03 Oct 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeIvanhoe: any attempt to paint the Inquisition in even a slightly positive light
Absolutely not. By presenting this article by a serious historian I am placing the Churche's actions in the context of historic and cultural developments.
is perverse and disgusting.
Do you have the slightest clue how many deaths were the direct result of the
Inquisition in Spain, for example?
Nemesio
03 Oct 05
Originally posted by NemesioWe should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides.
Ivanhoe: any attempt to paint the Inquisition in even a slightly positive light
is perverse and disgusting.
Do you have the slightest clue how many deaths were the direct result of the
Inquisition in Spain, for example?
Nemesio
-St. Ignatius Loyola (1500)
04 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesCome on, Ivanhoe. This is crap.
"One of the most enduring myths of the Inquisition is that it was a tool of oppression imposed on unwilling Europeans by a power-hungry Church. Nothing could be more wrong. In truth, the Inquisition brought order, justice, and compassion to combat rampant secular and popular persecutions of heretics."
Come on, Ivanhoe. This is crap.
Come on, Scribs. Surely you've got a more rational response than that!
The author continues:
When the people of a village rounded up a suspected heretic and brought him before the local lord, how was he to be judged? How could an illiterate layman determine if the accused’s beliefs were heretical or not? And how were witnesses to be heard and examined?
... From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep that had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring those sheep 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.
Most people accused of heresy by the medieval Inquisition were either acquitted or their sentence 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 departed out of hostility to the flock, there was nothing more that could be done. Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to the secular authorities. Despite popular myth, the Church did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense. 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.
Now, you can either disagree with the factual assertions, or with the validity of deductions made from those assertions. Which one is it?
"This is crap" is simpy not the response one would expect from a person with your reasoning skills and knowledge.
04 Oct 05
Originally posted by NemesioIvanhoe: any attempt to paint the Inquisition in even a slightly positive light is perverse and disgusting.
Ivanhoe: any attempt to paint the Inquisition in even a slightly positive light
is perverse and disgusting.
Do you have the slightest clue how many deaths were the direct result of the
Inquisition in Spain, for example?
Nemesio
What would be perverse and disgusting would be to let preconceived notions stand in the way of objective examination of facts and causes.
Do you have the slightest clue how many deaths were the direct result of the Inquisition in Spain, for example?
About 2,000†.
LH
---
† http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Death_tolls
(Not a source that can be accused of particular sympathy for the Church)
04 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeHere's another article (non-partisan, IMO) on the same topic:
.
If people want to discuss the article they are welcome. Reading it is of course a necessary condition in order to do so.
http://www.thenazareneway.com/inquisition.htm
This sentence interested me greatly (you figure out why):
Since the church was not permitted to shed blood, the sentenced heretic was surrendered to the secular authorities for execution, usually by burning at the stake.
.
04 Oct 05
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe following sentence particularly interested mé since it fits in perfectly with the subject I want to present and discuss, which is to look at the facts and eliminate legend.
Here's another article (non-partisan, IMO) on the same topic:
http://www.thenazareneway.com/inquisition.htm
This sentence interested me greatly (you figure out why):
Since the church was not permitted to shed blood, the sentenced heretic was surrendered to the secular authorities for execution, usually by burning at the stake.
.
"Legend has made the first grand inquisitor, Tomas de Torquemada, a symbol of ultimate cruelty, bigotry, intolerance, and religious fanaticism."
http://www.thenazareneway.com/inquisition.htm
This touches on the broader issue I want to address regarding the Inquistion and to to eradicate the "legend", the "Hollywood" perception of historic reality , and to present a more scientificly based, more balanced, presentation of the truth.
One of the problems arising, and I did not detect any substantial adressing this aspect of the problem in the above article, is the comparison which is always made, usually implicitely and veiled, between today's judicial procedures (in civilised Western countries that adhere to, more or less, the modern Universal declaration of Human Rights) and the Inquisition's judicial procedures. It is historically and scientifically more adequate in order to get a more objective insight in historic developments, if one compares the secular developments and practises in the judicial field to the developments, practises and improvements initiated by the Inquisition throughout the ages.
Another important aspect is to look at who is in command of the Inquisition, the secular or the ecclesiastical authorities, in discussing an instance in the Inquisition's history.
The Inquisition's role is always looked upon as a "darker side" of Christian history:
"Nevertheless, despite all efforts at understanding the institution in the light of social, political, religious, and ideological factors, today the Inquisition is generally admitted to belong to the darker side of Christian history."
I is a pity to see the article you presented mentions these efforts at "understanding the institution" but fails to address them in a substantial meaningful way.
I would like the article or any article presented here, to address the "legend" and explain to us what the legend is and what the facts are.
The article I presented in this thread does indeed adress this issue:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/october2003/madden.htm
04 Oct 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeAlso worth a read is the article by Ellen Rice:
The following sentence particularly interested mé since it fits in perfectly with the subject I want to present and discuss, which is to look at the facts and eliminate legend.
"[b]Legend has made the first grand inquisitor, Tomas de Torquemada, a symbol of ultimate cruelty, bigotry, intolerance, and religious fanaticism."
http://www.thenazarene ...[text shortened]... is thread does indeed adress this issue:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/october2003/madden.htm[/b]
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/1112-96/article4.html
And, lest someone think this qualifies as a "glorification" of the Inquisition, let's keep in mind:
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.
04 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerThanks for the link. I want to emphasise that this article only deals with the Spanish Inquisition, the Black Legend.
Also worth a read is the article by Ellen Rice:
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/1112-96/article4.html
And, lest someone think this qualifies as a "glorification" of the Inquisition, let's keep in mind:
Our 20th century crisis of man playing God - usurping power over conception, life, and death - leaves us with no alterna ...[text shortened]... tion of the Inquisition with a reminder: 3,000 to 5,000 victims are 3,000 to 5,000 too many.
04 Oct 05
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe Holocaust was a hoax. Auschwitz appears to have provided nice recreational facilities, such as swimming pools, documented in photographs in this article.
Now, you can either disagree with the factual assertions, or with the validity of deductions made from those assertions. Which one is it?
"This is crap" is simpy not the response one would expect from a person with your reasoning skills and knowledge.
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/holohoax.htm
"The Holocaust is a hoax. The time has come for Christian scholars and pastors to recognize this, and to stop perpetrating a hoax as the truth."
Is this crap?
04 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhy are you trying to change the subject ? If you want to discuss the issue you presented I suggest you open a new thread.
The Holocaust was a hoax. Auschwitz appears to have provided nice recreational facilities, such as swimming pools, documented in photographs in this article.
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/holohoax.htm
"The Holocaust is a hoax. The time has come for Christian scholars and pastors to recognize this, and to stop perpetrating a hoax as the truth."
Is this crap?
04 Oct 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'm not changing the subject. I'm addressing it by analogy, to demonstrate that the article is not worthy of more than a cursory examination and discard.
Why are you trying to change the subject ? If you want to discuss the issue you presented I suggest you open a new thread.