knew of the Papal Bull of 1252 and the subsequent use of torture. How many Orthodox Bishops spoke out against this? Likewise, how many Protestant ministers spoke out against the use of torture in Protestant dominated nations, including violence against African slaves in the American South? Yes, they may have spoken out against the Inquisition, but were probably quiet re: torture used in their own nations. No, the use of torture is a stain on the entire Christian community. One would have thought that Christians would have looked to Jesus and how he was tortured and forever vowed that they would never participate or authorize such. Sadly this did not happen.

 

[Basil the Great]

Proof that they used torture, please. Sources and quotes.

Root of Jesse - I have always thought you to be a very serious poster. I do not quite understand what you mean. We all know that the Papal Bull of 1252 authorized the use of physical force/aka torture, as part of the Inquisition. I do not know if the Church Inquisitors ever used torture or how often that they did, but no serious historian refutes the belief that torture was very common as part of the Spanish Inquisition. Yes, the Spanish State is directly responsible for their torture. However, the Church still had given approval for it's use in 1252 and said Papal Bull authorizing torture was never cancelled, at least not until the mid-1800's it would seem.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Hello Root of Jesse.

If the papal decree was not ex cathedra (infallible), then there exists the distinct possibility, that the popes and cardinals may have been fallible. Should the popes be seen as fallible, what does that say for the rest of Catholic doctrine?

Surely, the only doctrine worthy of consideration by any Catholic, would be doctrine established through ex cathedra.

Do you know that there are only about 8 times in 2000 years where something was declared ex cathedra? Popes are infallible, but only when they a)speak to the entire church about b)matters of faith and morals. That's why we don't need to 'obey' the pope about global warming and mass migration.

The Spanish Inquisition was actually established by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain.
It was intended to maintain Catholic orthodoxy in their kingdoms and to replace the Medieval Inquisition, which was under Papal control. It became the most substantive of the three different manifestations of the wider Catholic Inquisitionalong with the Roman Inquisition and Portuguese Inquisition. The "Spanish Inquisition" may be defined broadly, operating "in Spain and in all Spanish colonies and territories, which included the Canary Islands, the Spanish Netherlands, the Kingdom of Naples, and all Spanish possessions in North, Central, and South America."

The Inquisition was originally intended primarily to identify heretics among those who converted from Judaism and Islam to Catholicism. The regulation of the faith of newly converted Catholics was intensified after the royal decrees issued in 1492 and 1502 ordering Jews and Muslims to convert to Catholicism or leave Spain.[1] The Inquisition was not definitively abolished until 1834, during the reign of Isabella II, after a period of declining influence in the preceding century.

The Inquisitions is not a doctrine, nor an item defining our faith, so it wouldn't be subject to infallibility.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Root of Jesse - I have always thought you to be a very serious poster. I do not quite understand what you mean. We all know that the Papal Bull of 1252 authorized the use of physical force/aka torture, as part of the Inquisition. I do not know if the Church Inquisitors ever used torture or how often that they did, but no serious historian refutes the belief that torture was very common as part of the Spanish Inquisition. Yes, the Spanish State is directly responsible for their torture. However, the Church still had given approval for it's use in 1252 and said Papal Bull authorizing torture was never cancelled, at least not until the mid-1800's it would seem.

The Spanish Inquisition was quite a bit later than that. Authorized is different than used. And lots of serious historians refute that torture was used as part of any inquisition. The papal authorization didn't apply to the Church itself, it applied to Catholic governments. So particular evidence of use of torture is required to aver your assertion. That's all I'm saying.

I know it is often said that Galileo was shown the instruments of torture in his issues with the Church. They were never shown to be used. I also know that there were some very zealous inquisitors. But again, with all the documentation (the Church kept very good documents) it's very rare that any torture was actually done.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Root of Jesse.

Do you know that there are only about 8 times in 2000 years where something was declared ex cathedra? Popes are infallible, but only when they a)speak to the entire church about b)matters of faith and morals. That's why we don't need to 'obey' the pope about global warming and mass migration.

I think a clearer definition of ex cathedra includes the council of cardinals. The pope in council with the cardinals, does then speak with full divine authority.

Global warming and migration may also be moral issues, ultimately your behavior will affect others.

The Spanish Inquisition was actually established by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain.
It was intended to maintain Catholic orthodoxy in their kingdoms and to replace the Medieval Inquisition, which was under Papal control. It became the most substantive of the three different manifestations of the wider Catholic Inquisitionalong with the Roman Inquisition and Portuguese Inquisition. The "Spanish Inquisition" may be defined broadly, operating "in Spain and in all Spanish colonies and territories, which included the Canary Islands, the Spanish Netherlands, the Kingdom of Naples, and all Spanish possessions in North, Central, and South America."

The Inquisition was originally intended primarily to identify heretics among those who converted from Judaism and Islam to Catholicism. The regulation of the faith of newly converted Catholics was intensified after the royal decrees issued in 1492 and 1502 ordering Jews and Muslims to convert to Catholicism or leave Spain.[1] The Inquisition was not definitively abolished until 1834, during the reign of Isabella II, after a period of declining influence in the preceding century.

The Inquisitions is not a doctrine, nor an item defining our faith, so it wouldn't be subject to infallibility.

Inquisitions by definition are defending church doctrine against heresy, that is what an inquisition is all about. The inquisitors are appointed by the church to defend church doctrine. Royalty can impose an inquisition on the state, but the inquisition itself is managed by the church. All kings and queens were under papal authority.

If someone chooses to rebel against church doctrine, then they are excommunicated. Should the attack on church doctrine be at a deeper level, then execution is warranted. The Catholic church has no blood on it's hands though, these executions were carried out by the state, merely under church direction.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Hello Root of Jesse.

I think a clearer definition of ex cathedra includes the council of cardinals. The pope in council with the cardinals, does then speak with full divine authority.

Actually, the pope is infallible by himself in many situations, doesn't need the cardinals. But only a few things are actually said to be infallibly taught.

Global warming and migration may also be moral issues, ultimately your behavior will affect others.

If the pope says we should conserve the resources of the earth, to be good stewards, that's a moral imperative. If he says that the globe is warming and humanity can do something about it, that's Papa Bergolio's opinion. If the pope says we should treat all people with the inherent dignity they're born with, that's a moral imperative. If he says that the US should allow unfettered border crossing, that's Bergolio's opinion. See the difference?

Inquisitions by definition are defending church doctrine against heresy, that is what an inquisition is all about. The inquisitors are appointed by the church to defend church doctrine. Royalty can impose an inquisition on the state, but the inquisition itself is managed by the church. All kings and queens were under papal authority.

If someone chooses to rebel against church doctrine, then they are excommunicated. Should the attack on church doctrine be at a deeper level, then execution is warranted. The Catholic church has no blood on it's hands though, these executions were carried out by the state, merely under church direction.

In those days, if someone rebelled against Church doctrine, it was a matter of good order and discipline of the state. The Church would try to bring said rebel back to the fold, show him his ways and get him to repent. If he refused, then the state could do what they determined to be the best action.

 

[klutedavid]

Actually, the pope is infallible by himself in many situations, doesn't need the cardinals. But only a few things are actually said to be infallibly taught.If the pope says we should conserve the resources of the earth, to be good stewards, that's a moral imperative. If he says that the globe is warming and humanity can do something about it, that's Papa Bergolio's opinion. If the pope says we should treat all people with the inherent dignity they're born with, that's a moral imperative. If he says that the US should allow unfettered border crossing, that's Bergolio's opinion. See the difference?
In those days, if someone rebelled against Church doctrine, it was a matter of good order and discipline of the state. The Church would try to bring said rebel back to the fold, show him his ways and get him to repent. If he refused, then the state could do what they determined to be the best action.

The pope is not a one man band.

The infallible teachings of the Pope are part of the Sacred Magisterium, which also consists of ecumenical councils and the "ordinary and universal magisterium." (wikipedia)