The Spanish inquisition: A quick overview.

[Quill & Ink History.]

Hi! I just uploaded a short video overview on the history of the Spanish inquisition, from it´s rise in 1480 to it´s abolishment in 1834. The video is trying to give a somewhat objective description of the Spanish inquisition and the literature it´s based on can be found in the description. Would love to hear your thoughts on the subject so please leave a comment in the treads comment section.

 

[prodromos]

I didn't expect this.

 

[tz620q]

I didn't expect this.

And now for something complete different.

 

[Phil 1:21]

I didn't expect this.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Hi! I just uploaded a short video overview on the history of the Spanish inquisition, from it´s rise in 1480 to it´s abolishment in 1834. The video is trying to give a somewhat objective description of the Spanish inquisition and the literature it´s based on can be found in the description. Would love to hear your thoughts on the subject so please leave a comment in the treads comment section.

So which was it? The Church formed the Inquisition, or Spain formed the Inquisition? I've watched two minutes and found two un-truths.

 

[Quill & Ink History.]

So which was it? The Church formed the Inquisition, or Spain formed the Inquisition? I've watched two minutes and found two un-truths.

Hi Jesse! The Spanish Crown created and controlled the institution but on paper it was under the control of the Papacy.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Hi Jesse! The Spanish Crown created and controlled the institution but on paper it was under the control of the Papacy.

Spanish Inquisition | Spanish history [1478-1834]

 

[flyboy2610]

I didn't expect this.

Noobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

 

[mark kennedy]

Before seizure laws were linked to things like the Inquisition it was rare, about fifty years later it was all too common. When you take away the seizure laws it just fades away. On New Years eve 1000 AD there was a common belief that the Antichrist and the tribulation would happen, end times predictions are nothing new in our day and age. When you really think about it they liked to target Moors and Jews, they are sematic are they not? The conflict between the Middle East and Europe had been centuries old and ethnic strife continues to this day. I asked a truck driver from Bosnia once how the conflict with the Serbians had started, he said they went in and took their seminaries. At church there is a mission they support, it's a school in Israel near Lebanon. They can't send missionaries because of ethnicity so they are training indigenous Christians. In many places your religion is something you are born into, meet a Kurd in Iraq who was explaining to me how that works.

If you ever looked at the Witch Hunts of Salem one of the things that is striking is the political intrigue. It was actually between Salem and Salem Village and the smaller was trying to separate from the larger Salem. What ended this sort of thing was the rise of Protestantism in the seventeenth century, democracy following in it's wake. There were terrible wars, the Thirty Years War between Protestants and Catholics and the Civil War in England were over disputes that went right down religiously originated political lines.

There's a lot going on here, I read the account of a Jesuit who came out of school thinking there were lots of witches, after a short time he said that he thought there were very few. The reason was the torture of a Franciscan monk who continually cried out to Mary and one of his saints. He wrote in a letter to his daughter that they were demanding names and he was so crippled and in so much pain he didn't know how much longer he could resist their demands.

The short documentary makes the opening comment that it was more about centralizing power then anything religious. Obviously, anyone who is familiar with the New Testament knows that Christ and the Apostles never advocated torture as an evangelistic method. This is what happens when you institutionalize religion, people who know nothing of the culture or values go into religion to accumulate power. That's why in the US we have a First Amendment, that wall of separation was erected not because of secular values but profoundly Christian ones. The ones who wanted the First Amendment were profoundly religious and they knew what it meant for rival religious factions to come for you.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Root of Jesse]

Before seizure laws were linked to things like the Inquisition it was rare, about fifty years later it was all too common. When you take away the seizure laws it just fades away. On New Years eve 1000 AD there was a common belief that the Antichrist and the tribulation would happen, end times predictions are nothing new in our day and age. When you really think about it they liked to target Moors and Jews, they are sematic are they not? The conflict between the Middle East and Europe had been centuries old and ethnic strife continues to this day. I asked a truck driver from Bosnia once how the conflict with the Serbians had started, he said they went in and took their seminaries. At church there is a mission they support, it's a school in Israel near Lebanon. They can't send missionaries because of ethnicity so they are training indigenous Christians. In many places your religion is something you are born into, meet a Kurd in Iraq who was explaining to me how that works.

If you ever looked at the Witch Hunts of Salem one of the things that is striking is the political intrigue. It was actually between Salem and Salem Village and the smaller was trying to separate from the larger Salem. What ended this sort of thing was the rise of Protestantism in the seventeenth century, democracy following in it's wake. There were terrible wars, the Thirty Years War between Protestants and Catholics and the Civil War in England were over disputes that went right down religiously originated political lines.

There's a lot going on here, I read the account of a Jesuit who came out of school thinking there were lots of witches, after a short time he said that he thought there were very few. The reason was the torture of a Franciscan monk who continually cried out to Mary and one of his saints. He wrote in a letter to his daughter that they were demanding names and he was so crippled and in so much pain he didn't know how much longer he could resist their demands.

The short documentary makes the opening comment that it was more about centralizing power then anything religious. Obviously, anyone who is familiar with the New Testament knows that Christ and the Apostles never advocated torture as an evangelistic method. This is what happens when you institutionalize religion, people who know nothing of the culture or values go into religion to accumulate power. That's why in the US we have a First Amendment, that wall of separation was erected not because of secular values but profoundly Christian ones. The ones who wanted the First Amendment were profoundly religious and they knew what it meant for rival religious factions to come for you.

Grace and peace,
Mark

The Spanish Inqusition's use of torture is muchly overstated. The cases in which it were used were cases of abuse of acquired power, but there were very few of them, and none sanctioned by the Church.
People who go into religion to accumulate power aren't part of the religion, per se. I realize there have been some who rose in the ranks of the Catholic Church, but they are not the Church. This includes bishops, cardinals and popes who were in it for the power. There's a saying about how people who criticize the Catholic Church often bring up the most un-Catholic to make their point. It's very true.

 

[mark kennedy]

The Spanish Inqusition's use of torture is muchly overstated. The cases in which it were used were cases of abuse of acquired power, but there were very few of them, and none sanctioned by the Church.
People who go into religion to accumulate power aren't part of the religion, per se. I realize there have been some who rose in the ranks of the Catholic Church, but they are not the Church. This includes bishops, cardinals and popes who were in it for the power. There's a saying about how people who criticize the Catholic Church often bring up the most un-Catholic to make their point. It's very true.

Let's take a look at what the Catholic Church might tell us about this:

The Secular Arm:

With the victory of Constantine in the second decade of the Fourth Century, followed by the conversion of most of the Roman Empire by the end of the century...Government wanted to control the Church within its borders, seeing the faith as inextricably linked to societal stability, identity, and as foundational to royal power. At the same time, the Church wanted to be seen as separate and above this “City of Man,” while also seeing in the secular arm the means to assure orthodox belief. (History and Myth: The Inquisition, by Robert P. Lockwood. Catholic League)
​

This put's Christianity at the heart of the religion that unified Rome. The Byzantine Empire emerges and a lot of good things result. Heresy would become a crime against the state:

Sanctifying the World:

It was during this early period that both canon and civil law were developed dealing with heresy that would become the sources for addressing religious dissent in the Second Millennium. (Lockwood, Catholic League)
​

This is where the problems leading up to the Inquisition start, right around the turn of the Millennium. The Catholic Church began to attempt to sanctify the world. Those who opposed this transformation were viewed not just as heretics but societal malefactors. Now this wasn't that bad for a long time but unfortunately it gave rise to mob rule and intervention from local governmental authorities. Please forgive the length and number of quotes but these are important facts and we are covering a lot of time here:

The two heresies of the 12th and early 13th centuries that gave birth to the medieval inquisition were that of the Cathars (or Albigensians) and the Waldensians. The Cathars essentially held that the “evil god” of the Old Testament created the material world and saw the Church as the instrument of that material world. (Lockwood, Catholic League)​

Two heresies that had plagued the church from the first century were Docetism and Gnosticism. Docetism was a belief that Jesus was never really had a physical body but only appeared to, this concept is reflected in the Koran btw, but moving on. Gnosticism was a Hellenistic duality of body and spirit, the body was kind of a trap and it mattered little what you did with it. All that mattered was the spirit being freed from it's mortal coil. In the 12th and 13th centuries they saw a revival of this kind of thinking, which I doubt had actually disappeared.

This is my main point, the rest is just background. There are landmark canons introduced that became enormously important:

• In 1184 Pope Lucius III issued the decretal Ad abolendam … called ‘the founding charter of the inquisition.’”
• Pope Lucius’ decree called for those found by the local church to be heretical to be turned over to the secular courts.
• In 1199, Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) identified heresy with treason.
• When Albigensians in Southern France killed a papal representative in 1208, Innocent called for a “crusade” against the heretical sect.
• France swept through the heretical strongholds for over 20 years. The Albigensian heresy effectively disappeared. (Lockwood, Catholic League)

Well, that's how it started at least. The history of the Inquisition wasn't as bad as it's portrayed, the secular courts and the mobs were much worse. What I think is going on here is first the Church was condemning heresy, which is the proper thing to do. Then after awhile the 'secular arm' is invoked making heresy a crime against the state. During all of this Catholic churches were doing more through preaching and teaching against heresy. The rise of the Inquisition is also giving rise to a mob psychology and over zealous rulers who cared more about punishment then they did conversion.

The discussion of John Wycliff is particularly informative, Protestants like myself think of him as a hero. He did some important work on the translation of the Scriptures and one strange doctrine known as predestination that I, even being a Calvanist, have eyed with suspicion my entire life as a Christian. I'm really kind of a TUPLIP three and a half pointer to be honest.

Just one more thing and I'm going to abandon the discussion of Lockwood here. It's well known that Galileo went to the Inquisition. I've spent a great deal of time on the subject of the Scientific Revolution so I would offer a few observations here. At the dawn of the Scientific Revolution Francis Bacon suggests the inductive approach to science is better then the Aristotelian Scholasticism of the Medieval period. Kepler would introduce the Y-square which became the mathematical heart of what we know as the principles of motion, aka law of gravity. While this is going on Galileo has the second telescope ever devised that he can magnify the heavens by 35X. He develops the Heliocentric cosmology into a model, along with doing ground breaking work with regards to the rise of the science of physics, still in it's infancy. When his colleagues in Pisa could not refute his arguments he is summed to the Inquisition on trumped up theological charges.

The man was never a heretic, he had six audiences with Pope Urban. He argued that the Bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go. In the end he is forced to recant, which was nonsense his work was out there, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest in luxurious accommodations.

Ok, that covers hundreds of years of history in nothing flat. Gee, I wonder how many important facts were missed. I just breezed you across half a millennium of history only barely touching on key points with perhaps a few marginal insights. I just wanted to spend a little time turning this over because I have found I always learn something, usually just enough to know, how much there is left to learn.

Bottom line, this isn't all on Rome. Secular authority and mob scenes litter the picture. The Inquisition isn't a bloody infamous rampage but rather a classic example of why the separation of church and state is important. We should as believers, speaking solely as an individual, use the 'secular arm' and ideals of 'sanctifying the world sparingly.' Lest we forget, God is still in control and the enemies of our faith will answer ultimately to him. As indeed we all will. God grant us the grace to always pray, God have mercy on me a sinner. Because as the saying goes, those who forget the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them.

Grace and peace,
Mark

​

 

[Lybrah]

I think the

Hi! I just uploaded a short video overview on the history of the Spanish inquisition, from it´s rise in 1480 to it´s abolishment in 1834. The video is trying to give a somewhat objective description of the Spanish inquisition and the literature it´s based on can be found in the description. Would love to hear your thoughts on the subject so please leave a comment in the treads comment section.

I think the Inquisition was in part a power trip, but several monarchs might have absolutely thought they were doing the right thing. Mary Tudor thought she was doing God's will by purifying England of heretics. This sounds absurd to me, because who cares if one is Catholic or Protestant, as long as they confess Jesus is Lord and keep His commandments? Personally, the idea may have come from the devil. Because of the Spanish Inquisition and Marian Persecutions, Christianity suffers even today when associated with it. Although Christians no longer do any horrific things like that, most non-believers will throw this bit of Christian history in our faces when we want to discuss the threat of Islam and Jihad.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I think the


I think the Inquisition was in part a power trip, but several monarchs might have absolutely thought they were doing the right thing. Mary Tudor thought she was doing God's will by purifying England of heretics. This sounds absurd to me, because who cares if one is Catholic or Protestant, as long as they confess Jesus is Lord and keep His commandments? Personally, the idea may have come from the devil. Because of the Spanish Inquisition and Marian Persecutions, Christianity suffers even today when associated with it. Although Christians no longer do any horrific things like that, most non-believers will throw this bit of Christian history in our faces when we want to discuss the threat of Islam and Jihad.

Power trip, maybe. For the Church it was a concern for the souls of the heretics. Why? Because they had a certainty that they had THE right faith, every jot and tittle. The Catholic Church still has that certainty. What you have to understand is that, if you're on a voyage, and your compass heading is even .1 degree off course, you're lost, in many ways. That's why the Church holds a hard line on what she believes and teaches.
"Marian persecutions"? That's a new one on me. Care to explain? Christianity suffers because of mankind's desire to turn away from God. It's called free will, and it started with Adam. Read the OT, every time the Hebrews turned away from God, they suffered. When they came back to the true faith, they prospered.
If you study Christian history, you will find that the populace always converted with the ruler.
Regarding your last statement, let me ask you, and this is a yes/no question: If you hold yourself responsible for the souls of all humanity, wouldn't you do everything in your power to take care of those souls? Question 2: If you have THE Good News, don't you want to share it with everyone?

By the way, the Inquisition was nothing more that a religious court. Many many examples of people apostatizing in order to get away from the harsher sentences of the state's court system. You know, trial by fire, trial by water, and so on?

 

[Lybrah]

The Marian persecution is the era during when Mary Tudor (Bloody Mary) reigned (5 years). She had almost 300 people burnt at the stake. As for me, I try to spread the good news to people (like my family), but some of them rejected and made very clear they don't want to hear it. Same with some friends. In the end, I just figure that they have to make the decision once they've heard. If I were a queen and thought I were responsible for all the souls, the most I could do is have the word preached. But you can't force someone to accept God. This is what Queen Mary tried to do. It didn't work, because many went to the stake after given the chance to change to Catholicism. By the end of her reign, Mary was hated, and probably there were quite a number of people who didn't want anything to do with the Catholic Church. So probably she did the opposite of what she intended to do.

 

[JackRT]

When the Spanish Inquisition was terminated in 1834 (?) a mob went to the graveyard, dug up the remains of Tomas Torquemada and burned them. Seems just to me.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The Marian persecution is the era during when Mary Tudor (Bloody Mary) reigned (5 years). She had almost 300 people burnt at the stake. As for me, I try to spread the good news to people (like my family), but some of them rejected and made very clear they don't want to hear it. Same with some friends. In the end, I just figure that they have to make the decision once they've heard. If I were a queen and thought I were responsible for all the souls, the most I could do is have the word preached. But you can't force someone to accept God. This is what Queen Mary tried to do. It didn't work, because many went to the stake after given the chance to change to Catholicism. By the end of her reign, Mary was hated, and probably there were quite a number of people who didn't want anything to do with the Catholic Church. So probably she did the opposite of what she intended to do.

Bloody Mary's persecution was secular, and while it was over religion, it wasn't caused by religion.
You're looking at that incident through modern eyes, and the times were different.

 

[Lybrah]

Bloody Mary's persecution was secular, and while it was over religion, it wasn't caused by religion.
You're looking at that incident through modern eyes, and the times were different.

I guess. Though I wonder if "times were different" was a plausible excuse in the eyes of God. Wrong is wrong. That doesn't change, or shouldn't.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I guess. Though I wonder if "times were different" was a plausible excuse in the eyes of God. Wrong is wrong. That doesn't change, or shouldn't.

In God's eyes, David was a warring king, yet a man after God's own heart. But Solomon was a peaceful king. So it appears that times do change and the context is important.

 

[HighCherub]

There's so many different opinions and perceptions even among scholars that you ought to be skeptical of much of what anyone feeds you about the Inquisitions.

Objectively speaking, from a neutral point of view, it seems apparent that they were not nearly as severe or unwarranted as many put it.

For one, there's not much of a forensic imprint- we didn't find hundreds of dungeons loaded with torture devices, we found a few.
Also, we found a bunch of murdered priests, presumably done by Spanish dissidents, who were against the orthodoxy of the only known Christianity of the time.

You know, in the world we live in today, there's a lot of people ready to sink their teeth into Christians at any opportunity they can. It's easy for a non-Catholic to fall into that trap and talk down to the Roman Church.

Divide and conquer, if you will.
Don't do it

 

[Bob Crowley]

Someone brought up the issue of Mary Tudor ("Bloody Mary") above. She of course was the Queens of Scots whom Elizaeth had executed as a threat to her rule. She is often accused of being particularly bloody against Protestants.

What we're not often told (aka "never told about") is the amount of bloodshed spilt by Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary 1 and Elizabeth 1 in order of their rule. Link - The Elizabeth Files » The Myth of Bloody Mary

• Henry VIII – 72,000 executions divided by 37 years (I’m being kind) = 1945.94 per year
• Edward VI – 5,500 executions divided by 6 years = 916.66 per year
  
• Mary I – 284 executions divided by 5 years = 56.8 per year

http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=334210&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

Now on Elizabeth -

Elizabeth I killed Catholics
Question from Chris B. on 10/22/2001:
Dear Dr. Carroll,
How many Catholics did Elizabeth I kill in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland?
Was it during her reign that Cromwell massacred Catholics in Ireland?
Why is there such a myth about her reign and Mary is dragged through the mud?
Thank you.

Answer by Dr. William Carroll on 10/22/2001:
Queen Elizabeth killed many hundreds of Catholics in her persecution, and 800 Catholic rebels at Smerwick in Ireland. Cromwell came fifty years after her reign. She ia called "Good Queen Bess" while Queen Mary is called "Bloody Mary" almost entirely because of the Protestant bias of most English historians. - Dr. Carroll

When Protestants accuse Catholics of having a bloody history, there are 3 fingers pointing back at them.

Getting back to the Inquisition, which is the real topic of this post, the proceedings are well documented, as it was a formal organisation. Hence the actual numbers were fairly easy to estimate, and historians have researched the inquistion in some detail.

I lifted the paragraph below from this link - https://strangenotions.com/spanish-inquisition/

Death Toll

No one knows exactly how many people perished because of the Inquisition, but it is thought to be between 3,000 and 5,000 people during the 350 years of its existence. Some writers quote figures so wildly impossible it is amazing they have any purchase at all (I’ve seen numbers nearing 95 million—more than the entire population of the countries the Inquisition was held in!).

In 1998, Pope John Paul II stated that “The Inquisition belongs to a tormented phase in the history of the Church, which...Christians [should] examine in a spirit of sincerity and open-mindedness...t is necessary to know the facts exactly and to recognize the deficiencies in regard to evangelical exigencies in the cases where it is so.”

Six years later, a symposium commissioned to study the Inquisition released its findings: the total number of accused heretics put to death during the Spanish Inquisition comprised 0.1 percent of the more than 40,000 who were tried. In some cases the Inquisition saved heretics from secular authorities.

So the real figure is probably about 4000. Compare this to Dave Hunt's outright lies in "A Woman Rides the Beast"

"In his History of the Inquisition, Canon Llorente, who was the Secretary to the Inquisition in Madrid from 1790-92 and had access to the archives of all the tribunals, estimated that in Spain alone the number of condemned exceeded 3 million, with about 300,000 burned at the stake." (Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast, page 79, also 242)

So the Inquisition was nowhere near as bloody as is popularly imagined in Protestant societies, and the Protestant societies carried out quite a lot of killing of their own, which Henry VIII no doubt answered for when he died, to give just one example.