Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 10-13-2008, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenesisNemesis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Well it would help if he gave us a definition of a true Christian.

If I was a Christian, it would be someone who follows the teachings of Christ. That simple.

There you go, Christ never said a word untill after the resurrection and then he soon left the scene. So it is wrong to be a follower of Jesus (who was not a Christian until he said "it is finished") and call yourself a Christian.

Followers of Jesus are Jesuits by nature (or purgatorians) and they are not Christians either, so now it is totally wrong to be a follower of Jesus and go to Church just as Jesus did not go to the synagoge past the precinct.

Joan of Bark · 10-14-2008, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by penguinfan

I was under the impression that the French inquisition was actually the worst. The Church managed to wipe out an entire heresy. As for forced conversion under the Spanish inquisition, I thought this was a misunderstanding. The people who went through the inquisition were Christian on paper, the point of the inquisition was to make sure of it - ie, they were formerly Muslims and Jews, but decided to convert to stay in Spain. Could anyone shed some light on that for me?

I recently read The Spanish Inquisition (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Henry Kamen, and while I don't remember every detail I believe he also makes this claim. The Inquisition mainly persecuted conversos (Jewish converts) and Moriscoes (Muslim converts), as well as any Christians who questioned Church teaching. Those who refused to convert were kicked out by the secular government of Spain, not by the Inquisition.

He also makes this claim:

Quote:

The Inquisition as it existed in 1483 and thereafter, was in every way an instrument of royal policy and remained politically subject to the crown. This, however, did not make it a secular tribunal. It was at one time a favourite claim of Catholic apologists that the Spanish Inquisition was no more than a secular tribunal, and that its excesses could be excused as the responsibility of Spaniards and not of the Church. The claim is quite inadmissible. Any authority and jurisdiction exercised by the inquisitors of Spain came directly or indirectly from Rome, without whom the tribunal would have ceased to exist. Bulls of appointment, canonical regulations, spheres of jurisdiction – all had to have the prior approval of Rome. The Inquisition was consequently an essentially ecclesiastical tribunal for which the Church of Rome assumed full responsibility.

andrewcriddle · 10-14-2008, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

He also makes this claim:

Quote:

The Inquisition as it existed in 1483 and thereafter, was in every way an instrument of royal policy and remained politically subject to the crown. This, however, did not make it a secular tribunal. It was at one time a favourite claim of Catholic apologists that the Spanish Inquisition was no more than a secular tribunal, and that its excesses could be excused as the responsibility of Spaniards and not of the Church. The claim is quite inadmissible. Any authority and jurisdiction exercised by the inquisitors of Spain came directly or indirectly from Rome, without whom the tribunal would have ceased to exist. Bulls of appointment, canonical regulations, spheres of jurisdiction – all had to have the prior approval of Rome. The Inquisition was consequently an essentially ecclesiastical tribunal for which the Church of Rome assumed full responsibility.

The Spanish and Portugese Inquisitions derived their authority from the Pope who was hence ultimately responsible for their actions.

However it seems clear that pressure from the kings of Spain and Portugal resulted in the Inquisitions there gaining broader discretionary powers than the Pope really wanted. Pope Sixtus IV in 1482 attempted to tighten up the rules on what the Spanish Inquisition could and couldn't do but backed down under pressure from Ferdinand. Pope Paul III sought to limit the scope of the Portugese Inquisition but in 1547, under strong pressure from King John III, gave it much greater discretionary powers. (Source Toby Green Inquisition )

Andrew Criddle

Fortuna · 10-14-2008, 03:36 PM

Quote:

I was under the impression that the French inquisition was actually the worst. The Church managed to wipe out an entire heresy. As for forced conversion under the Spanish inquisition, I thought this was a misunderstanding. The people who went through the inquisition were Christian on paper, the point of the inquisition was to make sure of it - ie, they were formerly Muslims and Jews, but decided to convert to stay in Spain. Could anyone shed some light on that for me?

I believe that you may be referrng to ht Albigensian crusade / incident. Be careful and check our sources for info surrounding this incident. From what little I know of it what started with a religious motive ended up as basically a land grab of the property and assets of the albigensians and the Duc of Toulouse in and around the Longuedoc. One of the final incidents was the siege of Montseguer, whch has recently become popularized by the DaVinci Code.

Google albigensian crusade, cathars, longuedoc and montseguer for more info.

DCHindley · 10-14-2008, 06:44 PM

That might be the politically correct view, but there is a reverse side to the story:

Andalusian Myth, Eurabian Reality

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatc...ves/001665.php

Tolerance is a relative term.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Civil1z@tion

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

The Moores of Spain were equally intolerant when they previously ruled Spain.

That's definitly incorrect. No equivalent of the Catholic Inquisition existed for Christians and Jews in any Muslim territory, much less Moorish Spain. In fact, where Catholic nations were mostly kicking out or forcing Jews and Muslims to convert, in Al-Andalus (the Arabic name for Moorish Spain) Christians and Jews were allowed to practice openly and most of the Medieval Jewish texts and writers come from Al-Andalus. Certainly if the Muslims could be tolerant of Christians and Jews (though not giving them equal rights, at least allowing them freedom to practice) then certainly Christianity could have done so as well. However, they chose not to and violently suppressed not only non-Christians but even non-conformist Christians of the day.

Joan of Bark · 10-15-2008, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fortuna

Quote:

I was under the impression that the French inquisition was actually the worst. The Church managed to wipe out an entire heresy. As for forced conversion under the Spanish inquisition, I thought this was a misunderstanding. The people who went through the inquisition were Christian on paper, the point of the inquisition was to make sure of it - ie, they were formerly Muslims and Jews, but decided to convert to stay in Spain. Could anyone shed some light on that for me?

I believe that you may be referrng to ht Albigensian crusade / incident. Be careful and check our sources for info surrounding this incident. From what little I know of it what started with a religious motive ended up as basically a land grab of the property and assets of the albigensians and the Duc of Toulouse in and around the Longuedoc. One of the final incidents was the siege of Montseguer, whch has recently become popularized by the DaVinci Code.

Google albigensian crusade, cathars, longuedoc and montseguer for more info.

All the crusades ended up as land grabs. Christian expansion and greed have always gone hand-in-hand ever since the Catholic Corporation was given the land around Rome.

Huon · 10-15-2008, 02:39 AM

During the XIIth century, the Church kept the principle edicted by Bernard of Clairvaux : fides suadenda, non impodenda (the faith should be persuaded, not imposed).

The Albigensian Crusade or Cathar Crusade (1208–1249) was a military campaign initiated by the Roman Catholic Church to eliminate the Cathar heresy in Languedoc. At that time, SW France was not under the direct power of the king of France. Bordeaux was ruled by Henry III Plantagenet. Toulouse was ruled by Raymond VI, who had previously some economic disputes with a local abbey, and had been excommunicated for that in 1196. Another important lord was the Earl of Beziers, Roger II Trencavel (= cut a calf in two parts …).

The repression of the Cathars turned rapidly into an expedition of pillage and seizure of the lands of the local lords.

In 1231 (long after the beginning of the crusade), with the constitution Excomunicamus, pope Gregory IX codifies the repression. He defines the punishments which should strike the heretics :
- the stake for those who persevere in their error,
- the prison or a canonic punishment (pilgrimage, fasting) for the repentants,
- excommunication for the catholics who helped the heretics.

But the Church cannot kill the sentenced, due to the principle "Ecclesia abhorret sanguinem" (the Church abhors blood). The local lord, or the king, are given the people sentenced to the stake.

Saint Thomas Aquinas will justify later this death sentence, saying that distorting the faith is worse than making fake currency, which is also punished by death.

On October 11, 1231, pope Gregory IX entrusts to Conrad of Marburg the care of enforcing the constitution Excomunicamus in the Holy Roman Empire. Conrad is murdered on July 30, 1233. End of the papal justice in the Holy Roman Empire.

On April 20, 1233, pope Gregory IX creates an exception court of law called "Inquisitio hereticae pravitatis" (pravitas : depravation). At that time, the king of France is Louis IX, later Saint Louis, the most bigot king of France. Later, the grandson of Louis IX, Philip IV the Fair, will conflict with pope Boniface VIII in 1301. This conflict ends the power of the Inquisition in France.

In 1542, pope Paul III creates in Rome the Sacred Congregation of the Roman and universal Inquisition, as the appeal court for heresy legal actions... In 1633, trial of Galileo. In 1908, the name is changed by Pius X into Sacred Congregation of the Saint-Office. In 1967, Congregation for the doctrine of the faith by Paul VI. This Congregation was managed by the cardinal Josef Ratzinger before 2005.

Huon · 10-15-2008, 02:57 AM

The dominican Tomas de Torquemada was the first general inquisitor from 1483 to 1498. He would have sent no less than 2,000 people to the stake. Pope Sixtus IV condemned his excesses (after the death of the sentenced).

mountainman · 10-15-2008, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fortuna

I believe that you may be referrng to ht Albigensian crusade / incident. Be careful and check our sources for info surrounding this incident. From what little I know of it what started with a religious motive ended up as basically a land grab of the property and assets of the albigensians and the Duc of Toulouse in and around the Longuedoc. One of the final incidents was the siege of Montseguer, whch has recently become popularized by the DaVinci Code.

Google albigensian crusade, cathars, longuedoc and montseguer for more info.

All the crusades ended up as land grabs. Christian expansion and greed have always gone hand-in-hand ever since the Catholic Corporation was given the land around Rome.

Dear Joan of Bark,

According to Momigliano that would be on or around the 28th October in the year of 312 CE:

Quote:

Originally Posted by AM

On 28 October 312 the Christians suddenly and unexpectedly found themselves victorious (2). The victory was a miracle — though opinions differed as to the nature of the sign vouchsafed to Constantine. The winners became conscious of their victory in a mood of resentment and vengeance. A voice shrill with implacable hatred announced to the world the victory of the Milvian Bridge: Lactantius’ De mortibus persecutorum (3). In this horrible pamphlet by the author of de ira dei there is something of the violence of the prophets without the redeeming sense of tragedy that inspires Nahum’s song for the fall of Nineveh. ‘His fury is poured out like fire and the rocks are broken asunder by him. The Lord is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble’: this at least has an elementary simplicity which is very remote from the complacent and sophisticated prose of the fourth-century rhetorician. Lactantius was not alone. More soberly, but no less ruthlessly, Eusebius recounted the divine vengeance against those who had persecuted the Church.

Best wishes,

Pete

bacht · 10-15-2008, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

All the crusades ended up as land grabs. Christian expansion and greed have always gone hand-in-hand ever since the Catholic Corporation was given the land around Rome.

That's the key isn't it? Wasn't the Inquisition really about maintaining institutional power rather than religion per se?

I suppose an argument could be made that the Vatican was continuing the tradition of the Roman emperors after Constantine, imposing conformity for the sake of maintaining order. The defensiveness/paranoia of the Dark Ages was no longer appropriate in the High Middle Ages and after.

10-15-2008, 02:57 AM	#18
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	Inquisition in Spain The dominican Tomas de Torquemada was the first general inquisitor from 1483 to 1498. He would have sent no less than 2,000 people to the stake. Pope Sixtus IV condemned his excesses (after the death of the sentenced).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-15-2008, 02:39 AM	#17
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	During the XIIth century, the Church kept the principle edicted by Bernard of Clairvaux : fides suadenda, non impodenda (the faith should be persuaded, not imposed). The Albigensian Crusade or Cathar Crusade (1208–1249) was a military campaign initiated by the Roman Catholic Church to eliminate the Cathar heresy in Languedoc. At that time, SW France was not under the direct power of the king of France. Bordeaux was ruled by Henry III Plantagenet. Toulouse was ruled by Raymond VI, who had previously some economic disputes with a local abbey, and had been excommunicated for that in 1196. Another important lord was the Earl of Beziers, Roger II Trencavel (= cut a calf in two parts …). The repression of the Cathars turned rapidly into an expedition of pillage and seizure of the lands of the local lords. In 1231 (long after the beginning of the crusade), with the constitution Excomunicamus, pope Gregory IX codifies the repression. He defines the punishments which should strike the heretics : - the stake for those who persevere in their error, - the prison or a canonic punishment (pilgrimage, fasting) for the repentants, - excommunication for the catholics who helped the heretics. But the Church cannot kill the sentenced, due to the principle "Ecclesia abhorret sanguinem" (the Church abhors blood). The local lord, or the king, are given the people sentenced to the stake. Saint Thomas Aquinas will justify later this death sentence, saying that distorting the faith is worse than making fake currency, which is also punished by death. On October 11, 1231, pope Gregory IX entrusts to Conrad of Marburg the care of enforcing the constitution Excomunicamus in the Holy Roman Empire. Conrad is murdered on July 30, 1233. End of the papal justice in the Holy Roman Empire. On April 20, 1233, pope Gregory IX creates an exception court of law called "Inquisitio hereticae pravitatis" (pravitas : depravation). At that time, the king of France is Louis IX, later Saint Louis, the most bigot king of France. Later, the grandson of Louis IX, Philip IV the Fair, will conflict with pope Boniface VIII in 1301. This conflict ends the power of the Inquisition in France. In 1542, pope Paul III creates in Rome the Sacred Congregation of the Roman and universal Inquisition, as the appeal court for heresy legal actions... In 1633, trial of Galileo. In 1908, the name is changed by Pius X into Sacred Congregation of the Saint-Office. In 1967, Congregation for the doctrine of the faith by Paul VI. This Congregation was managed by the cardinal Josef Ratzinger before 2005.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.