Roman Catholicism - The Conversion of Europe by Ian Paisley

[Tyndale]

I'm never on this section much, but I thought this sermon might be of interest to you all. Hope you all enjoy this most enlightening sermon.:clap:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3N22LRcAoA

By Dr.Ian R. K. Paisley, M. P.
THE CONVERSION CENTER INC.
PO Box 265
Carthage, NC 28327

Phone 910-947-2981
FAX 910-947-1140
Orders 1800 631 8220

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

How did you find it enlightening.

By that, I mean, what did you learn?

[Tyndale]

How did you find it enlightening.

By that, I mean, what did you learn?

There's a lot of stuff I learned in that video. One piece of information that entrigued me was that the Vatican insisted that the British Council of Churchs drop the title 'British' because it would be seen as offensive to the Irish Roman Catholics. The British council of churches agreed to drop the title British.

It would seem that the Vatican is playing politics, not religion.

[Albion]

It would seem that the Vatican is playing politics, not religion.

Of course that's so, but hardly news. The Roman Catholic Church has always claimed to have a political calling from God. It is even claimed that God intended for it to be a government as well as a moral force guiding everyone else's governments. That's why, for example, it is thought essential to retain Vatican City as a sovereign, if miniscule, state.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

There's a lot of stuff I learned in that video. One piece of information that entrigued me was that the Vatican insisted that the British Council of Churchs drop the title 'British' because it would be seen as offensive to the Irish Roman Catholics. The British council of churches agreed to drop the title British.

It would seem that the Vatican is playing politics, not religion.

The Vatican does both. It is certainly not news that the Vatican is involved in politics- just about every church or group is in some way.

What else did you take from it? If the most you got out of it was this, then there really wasn't much there was it.

[Tyndale]

How did you find it enlightening.

By that, I mean, what did you learn?

There's a lot of stuff I learned in that video. One piece of information that entrigued me was that the Vatican insisted that the British Council of Churchs drop the title 'British' because it would be seen as offensive to the Irish Roman Catholics. The British council of churches agreed to drop the title British.

It would seem that the Vatican is playing politics, not religion.

The Vatican does both. It is certainly not news that the Vatican is involved in politics- just about every church or group is in some way.

What else did you take from it? If the most you got out of it was this, then there really wasn't much there was it.

I found the bible reading very enlightening, along with the information Rev. Paisley provides about the current activities of the counter-reformation along with that which the bible has foretold.

In Acts chapter 2, Apostile Peter explained that the prophesies Joel foretold had started on the day of Pentecost. The multitude who gathered started to blame their strange words on drunkenness, but Peter stood up and said:

" For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:" Acts 2 v 15-18


SpiritualAntiseptic, the new information you crave for has to be modern, to be analysised and verified, however the enlightling news from that sermon is old news, not new. If you open up your heart, it will become new news, just let the spirit of the Lord in and "it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." Acts 2 v 21

[Albion]

The Vatican does both. It is certainly not news that the Vatican is involved in politics- just about every church or group is in some way.

Well, that's not true. Many take the strong position that the church is to save souls, not partake in political matters. However, the Roman Catholic Church certainly always has felt it right to be involved in a very direct way in political decision-making, so I agree with you that this should not come as any surprise. The only issue seems to be the outcome of what was done in this particular case.

[Tyndale]

Rev. Ian Paisley states that the Presbyterian church of America did a recent survey of their ministers and members and only 5% of the Presbyterian ministers in America believe the bible is the word of God and only 16% of their congregation believe the bible is the word of God.

[Albion]

Rev. Ian Paisley states that the Presbyterian church of America did a recent survey of their ministers and members and only 5% of the Presbyterian ministers in America believe the bible is the word of God and only 16% of their congregation believe the bible is the word of God.

He was no doubt speaking of the Presbyterian Church (USA), not the Presbyterian Church in America.

[Tyndale]

Rev. Ian Paisley states that the Presbyterian church of America did a recent survey of their ministers and members and only 5% of the Presbyterian ministers in America believe the bible is the word of God and only 16% of their congregation believe the bible is the word of God.

He was no doubt speaking of the Presbyterian Church (USA), not the Presbyterian Church in America.

At 18 mins and 40 seconds on the vid he says, "The Presbyterian church in America", not 'of' America as I previously stated.

[Tyndale]

Rev. Ian Paisley says that the Ecumenical church has adopted a Priest's view of salvation, it all depends on the Priest and if you don't have the Priest,..... [no Priest - no salvation], [no Priest - no baptism], [no Priest - no confirmation], [no Priest - no forgivness], [no Priest - no heaven].

[Albion]

At 18 mins and 40 seconds on the vid he says, "The Presbyterian church in America", not 'of' America as I previously stated.

Yes, but he means the largest Presbyterian church body in the USA when he says that. He is saying, in effect, the (main) Presbyterian Church in the country we often call "America."

However, there is a Presbyterian church here that is rockribbed conservative and has almost that sequence of words for its name.

In fact, it separated from the Presbyterian Church (USA) because of the liberalism Rev. Paisley is calling our attention to. So my point is only that we don't want to wrongly give the impression to any reader that he was speaking of that particular church body, the PCA. Very few people keep track of the difference between "in" and "of" when one or the other appears in the legal name of any church body.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Well, that's not true. Many take the strong position that the church is to save souls, not partake in political matters. However, the Roman Catholic Church certainly always has felt it right to be involved in a very direct way in political decision-making, so I agree with you that this should not come as any surprise. The only issue seems to be the outcome of what was done in this particular case.

Churches are involved in politics. In some form of activism or another. Whether it is abortion, social justice, whatever.

Politics is a way of saving souls and lives. Politics is, after all, nothing more than the formal actions of individuals.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Rev. Ian Paisley states that the Presbyterian church of America did a recent survey of their ministers and members and only 5% of the Presbyterian ministers in America believe the bible is the word of God and only 16% of their congregation believe the bible is the word of God.

I'm sure that's not what the poll asked. It probably asked a question and he interpreted it differently.

He seems to like stirring the pot but not having any actual substance. His sermon seem to be doing little more than hate-mongering and self-righteousness.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Rev. Ian Paisley says that the Ecumenical church has adopted a Priest's view of salvation, it all depends on the Priest and if you don't have the Priest,..... [no Priest - no salvation], [no Priest - no baptism], [no Priest - no confirmation], [no Priest - no forgivness], [no Priest - no heaven].

He said a lot of things that don't really make any sense. Do you agree with him?

[Tyndale]

Yes, but he means the largest Presbyterian church body in the USA when he says that. He is saying, in effect, the (main) Presbyterian Church in the country we often call "America."

However, there is a Presbyterian church here that is rockribbed conservative and has almost that sequence of words for its name.

In fact, it separated from the Presbyterian Church (USA) because of the liberalism Rev. Paisley is calling our attention to. So my point is only that we don't want to wrongly give the impression to any reader that he was speaking of that particular church body, the PCA. Very few people keep track of the difference between "in" and "of" when one or the other appears in the legal name of any church body.

I believe he was speaking of the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA), not the PCA.

[Tyndale]

Rev. Ian Paisley says that the Ecumenical church has adopted a Priest's view of salvation, it all depends on the Priest and if you don't have the Priest,..... [no Priest - no salvation], [no Priest - no baptism], [no Priest - no confirmation], [no Priest - no forgivness], [no Priest - no heaven].

He said a lot of things that don't really make any sense. Do you agree with him?

I believe him when he says that Baptismal regeneration taught by the Roman Catholic church is a lie. No-one can become reborn through baptism.

I believe him when he states the world council of churches welcomes sin as they allow Gay churches, Gay Priests, etc.

I believe him when he says that the Archbishop of Canterbury asked the Pope to become chairman of the World Council of Churches and the Pope refused. I believe him when he says the Pope won't join the World Council of Churches, but that the World Council of Churches will join the Pope.

I believe him when he states that the Ecumenical church has adopted a Priest's view of salvation, when he states that the 1987 conference between the Ecumenical church under the banner 'Churches together in Pilgrimage' and the RCC, where the first main act of worship was a mass conducted by Cardinal Hume. The Ecumenical churches were asked to take a blessing if they couldn't take the wafer, as a sign of christian solidarity. The report from that conference stated that the Mass at the beginning influenced the rest of the day's togetherness. So, he's right when he states the Ecumenical church has adopted a Priest's view of salvation, when the inspiration for this union with Rome comes about through a Roman Catholic Mass.

I believe him when he states that it was because of the Roman Catholic Mass that the inquisition tortured and killed millions of reformers because they wouldn't bow the knee at the insult of our Lord and Saviour.

I believe him when he says we have Ecumenical ministers attending Roman Catholic Masses and telling their church it's just the Catholic way, another way, of worshipping Christ.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I believe him when he says that Baptismal regeneration taught by the Roman Catholic church is a lie. No-one can become reborn through baptism.

That's fine. Although you'll be disagreeing with Christianity up until the Anabaptists, essentially.

I believe him when he states that it was because of the Roman Catholic Mass that the inquisition tortured and killed millions of reformers because they wouldn't bow the knee at the insult of our Lord and Saviour.

Well, there he is actually lying. No history believes the Catholic Church killed millions of people. In fact, they didn't kill anyone. It was the Spanish Inquisition that killed people. It was led by a crazy Spanish king and was condemned by the Church.

Where is he from, England? Where they used to murder Catholics for refusing to join the Reformation?

Sounds to me this was a lot of whipping up fanatical reformers to me. Ones that may not think very kindly about their brothers and sisters in Christ.

[Tyndale]

I believe him when he states that it was because of the Roman Catholic Mass that the inquisition tortured and killed millions of reformers because they wouldn't bow the knee at the insult of our Lord and Saviour.


Well, there he is actually lying. No history believes the Catholic Church killed millions of people. In fact, they didn't kill anyone. It was the Spanish Inquisition that killed people. It was led by a crazy Spanish king and was condemned by the Church.

The formation and actions of the Inquisition were based on Canon Law.

Do you understand the motivations behind Canon 1311 which says that the Catholic Church has the right to coerce the Christian faithful if they fail to comply with Canon Law ?

Do you understand the motivations behind Canon 1371 which says that a person who obstinately rejects any Catholic doctrine is to be punished.

Do you understand the motivations behind Canon 1366 when it says that parents are to be punished if they allow their children to be educated or baptized in “a non-Catholic religion.”?

Canon 665 (Section 2), where monks and nuns who leave their religious community without permission, desiring to get away from the power of their superiors, are to be “sought out” in order to “help” them return and “persevere” in their vocation. In other words, they are to be hunted down, forced to return, and forced to remain.

These laws say that offenders are to be punished and coerced. The term is so broad that it can be interpreted to mean almost anything.


"I. Excommunication. This sentence is to be pronounced not only on notorious heretics, and those suspected of heresy, but also on those who harbour, defend, or assist them, or who converse familiarly with them, or trade with them, or hold communion of any sort with them.

II. Proscription from all offices, ecclesiastical or civil,--from all public duties and private rights.

III. Confiscation of all their goods.

IV. The last punishment is DEATH; sometimes by the sword,--more commonly by fire."

[JUS CANONICUM; Digestum et Enucleatum juxta Ordinem Librorum et Titulorum qui in Decretalibus Epistolis Gregorii IX. P. M. Georgii Adami Struvi, pp. 359-363: Lipsiae et Jenae, 1688.]




"Those are not to be accounted homicides who, fired with zeal for Mother Church, may have killed excommunicated persons."
[I][Decreti, pars ii. causa xxiii. quaest v. can. xlvii.]

[Albion]

Well, there he is actually lying. No history believes the Catholic Church killed millions of people. In fact, they didn't kill anyone. It was the Spanish Inquisition that killed people. It was led by a crazy Spanish king and was condemned by the Church.
Where is he from, England? Where they used to murder Catholics for refusing to join the Reformation?

Then you don't know who the Rev'd Paisley is, right? In such a case, a little caution might be better than an instant judgment, especially when it comes to applying the "L" word.

Anyway, you are certainly correct that "millions" killed during the Inquisitions is an overstatement.

On the other hand though, to exonerate the Church which tried, convicted, and turned the victims over to the authorities for execution is equally uncalled for. No reputable historian would give the Church the pass you are willing to.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

On the other hand though, to exonerate the Church which tried, convicted, and turned the victims over to the authorities for execution is equally uncalled for. No reputable historian would give the Church the pass you are willing to.

Victims, what victims? Sure- there may have been bishops and priests in Spain that cooperated, but you can hardly blame "the Church".

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

The formation and actions of the Inquisition were based on Canon Law.

Do you understand the motivations behind Canon 1311 which says that the Catholic Church has the right to coerce the Christian faithful if they fail to comply with Canon Law ?

Here is what's said-
"Can. 1311 The Church has its own inherent right to constrain with penal sanctions Christ's faithful who commit offences."

Meaning, the Catholic Church has the right to excommunicate members of the faith, deny them communion, etc. It says nothing about coercing because that goes contrary to the teachings of the Church.

Do you understand the motivations behind Canon 1371 which says that a person who obstinately rejects any Catholic doctrine is to be punished.

"Can. 1371 The following are to be punished with a just penalty:
1° a person who, apart from the case mentioned in can. 1364 §1, teaches a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff, or by an Ecumenical Council, or obstinately rejects the teaching mentioned in can. {750, 2 or in canon} 752 and, when warned by the Apostolic See or by the Ordinary, does not retract;
2° a person who in any other way does not obey the lawful command or prohibition of the Apostolic See or the Ordinary or Superior and, after being warned, persists in disobedience."

This is referring to ex-communications, denials of communion- etc.

Are you saying the Church should have no recourse against members (particularly religious orders) that teach heresy in the name of the Church?

Do you understand the motivations behind Canon 1366 when it says that parents are to be punished if they allow their children to be educated or baptized in “a non-Catholic religion.”?

"Can. 1366 Parents, and those taking the place of parents, who hand over their children to be baptized or brought up in a non-catholic religion, are to be punished with a censure or other just penalty."

What is wrong with that?

Canon 665 (Section 2), where monks and nuns who leave their religious community without permission, desiring to get away from the power of their superiors, are to be “sought out” in order to “help” them return and “persevere” in their vocation. In other words, they are to be hunted down, forced to return, and forced to remain.

No, that's not what it says:
"§2 Members who unlawfully absent themselves from a religious house with the intention of withdrawing from the authority of Superiors, are to be carefully sought out and helped to return and to persevere in their vocation."

Do you realize how silly this is? I'm guessing this isn't from your own review of canon law, but something you picked up from a Catholic-hate site.

As for religious communities, people who just up and leave without giving any reason should be looked for and talked to by their community. This is because the person may be having psychological or spiritual issues and religious orders shouldn't just look the other way, but at least make an attempt to see what went wrong.

Religious orders never force anyone into a vocation, nor make them stay there. People are free to go and they often do leave. They do not want anyone to be there that doesn't believe God has called them.

As for "punishments", the Church has set up certain ones for particular offenses. What you have complained about is the fact the Church reserves the right to ex-communicate or punish groups which are disobedient and oppose the Church. This does still happen- they had to ex-communicate a group of nuns because they went off the deep end and started teaching one of their sisters was Mary reincarnated.

Lastly, the Spanish Inquisitions were based on interpretations of Papal bulls which were grossly and deliberately misinterpreted by Spain's monarchy. Their actions were condemned by the Church. The current code of canon law was written in 1983 by JPII. I'm not sure if those same laws were even around during the Inquisition. What was done was in violation of what the Church permitted, which is why the Spanish inquisition was condemned.

[Albion]

Victims, what victims? Sure- there may have been bishops and priests in Spain that cooperated, but you can hardly blame "the Church".

It is well established that the Inquisition was operated by clerics and that the State only administered the sentences. As for "victims," if you think that being tortured and/or killed because of your faith doesn't qualify for the word "victim," you have a much different standard of justice from mine.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

It is well established that the Inquisition was operated by clerics and that the State only administered the sentences. As for "victims," if you think that being tortured and/or killed because of your faith doesn't qualify for the word "victim," you have a much different standard of justice from mine.

By certain clerics, but when the action is condemned by the Church as soon as they find out, you can not blame "the Church" for it.

[Albion]

By certain clerics, but when the action is condemned by the Church as soon as they find out, you can not blame "the Church" for it.

By the clerics assigned to the job. Do you think that all this happened without the Church getting wind of it?

And what does "When the action is condemned by the Church as soon as they find out...?"

When did the Church condemn the Spanish Inquisition, SA?

But even at that, we certainly can blame the ones who made the Inquisition what it was, even if they had repented afterwards.

Do you think, for example, that if any criminal says "sorry" after being apprehended, that the crime ought to be set aside on the grounds that he is thereby no longer responsible for what he did?

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

You want to blame the Spanish government and many of the Spanish clergy? Go right ahead.

You want to blame the Church as a whole- you can not. Unless you can show the Vatican approving of the Spanish Inquisition as it was conducted.

As for condemning- they were condemned by the popes over and over- by Leo X, Paul III, Paul IV, and Sixtus IV.

[Albion]

You want to blame the Spanish government and many of the Spanish clergy? Go right ahead.

Well, YOU blamed the government. I merely pointed out that the Church was also to blame.

You want to blame the Church as a whole- you can not. Unless you can show the Vatican approving of the Spanish Inquisition as it was conducted.

Would you be happier if we agreed that the Vatican gave carte clanche to the Spanish Church in this matter? Because that's what happened.

[narnia59]

Then you don't know who the Rev'd Paisley is, right? In such a case, a little caution might be better than an instant judgment, especially when it comes to applying the "L" word.

Anyway, you are certainly correct that "millions" killed during the Inquisitions is an overstatement.

On the other hand though, to exonerate the Church which tried, convicted, and turned the victims over to the authorities for execution is equally uncalled for. No reputable historian would give the Church the pass you are willing to.

You don't consider Thomas F. Madden. Professor Director, Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies and chair of the department of history at Saint Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri to be a 'reputable' historian? He says that "Simply put, historians have long known that the popular view of the Inquisition is a myth." He also refers to two other reputable historians who have books out that support his view.

You can google "Thomas Madden Inquisitions National Review Online" to find the article. It won't let me post a link because I don't have enough posts.

[Albion]

You don't consider Thomas F. Madden. Professor Director, Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies and chair of the department of history at Saint Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri to be a 'reputable' historian? He says that "Simply put, historians have long known that the popular view of the Inquisition is a myth." He also refers to two other reputable historians who have books out that support his view.

It is difficult to respond to a charge whose contents are not revealed. I commented on a specific claim which held that the RCC was blameless, could not be blamed, in the matter of the Spanish Inquisition. Reputable historians would not support that charge.

But what did you tell us in response? "...the popular view of the Inquisition is a myth." "Popular view." What does THAT mean? Popular view which holds WHAT to be true about the Inquisition?

You've addressed nothing about what I wrote.

Yes, there are many popular myths that people have about the Inquisition--that it killed millions, for example. But I clearly was not speaking of that "popular view" or of many other such popular views that are also incorrect.

[narnia59]

It is difficult to respond to a charge whose contents are not revealed. I commented on a specific claim which held that the RCC was blameless, could not be blamed, in the matter of the Spanish Inquisition. Reputable historians would not support that charge.

But what did you tell us in response? "...the popular view of the Inquisition is a myth." "Popular view." What does THAT mean? Popular view which holds WHAT to be true about the Inquisition?

You've addressed nothing about what I wrote.

Yes, there are many popular myths that people have about the Inquisition--that it killed millions, for example. But I clearly was not speaking of that "popular view" or of many other such popular views that are also incorrect.

My apologies. I thought perhaps you might google and read the article.

The church did not try or convict anyone. The Inquisition was an attempt by the chuch to stop unjust executions that were occurring by the state. An excerpt from the article:

To understand the Inquisition we have to remember that the Middle Ages were, well, medieval. We should not expect people in the past to view the world and their place in it the way we do today. (You try living through the Black Death and see how it changes your attitude.) For people who lived during those times, religion was not something one did just at church. It was science, philosophy, politics, identity, and hope for salvation. It was not a personal preference but an abiding and universal truth. Heresy, then, struck at the heart of that truth. It doomed the heretic, endangered those near him, and tore apart the fabric of community.

The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Yes, you read that correctly. Heresy was a crime against the state. Roman law in the Code of Justinian made it a capital offense. Rulers, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw them as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath. When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig or damaged shrubbery (really, it was a serious crime in England). Yet in contrast to those crimes, it was not so easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. For starters, one needed some basic theological training — something most medieval lords sorely lacked. The result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent assessment of the validity of the charge.

The Catholic Church's response to this problem was the Inquisition, first instituted by Pope Lucius III in 1184. It was born out of a need to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges. From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.

As this new report confirms, most people accused of heresy by the Inquisition were either acquitted or their sentences suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ. The underlying assumption of the Inquisition was that, like lost sheep, heretics had simply strayed. If, however, an inquisitor determined that a particular sheep had purposely left the flock, there was nothing more that could be done. Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to secular authorities. Despite popular myth, the Inquisition did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense, not the Church. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.

During the 13th century the Inquisition became much more formalized in its methods and practices. Highly trained Dominicans answerable to the Pope took over the institution, creating courts that represented the best legal practices in Europe. As royal authority grew during the 14th century and beyond, control over the Inquisition slipped out of papal hands and into those of kings. Instead of one Inquisition there were now many. Despite the prospect of abuse, monarchs like those in Spain and France generally did their best to make certain that their inquisitions remained both efficient and merciful. During the 16th century, when the witch craze swept Europe, it was those areas with the best-developed inquisitions that stopped the hysteria in its tracks. In Spain and Italy, trained inquisitors investigated charges of witches' sabbaths and baby roasting and found them to be baseless. Elsewhere, particularly in Germany, secular or religious courts burned witches by the thousands.

Compared to other medieval secular courts, the Inquisition was positively enlightened. Why then are people in general and the press in particular so surprised to discover that the Inquisition did not barbecue people by the millions? First of all, when most people think of the Inquisition today what they are really thinking of is the Spanish Inquisition. No, not even that is correct. They are thinking of the myth of the Spanish Inquisition. Amazingly, before 1530 the Spanish Inquisition was widely hailed as the best run, most humane court in Europe. There are actually records of convicts in Spain purposely blaspheming so that they could be transferred to the prisons of the Spanish Inquisition. After 1530, however, the Spanish Inquisition began to turn its attention to the new heresy of Lutheranism. It was the Protestant Reformation and the rivalries it spawned that would give birth to the myth.

[Albion]

The church did not try or convict anyone.

Is there some exceedingly fine point being made here? If Dominicans and other members of religious orders were conducting the work of the Inquisition, how can the Church be said to have no responsibility?

An excerpt from the article:

To understand the Inquisition we have to remember that the Middle Ages were, well, medieval. We should not expect people in the past to view the world and their place in it the way we do today. (You try living through the Black Death and see how it changes your attitude.) For people who lived during those times, religion was not something one did just at church. It was science, philosophy, politics, identity, and hope for salvation. It was not a personal preference but an abiding and universal truth. Heresy, then, struck at the heart of that truth. It doomed the heretic, endangered those near him, and tore apart the fabric of community.

...........................................................................

executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent assessment of the validity of the charge.

The Catholic Church's response to this problem was the Inquisition, first instituted by Pope Lucius III in 1184. It was born out of a need to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges.

As this new report confirms, most people accused of heresy by the Inquisition were either acquitted or their sentences suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ. The underlying assumption of the Inquisition was that, like lost sheep, heretics had simply strayed. If, however, an inquisitor determined that a particular sheep had purposely left the flock, there was nothing more that could be done. Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to secular authorities. Despite popular myth, the Inquisition did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense, not the Church. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.

During the 13th century the Inquisition became much more formalized in its methods and practices. Highly trained Dominicans answerable to the Pope took over the institution, creating courts that represented the best legal practices in Europe. As royal authority grew during the 14th century and beyond, control over the Inquisition slipped out of papal hands and into those of kings. Instead of one Inquisition there were now many. Despite the prospect of abuse, monarchs like those in Spain and France generally did their best to make certain that their inquisitions remained both efficient and merciful. During the 16th century, when the witch craze swept Europe, it was those areas with the best-developed inquisitions that stopped the hysteria in its tracks. In Spain and Italy, trained inquisitors investigated charges of witches' sabbaths and baby roasting and found them to be baseless. Elsewhere, particularly in Germany, secular or religious courts burned witches by the thousands.

Compared to other medieval secular courts, the Inquisition was positively enlightened. Why then are people in general and the press in particular so surprised to discover that the Inquisition did not barbecue people by the millions?

Most of that article strains to discuss matters other than the nature of the Inquisition and the Church's role in it.

For example,

To say that the Church's intentions were benign says nothing about what happened.

To say that people think it was worse than it was is to avoid addressing what happened.

To say that the Church managed it in the ways the article does in no way suggests that the Church was ignorant of what was happening.

To say that we would approach these offenses differently today is to say nothing significant about what the Church's position was then.

The point was made in this thread about the Spanish Inquisition. He tries to distract our attention from that by combining it with all other Inquisitions of earlier and later times and in other countries.

In short, the article attempts by distraction to avoid the Church's responsibility and to argue that there are misconceptions about the severity of the Inquisitions. But I acknowledged that some myths are just that. This doesn't mean that all facts about the Inquisitions are incorrectly remembered.

This Catholic teacher is very much out of the mainstream as historians go. Still in all, it would be interesting to interview him directly and hold him to the topic we were dealing with here.

[narnia59]

Is there some exceedingly fine point being made here? If Dominicans and other members of religious orders were conducting the work of the Inquisition, how can the Church be said to have no responsibility?



Most of that article strains to discuss matters other than the nature of the Inquisition and the Church's role in it.

For example,

To say that the Church's intentions were benign says nothing about what happened.

To say that people think it was worse than it was is to avoid addressing what happened.

To say that the Church managed it in the ways the article does in no way suggests that the Church was ignorant of what was happening.

To say that we would approach these offenses differently today is to say nothing significant about what the Church's position was then.

The point was made in this thread about the Spanish Inquisition. He tries to distract our attention from that by combining it with all other Inquisitions of earlier and later times and in other countries.

In short, the article attempts by distraction to avoid the Church's responsibility and to argue that there are misconceptions about the severity of the Inquisitions. But I acknowledged that some myths are just that. This doesn't mean that all facts about the Inquisitions are incorrectly remembered.

This Catholic teacher is very much out of the mainstream as historians go. Still in all, it would be interesting to interview him directly and hold him to the topic we were dealing with here.

The author does not skirt the Spanish Inquisition in the remainder of the article. In fact, he states that "the Spanish Inquisition was widely hailed as the best run, most humane court in Europe. There are actually records of convicts in Spain purposely blaspheming so that they could be transferred to the prisons of the Spanish Inquisition".

Would the inquisitions have occurred without the participation of the church? Absolutely. Would even more innocent people have died? That seems to be the conclusion. Were individuals in the church blameless? Of course not. Individual Catholic tribunals came under disciplinary measures and even excommunication from church authorities when they failed to act justly. And it seems to me that "intentions" in the long run are what really matters, even though all things cannot always be controlled.

The author may be Catholic (I can only assume since he teaches at a Catholic university there is a good chance of that), but he also cites other quite reputable historians such as Henry Kamen and Edward Peters. I think the mainstream view of historians has stepped away from the myth, understand the difficulty of the situation involving monarchies, government and church intertwined, and the way the world was at that time, and concluded that this is not the 'dark period' of church history as generally perceived.

Aside from this, one often hears about the Spanish inquisitions, but rarely hears about Protestant inquisitions. This I find quite strange.

This is not something I wish to argue with you. You seem to be more up on the topic than many, in that you do recognize that much of what's been placed into our consciousness over the years is indeed myth. I guess my only point would be that no group that has been around for any period of time is free of skeletons in the closet. Recognizing the past for what it is (and isn't) serves to only benefit the future.

[Albion]

Would the inquisitions have occurred without the participation of the church? Absolutely.

But the issue we have been concerned with is only whether or not the Church bears any responsibility for the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition. To say that other people were also involved, that there would have been an Inquisition even without the Church, or that not everyone was tortured and killed, doesn't have anything to do with the real issue raised in this thread.

[narnia59]

But the issue we have been concerned with is only whether or not the Church bears any responsibility for the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition. To say that other people were also involved, that there would have been an Inquisition even without the Church, or that not everyone was tortured and killed, doesn't have anything to do with the real issue raised in this thread.
I think that then becomes an issue of what is meant by 'bearing responsibility'?

Are there individual circumstances in which individuals within the church did not make the best decisions? The church bears responsibility for these of course, has acknowledged them, and even dealt with specific individuals during the timeframes of the events.

Is the church however responsible for the deaths that occurred in the inquisitions? Only those where individuals representing the church did not make good decisions. These have to be weighed against what history now shows to be that without the church's involvement, many, many more would have been unjustly killed. So the question in my mind is that if the church had taken no part at all, would it have then been blameless?

So it seems one must both lay blame and give credit where it is due. And on this particular topic, it is often driven by myth that lays an enormously inappropriate amount of blame to the Catholic church, and gives no recognition for the positive role the church played. Fortunately, history is beginning to self-correct in this regard.

[Albion]

I think that then becomes an issue of what is meant by 'bearing responsibility'?

Sure. Here is the comment that led to what we are discussing: No history believes the Catholic Church killed millions of people. In fact, they didn't kill anyone. It was the Spanish Inquisition that killed people.

My response was to agree that millions killed is not accurate. Then I also said that the Church cannot be exonerated from all responsibility for the Inquisition (and for those who were killed).

My point was to deny the accuracy of both of the extreme positions. It appears to me from what you wrote later, that you are not far from this yourself.

So the question in my mind is that if the church had taken no part at all, would it have then been blameless?

Possibly, but what she actually did is more the question IMO. Otherwise, we'd be blaming her for many terrible events in world history about which it could be argued, "Well, if she had said or done X maybe, there's a chance, the outcome could have been altered in some way." There would, IOW, be almost nothing that could not be laid at the Vatican's doorstep merely because she did not attempt to stop it. This would be similar to the contention, sometimes heard, that if she really believed in charity, she'd sell everything, give all the proceeds away, and own no property at all. That, to me, is not reasonable.

[narnia59]

Sure. Here is the comment that led to what we are discussing: No history believes the Catholic Church killed millions of people. In fact, they didn't kill anyone. It was the Spanish Inquisition that killed people.

My response was to agree that millions killed is not accurate. Then I also said that the Church cannot be exonerated from all responsibility for the Inquisition (and for those who were killed).

My point was to deny the accuracy of both of the extreme positions. It appears to me from what you wrote later, that you are not far from this yourself.



Possibly, but what she actually did is more the question IMO. Otherwise, we'd be blaming her for many terrible events in world history about which it could be argued, "Well, if she had said or done X maybe, there's a chance, the outcome could have been altered in some way." There would, IOW, be almost nothing that could not be laid at the Vatican's doorstep merely because she did not attempt to stop it. This would be similar to the contention, sometimes heard, that if she really believed in charity, she'd sell everything, give all the proceeds away, and own no property at all. That, to me, is not reasonable.
I would never go so far as to say the church is blameless. It is made up of fallible people, and even with the best of intentions mistakes are made. It is interesting however that charges such as the one found in this video manage to perpetuate the myth throughout the centuries.

But I think you will also find those who judge the church for not getting involved as well. Failure to confront the Nazis and the Holocaust more aggressively is one such example where the church is often criticized, although there is disagreement even in Jewish circles whether this is accurate.

From a purely 'what is right' perspective, I would have to believe that choosing to get involved with the inquisition and the overall benefit it provided in saving lives was the correct one, even if mistakes were made and some innocent lives were lost as well.

It's been nice having a reasonable conversation about this though.

[Albion]

I would never go so far as to say the church is blameless.

Well, that's the point I was addressing--that it would not be right to hold her blameless.

But I think you will also find those who judge the church for not getting involved as well. Failure to confront the Nazis and the Holocaust more aggressively is one such example where the church is often criticized,

As I said, it's unreasonable to expect that the Church can solve every problem occurring anywhere at any time. In the case of the Nazis, however,this is not quite the case since the Vatican actively assisted the Nazis into power. As to how she reacted when the Final Solution was underway, that's a question with plenty of evidence on BOTH sides.

From a purely 'what is right' perspective, I would have to believe that choosing to get involved with the inquisition and the overall benefit it provided in saving lives was the correct one, even if mistakes were made and some innocent lives were lost as well.

I'd be more oriented towards the truth of "one wrong doesn't justify another."

It's been nice having a reasonable conversation about this though.

Thanks. Maybe there'll be another chance on a different subject.