The Inquisitions

[BreadOfLife]

The black death is estimated to have killed 50-68 million people, about one third of Europe.

Ummmm, most sources say that these 50-68 million were over TWO THIRDS of Europe - not ONE Third . . .

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Ehhhh - WRONG.
The Inquisitions in Europe were matters of STATE - so the historical documentation apart from Church records is ALL there.

It's not only silly and ignorant to say that 22 million people were killed during the Inquisitions - it's an outright LIE.
As I stated earlier - the devastation cause by the sheer numbers would be something that history could NOT hide.

Funny how you first claim 22 million - and now you're downsizing it to 32 thousand.
Do your homework . . .

No, I'm just showing you I have some knowledge of what I'm talking about.
The 32,000 figure was written by catholic historians
Why can't you ever read the truth in what someone writes?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Ummmm, most sources say that these 50-68 million were over TWO THIRDS of Europe - not ONE Third . . .

Oh, so you're saying there was no one left for the church to kill.
You really are a loser.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Oh, so you're saying there was no one left for the church to kill.
You really are a loser.

And you're pretty ignorant of history if you don't know that the Inquisitions were a matter of STATE - not the Church.
The Spanish Inquisitions were begun by King Ferdinand of Spain - NOT the Pope.

By the way - name-calling is against the forum rules, so I suggest you cease and desist.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, I'm just showing you I have some knowledge of what I'm talking about.
The 32,000 figure was written by catholic historians
Why can't you ever read the truth in what someone writes?

Actually, you don't have any knowledge of what you're talking about if you believe the myth that 22 million people were executed during the Inquisitions. This is nothing but a completely unsubstantiated anti-Catholic fairy tale . . .

 

[mjrhealth]

By the way - name-calling is against the forum rules, so I suggest you cease and desist.

Yes please take not.... seruiously...

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yes please take not.... seruiously...

I haven't called anybody a name.
"Lie" is a verb. "Liar" is a noun.

Open a dictionary sometime - "seriously" . . ..

 

[mjrhealth]

I haven't called anybody a name.
"Lie" is a verb. "Liar" is a noun.

Open a dictionary sometime - "seriously" . . ..

Yes seriously, how can one tell lies if they are not a liar, seriously you do play silly games with words but still doing yourself in. Can we get back to Jssus or is your whole life catholism and mary...

 

[aspen]

You guys are all liars....there!

Somebody had to do it...

 

[mjrhealth]

You guys are all liars....there!

Somebody had to do it...

Well at least you are brave enough, now maybe we can get on with the real things.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yes seriously, how can one tell lies if they are not a liar, seriously you do play silly games with words but still doing yourself in. Can we get back to Jssus or is your whole life catholism and mary...

First of all - to discuss Christ's Church IS to discuss Christ.
The Church us the FULLNESS of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23). He equates His very self with His Church (Acts 9:4-5).

Secondly - if you cannot address the fact that "Lie" is a verb. and "Liar" is a noun - I suggest you purchase a dictionary.

 

[aspen]

So discussing the Catholic Church is discussing Christ, but naming a person's dishonest behavior has nothing to do with calling a person a liar....

Got it!

 

[mjrhealth]

The Church us the FULLNESS of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23). He equates His very self with His Church (Acts 9:4-5).

Yes we know that His church "ecclesia" not mens .... Please get your facts straight

this one

Act 7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,
Act 7:49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?
Act 7:50 Hath not my hand made all these things?
Act 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

Can we stop mixing the two up, it is very confusing to young Christians

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Actually, you don't have any knowledge of what you're talking about if you believe the myth that 22 million people were executed during the Inquisitions. This is nothing but a completely unsubstantiated anti-Catholic fairy tale . . .

Okay, just for the sake of argument, (which is all you know how to do), let's say the total number responsible by the Pope was 428.
Would God bless his church for that?

 

[epostle1]

You said: "...the Lord made sure the church had such power until it didn't need it any more." "...so heresy and heretics were within their rights to execute the laws in place until nations began the separation of jurisdictions like England did in King James' day."

I think the Catholic Church gave itself the power to "execute the laws in place". The Church of God is under the New Covenant, and as far as I can tell, is under no command to torture and kill people.

In the 4th century, there was no social order, no government, no institution left standing to run things, the only thing left standing was the Church, so naturally you guys have to blame everything on the Church. If you are going to be critical of the Catholic Church, you have way too much historical ground to cover before you start making any sense. This you never do, it's too much work.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As early as the seventh century, Saint Bathilde (wife of King Clovis II) became famous for her campaign to stop slave-trading and free all slaves; in 851 Saint Anskar began his efforts to halt the Viking slave trade. That the Church willingly baptized slaves was claimed as proof that they had souls, and soon both kings and bishops—including William the Conqueror (1027-1087) and Saints Wulfstan (1009-1095) and Anselm (1033-1109)—forbade the enslavement of Christians.

Since, except for small settlements of Jews, and the Vikings in the north, everyone was at least nominally a Christian, that effectively abolished slavery in medieval Europe, except at the southern and eastern interfaces with Islam where both sides enslaved one another's prisoners. But even this was sometimes condemned: in the tenth century, bishops in Venice did public penance for past involvement in the Moorish slave trade and sought to prevent all Venetians from involvement in slavery. Then, in the thirteenth century, Saint Thomas Aquinas deduced that slavery was a sin, and a series of popes upheld his position, beginning in 1435 and culminating in three major pronouncements against slavery by Pope Paul III in 1537.

It is significant that in Aquinas's day, slavery was a thing of the past or of distant lands. Consequently, he gave very little attention to the subject per se, paying more attention to serfdom, which he held to be repugnant.
The Truth About the Catholic Church and Slavery

 

[GodsGrace]

In the 4th century, there was no social order, no government, no institution left standing to run things, the only thing left standing was the Church, so naturally you guys have to blame everything on the Church. If you are going to be critical of the Catholic Church, you have way too much historical ground to cover before you start making any sense. This you never do, it's too much work.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As early as the seventh century, Saint Bathilde (wife of King Clovis II) became famous for her campaign to stop slave-trading and free all slaves; in 851 Saint Anskar began his efforts to halt the Viking slave trade. That the Church willingly baptized slaves was claimed as proof that they had souls, and soon both kings and bishops—including William the Conqueror (1027-1087) and Saints Wulfstan (1009-1095) and Anselm (1033-1109)—forbade the enslavement of Christians.

Since, except for small settlements of Jews, and the Vikings in the north, everyone was at least nominally a Christian, that effectively abolished slavery in medieval Europe, except at the southern and eastern interfaces with Islam where both sides enslaved one another's prisoners. But even this was sometimes condemned: in the tenth century, bishops in Venice did public penance for past involvement in the Moorish slave trade and sought to prevent all Venetians from involvement in slavery. Then, in the thirteenth century, Saint Thomas Aquinas deduced that slavery was a sin, and a series of popes upheld his position, beginning in 1435 and culminating in three major pronouncements against slavery by Pope Paul III in 1537.

It is significant that in Aquinas's day, slavery was a thing of the past or of distant lands. Consequently, he gave very little attention to the subject per se, paying more attention to serfdom, which he held to be repugnant.
The Truth About the Catholic Church and Slavery

Well Kepha,
I don't know exactly what's going on here, but there is no excuse for the inquisitions. Basically in Spain.

If we want to say that corrupt MEN carried them out, then I'm on the badwagon -- we cannot blame a whole church except that the church in Rome (by that time, or was in Constantinople? Can't check right now)
should have at least put a stop to it.

What say you?

P.S. Beautiful Holy Family.

 

[epostle1]

Okay, just for the sake of argument, (which is all you know how to do), let's say the total number responsible by the Pope was 428.
Would God bless his church for that?

God does not bless his church for unfortunate political and social realities that were out of the control of the Church 1000 years ago. Does God bless anti-Catholic bigots for harping about unrealistic figures that would have wiped out half of Europe? Does God bless the numerous atrocities committed by "tolerant" reformers? Does God bless the moral deficits of the same? What is said about people who live in glass houses...

“Romanists” Killed 100 Million? David T. King & Other Geniuses

Disclaimer and statement of intent: Unfortunately, the religious “scandal score” needs to be evened up now and then, and the lesser-known “skeletons in the closet” need to be rescued from obscurity, surveyed, and exposed. I take no pleasure in “dredging up” these unsavory occurrences, but it is necessary for honest, fair historical appraisal. This does not mean that I have forsaken ecumenism, or that I wish to bash Protestants, or that I deny corresponding Catholic shortcomings.

Historical facts are what they are, and most Protestants (and Catholics) are unaware of the following historical events and beliefs (while, on the other hand, one always hears about the embarrassing and scandalous Catholic stuff — and not often very accurately or fairly at that). If (as I suspect might often be the case) readers are shocked or surprised by the very title of this paper, this would be a case in point, and justification enough for my purposes of education.
Even James Swan, an anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant polemicist and controversialist, who has often incompetently and unfairly savaged my research on early Protestantism, freely admits:
***“[T]here is a sense in which I’m sympathetic to the defenders of Rome who put forth the Tu quoque argument that Protestants have also committed atrocities, so bringing up Rome’s past sins isn’t a logically compelling argument against her . This is why I rarely have written against Rome by pointing out her moral evils.” (on his website, 9-9-17) He also writes of Hartmann Grisar, the Jesuit Luther biographer whom I cite a lot below: “I have found him to be mostly reliable with his citations.” (2-7-07)***

With that end and stated outlook in mind, I offer this copiously researched treatise, with all due respect to my Protestant brethren, yet not without some remaining trepidation.* * * * *CONTENTS

I. PROTESTANT INTOLERANCE: AN OVERVIEW
II. PLUNDER AS AN AGENT OF RELIGIOUS REVOLUTION
III. SYSTEMATIC SUPPRESSION OF CATHOLICISM
IV. PROTESTANT CENSORSHIP
BIBLIOGRAPHY

[Citations will refer to authors in the bibliography; any additional information will appear right after the citation; all material is quotations, unless otherwise noted (“Armstrong”)]

[P = Protestant scholar / S = secularist / non-religious scholar; otherwise, Catholics]
Read more at Protestant Inquisitions: "Reformation" Intolerance & Persecution

 

[epostle1]

Well Kepha,
I don't know exactly what's going on here, but there is no excuse for the inquisitions. Basically in Spain.

If we want to say that corrupt MEN carried them out, then I'm on the badwagon -- we cannot blame a whole church except that the church in Rome (by that time, or was in Constantinople? Can't check right now)
should have at least put a stop to it.

What say you?
P.S. Beautiful Holy Family.

Thanks.
But your ignorance of the Inquisition is doing a lot of damage to Catholic efforts on an anti-Catholic forum. The Inquisitions require an enormous amount of study to even begin to understand. It's a specialty in college/university curriculum and some of the members in here are hostile ant-catholics that are getting "fed" and threads like this don't help.

The 1994 BBC/A&E production, "The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition" exposes the common understanding that the Inquisition was a vast pogrom of non Catholics as largely the creation of Protestant propaganda.

In its brief sixty-minute presentation, "The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition" provides only an overview of the origins and debunking of the myths of torture and genocide. The documentary definitely succeeds in leaving the viewer hungry to know more. The long-held beliefs of the audience are sufficiently weakened by the testimony of experts and the expose of the making of the myth.

The Inquisition began in 1480. Spain was beginning a historic reunification of Aragon and Castile. The marriage of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile created a unified Hispania not seen since Roman times. Afraid that laws commanding the exile or conversion of Jews were thwarted by conversos, i.e. synagogue-going "Catholics," Ferdinand and Isabella commissioned an investigation or Inquisition. They began the Inquisition hoping that religious unity would foster political unity, and other heads of state heralded Spain's labors for the advent of a unified Christendom. The documentary clearly and boldly narrates the historical context, which intimates that the Spanish were not acting odd by their contemporary standards.

The Inquisition Myth, which Spaniards call "The Black Legend," did not arise in 1480. It began almost 100 years later, and exactly one year after the Protestant defeat at the Battle of Muhlberg at the hands of Ferdinand's grandson, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. In 1567 a fierce propaganda campaign began with the publication of a Protestant leaflet penned by a supposed Inquisition victim named Montanus. This character Protestant of course) painted Spaniards as barbarians who ravished women and sodomized young boys. The propagandists soon created "hooded fiends" who tortured their victims in horrible devices like the knife-filled Iron Maiden which never was used in Spain). The BBC/A&E special plainly states a reason for the war of words: the Protestants fought with words because they could not win on the battlefield.

The Inquisition had a secular character, although the crime was heresy. Inquisitors did not have to be clerics, but they did have to be lawyers. The investigation was rule-based and carefully kept in check. And most significantly, historians have declared fraudulent a supposed Inquisition document claiming the genocide of millions of heretics.

What is documented is that 3000 to 5000 people died during the Inquisition's 350 year history. Also documented are the "Acts of Faith," public sentencings of heretics in town squares. But the grand myth of thought control by sinister fiends has been debunked by the archival evidence. The inquisitors enjoyed a powerful position in the towns, but it was one constantly jostled by other power brokers. In the outlying areas, they were understaffed in those days it was nearly impossible for 1 or 2 inquisitors to cover the thousand-mile territory allotted to each team. In the outlying areas no one cared and no one spoke to them. As the program documents, the 3,000 to 5,000 documented executions of the Inquisition pale in comparison to the 150,000 documented witch burnings elsewhere in Europe over the same centuries.

The approach is purely historical, and therefore does not delve into ecclesial issues surrounding religious freedom. But perhaps this is proper. Because the crime was heresy, the Church is implicated, but the facts show it was a secular event.

One facet of the Black Legend that evaporates under scrutiny in this film is the rumor that Philip II, son of Charles V killed his son Don Carlos on the advisement of the aging blind Grand Inquisitor. But without a shred of evidence, the legend of Don Carlos has been enshrined in a glorious opera by Verdi.

The special may be disturbing to young children. There are scenes of poor souls burning at the stake and close-ups of the alleged torture devices. Scenes depicting witches consorting with pot-bellied devils are especially grotesque. For kids, this is the stuff of nightmares.

Discrediting the Black Legend brings up the sticky subject of revisionism. Re-investigating history is only invalid if it puts an agenda ahead of reality. The experts once true believers in the Inquisition myth were not out to do a feminist canonization of Isabella or claim that Tomas de Torquemada was a Marxist. Henry Kamen of the Higher Council for Scientific Research in Barcelona said on camera that researching the Inquisition's archives "demolished the previous image all of us historians) had."

And the future of the Black Legend? For many it may continue to hold more weight than reality. There is the emotional appeal against the Church. The dissenters of today may easily imagine Torquemada's beady eyes as a metaphor of the Church's "dictatorial, controlling, damning" pronouncements. The myth is also the easiest endorsement of the secular state: "de-faith" the state and de-criminalize heresy. Who will be the revisionists in this case? Will the many follow Montanas' lead in rewriting history?

Our 20th century crisis of man playing God — usurping power over conception, life, and death — leaves us with no alternative but to qualify our demythologization of the Inquisition with a reminder: 3,000 to 5,000 victims are 3,000 to 5,000 too many.
The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

God does not bless his church for unfortunate political and social realities that were out of the control of the Church 1000 years ago. Does God bless anti-Catholic bigots for harping about unrealistic figures that would have wiped out half of Europe? Does God bless the numerous atrocities committed by "tolerant" reformers? Does God bless the moral deficits of the same? What is said about people who live in glass houses...

“Romanists” Killed 100 Million? David T. King & Other Geniuses

Disclaimer and statement of intent: Unfortunately, the religious “scandal score” needs to be evened up now and then, and the lesser-known “skeletons in the closet” need to be rescued from obscurity, surveyed, and exposed. I take no pleasure in “dredging up” these unsavory occurrences, but it is necessary for honest, fair historical appraisal. This does not mean that I have forsaken ecumenism, or that I wish to bash Protestants, or that I deny corresponding Catholic shortcomings.

Historical facts are what they are, and most Protestants (and Catholics) are unaware of the following historical events and beliefs (while, on the other hand, one always hears about the embarrassing and scandalous Catholic stuff — and not often very accurately or fairly at that). If (as I suspect might often be the case) readers are shocked or surprised by the very title of this paper, this would be a case in point, and justification enough for my purposes of education.
Even James Swan, an anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant polemicist and controversialist, who has often incompetently and unfairly savaged my research on early Protestantism, freely admits:
***“[T]here is a sense in which I’m sympathetic to the defenders of Rome who put forth the Tu quoque argument that Protestants have also committed atrocities, so bringing up Rome’s past sins isn’t a logically compelling argument against her . This is why I rarely have written against Rome by pointing out her moral evils.” (on his website, 9-9-17) He also writes of Hartmann Grisar, the Jesuit Luther biographer whom I cite a lot below: “I have found him to be mostly reliable with his citations.” (2-7-07)***

With that end and stated outlook in mind, I offer this copiously researched treatise, with all due respect to my Protestant brethren, yet not without some remaining trepidation.* * * * *CONTENTS

I. PROTESTANT INTOLERANCE: AN OVERVIEW
II. PLUNDER AS AN AGENT OF RELIGIOUS REVOLUTION
III. SYSTEMATIC SUPPRESSION OF CATHOLICISM
IV. PROTESTANT CENSORSHIP
BIBLIOGRAPHY

[Citations will refer to authors in the bibliography; any additional information will appear right after the citation; all material is quotations, unless otherwise noted (“Armstrong”)]

[P = Protestant scholar / S = secularist / non-religious scholar; otherwise, Catholics]
Read more at Protestant Inquisitions: "Reformation" Intolerance & Persecution

Well, I am a bit overwhelmed, but not surprised.
When one wishes to support the roman catholic church when charged with atrocities, one must come up with dramatic results to appear legitimate.
There seems to be more catholics on line defending catholicism then there are protestants protesting catholicism.
That is a sure sign of guilt.
It's been 23 years since President Noriegua of Nicaragua gave in to the US Military and left his place of asylum at the Vatican embassey.
The world was appalled that a so called religious Christian state would give asylum to a racketeer and murderer.
But time causes us to forget and now we think the Vatican serves God and not man.
Think again.

 

[GodsGrace]

Thanks.
But your ignorance of the Inquisition is doing a lot of damage to Catholic efforts on an anti-Catholic forum. The Inquisitions require an enormous amount of study to even begin to understand. It's a specialty in college/university curriculum and some of the members in here are hostile ant-catholics that are getting "fed" and threads like this don't help.

The 1994 BBC/A&E production, "The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition" exposes the common understanding that the Inquisition was a vast pogrom of non Catholics as largely the creation of Protestant propaganda.

In its brief sixty-minute presentation, "The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition" provides only an overview of the origins and debunking of the myths of torture and genocide. The documentary definitely succeeds in leaving the viewer hungry to know more. The long-held beliefs of the audience are sufficiently weakened by the testimony of experts and the expose of the making of the myth.

The Inquisition began in 1480. Spain was beginning a historic reunification of Aragon and Castile. The marriage of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile created a unified Hispania not seen since Roman times. Afraid that laws commanding the exile or conversion of Jews were thwarted by conversos, i.e. synagogue-going "Catholics," Ferdinand and Isabella commissioned an investigation or Inquisition. They began the Inquisition hoping that religious unity would foster political unity, and other heads of state heralded Spain's labors for the advent of a unified Christendom. The documentary clearly and boldly narrates the historical context, which intimates that the Spanish were not acting odd by their contemporary standards.

The Inquisition Myth, which Spaniards call "The Black Legend," did not arise in 1480. It began almost 100 years later, and exactly one year after the Protestant defeat at the Battle of Muhlberg at the hands of Ferdinand's grandson, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. In 1567 a fierce propaganda campaign began with the publication of a Protestant leaflet penned by a supposed Inquisition victim named Montanus. This character Protestant of course) painted Spaniards as barbarians who ravished women and sodomized young boys. The propagandists soon created "hooded fiends" who tortured their victims in horrible devices like the knife-filled Iron Maiden which never was used in Spain). The BBC/A&E special plainly states a reason for the war of words: the Protestants fought with words because they could not win on the battlefield.

The Inquisition had a secular character, although the crime was heresy. Inquisitors did not have to be clerics, but they did have to be lawyers. The investigation was rule-based and carefully kept in check. And most significantly, historians have declared fraudulent a supposed Inquisition document claiming the genocide of millions of heretics.

What is documented is that 3000 to 5000 people died during the Inquisition's 350 year history. Also documented are the "Acts of Faith," public sentencings of heretics in town squares. But the grand myth of thought control by sinister fiends has been debunked by the archival evidence. The inquisitors enjoyed a powerful position in the towns, but it was one constantly jostled by other power brokers. In the outlying areas, they were understaffed in those days it was nearly impossible for 1 or 2 inquisitors to cover the thousand-mile territory allotted to each team. In the outlying areas no one cared and no one spoke to them. As the program documents, the 3,000 to 5,000 documented executions of the Inquisition pale in comparison to the 150,000 documented witch burnings elsewhere in Europe over the same centuries.

The approach is purely historical, and therefore does not delve into ecclesial issues surrounding religious freedom. But perhaps this is proper. Because the crime was heresy, the Church is implicated, but the facts show it was a secular event.

One facet of the Black Legend that evaporates under scrutiny in this film is the rumor that Philip II, son of Charles V killed his son Don Carlos on the advisement of the aging blind Grand Inquisitor. But without a shred of evidence, the legend of Don Carlos has been enshrined in a glorious opera by Verdi.

The special may be disturbing to young children. There are scenes of poor souls burning at the stake and close-ups of the alleged torture devices. Scenes depicting witches consorting with pot-bellied devils are especially grotesque. For kids, this is the stuff of nightmares.

Discrediting the Black Legend brings up the sticky subject of revisionism. Re-investigating history is only invalid if it puts an agenda ahead of reality. The experts once true believers in the Inquisition myth were not out to do a feminist canonization of Isabella or claim that Tomas de Torquemada was a Marxist. Henry Kamen of the Higher Council for Scientific Research in Barcelona said on camera that researching the Inquisition's archives "demolished the previous image all of us historians) had."

And the future of the Black Legend? For many it may continue to hold more weight than reality. There is the emotional appeal against the Church. The dissenters of today may easily imagine Torquemada's beady eyes as a metaphor of the Church's "dictatorial, controlling, damning" pronouncements. The myth is also the easiest endorsement of the secular state: "de-faith" the state and de-criminalize heresy. Who will be the revisionists in this case? Will the many follow Montanas' lead in rewriting history?

Our 20th century crisis of man playing God — usurping power over conception, life, and death — leaves us with no alternative but to qualify our demythologization of the Inquisition with a reminder: 3,000 to 5,000 victims are 3,000 to 5,000 too many.
The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition

I was going to watch it. Got a smart tv! But if it's going to bother kids, chances are it'll bother me too.

I'm not here to put down Catholicism. Many are incorrectly taught about the Crusades too. The last Crusade was not supported by Rome, if I remember correctly. However, I do agree with the crusades, and fear we may have more coming unless we want to give everything to Islam.

350 years and 3 to 5,000 dead due to the inquisition is not acceptable, IMHO. those that died were ONE individual. Didn't Joan of Arc burn at the stake because of the methods of the day? Barbaric, to say the least. In this case, however, the church did declare her not guilty. I can't remember if it was the inquisition that put her to death...

So. How to overturn such a wrong accusation to ANY church?
I'll be looking into this more. I brought up this topic one time to a Catholic friar and he had no words of support for the church...
Maybe he was just tired...

Thanks for the long reply.
I'll be posting on this.