The Church and Heretics

Originally posted by vistesd
I read your post before your edits. I can read. I retract my angry statement. The others can speak for themselves, although I don’t think your characterization is accurate. I do explicitly remember, for example, No1 defending the RCC to some of the evangelicals/fundamentalists. But, that is off-topic here.

Vistesd: " I do explicitly remember, for example, No1 defending the RCC to some of the evangelicals/fundamentalists."


This underlines my claim this gentleman only uses the truth, if it was the truth, if it fits his political purposes, in this case fighting American Evangelical right-wing Christians. I never claimed his political fights are without truth. What I claim is that his rants are never aimed at the truth, they are only aimed at improving his political position.

Originally posted by vistesd
I read your post before your edits. I can read. I retract my angry statement. The others can speak for themselves, although I don’t think your characterization is accurate. I do explicitly remember, for example, No1 defending the RCC to some of the evangelicals/fundamentalists. But, that is off-topic here.

Vistesd: "I can read"

I know you can .... 😉

Originally posted by kirksey957
So you confess! Do you prefer Birch or Pine for your funeral pire?

I thought I'd offer up a scape-goat!

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Vistesd: " I do explicitly remember, for example, No1 defending the RCC to some of the evangelicals/fundamentalists."


This underlines my claim this gentleman only uses the truth, if it was the truth, if it fits his political purposes, in this case fighting American Evangelical right-wing Christians. I never claimed his political fights are without tru ...[text shortened]... his rants are never aimed at the truth, they are only aimed at improving his political position.

Off-topic, but what "political position" do you suppose it helps me to discuss events that occurred 800 years ago? LH dared me to present facts regarding his and your characterization of the Inquistion in another thread; I graciously agreed and did so. I thought you guys wanted to talk about the Inquistion and its history???

Does Rogaine (TM) help cure heresy?

The greatest heresy of our time is the dismissal of the "Sanctity of Life" notion.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
The greatest heresy of our time is the dismissal of the "Sanctity of Life" notion.

Do secular authorities have the obligation to exterminate those present heretics who dismiss your version of the "Sanctity of Life" notion? If they fail in that duty, should the church foment armed rebellion against those authorities as Canon 3 of the Fourth Lateran Council instructed?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
To all:

My claim was and is that the initial creation of the Inquisition was an improvement in the judicial situation compared to the judicial practises at the time. Thàt, gentlemen, is all.

If that is all, then it is an incomplete statement!

There are basically four ways to evaluate the Inquisition.

1) It was a horrible evil, and all reports about its being evil are true.
2) It was a horrible evil, but some reports about it exaggerate the truth.
3) It was a good thing, with some abuses.
4) It was a good thing, and all reports about its being evil are false.

The articles that were presented gave their perspectives from the #3
point of view. It was an Apology (in the older sense) to address the
exaggerations, but, in so doing, failed to chastise the Church for this
horrible crime against humanity. Yes, there were a few sentences, but
their gentle phrasing and relative infrequency did little to soften the
appearance of a defense of the Inquisition as an overall good in the
time period.

Just because it was an 'improvement' does not mean it was not a
horrible evil. The Church, which ought to be a bastion of good, had
an infinitude of options which it actively chose not exercise. It chose
to impose the Inquistory process and, by doing so, instituted an evil
into their world. Was this 'less evil' than secular authorities. I agree
that it was 'less evil.' However, it was nonetheless evil, from top to
bottom.

If you, or anyone disputes that the Inquisition was fundamentally an
evil event, then you are so biased for love of your Church that reason
is beyond you. If you, or anyone disputes that the secular reports
about the deaths are exaggerated, then you are so biased against the
Church that reason is beyond you.

Nemesio

Originally posted by no1marauder
PLEEEEEEZE!

If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler's vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of ...[text shortened]... od Catholics to go around slaughtering his other subjects?? Please actually read the damn thing.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
First, consider the very low ratio of Cathars (note the correct spelling) to laymen in the Cathar regions. One reason the religion strongly appealed to ordinary people was that it removed the threat of hellfire and allowed people to mind their own business. Recall, too, that the Cathars had translated the Bible into Provencal--the first vernacular tran ...[text shortened]... ispossessed and slaughtered for their own good. The Inquisition was just the cherry on the cake.

I'm not justifying the Albigensian Crusade. I'm just asking three simple questions about Albigensian teachings.

Originally posted by Nemesio
If that is all, then it is an incomplete statement!

There are basically four ways to evaluate the Inquisition.

1) It was a horrible evil, and all reports about its being evil are true.
2) It was a horrible evil, but some reports about it exaggerate the truth.
3) It was a good thing, with some abuses.
4) It was a good thing, and all reports about ...[text shortened]... re exaggerated, then you are so biased against the
Church that reason is beyond you.

Nemesio

With the caveat that there can be considerable range between "some" and "all," I'll go with #2.

Originally posted by Nemesio
If that is all, then it is an incomplete statement!

There are basically four ways to evaluate the Inquisition.

1) It was a horrible evil, and all reports about its being evil are true.
2) It was a horrible evil, but some reports about it exaggerate the truth.
3) It was a good thing, with some abuses.
4) It was a good thing, and all reports about ...[text shortened]... re exaggerated, then you are so biased against the
Church that reason is beyond you.

Nemesio

There's really more to it than that. LH and Ivanhoe wanted it to be read in "historical perspective" but they cherry picked what facts to use in their history. Of course, that is unavoidable but the facts they used left an incredibly inaccurate impression. In truth, secular repression of heretics was insisted on by the Church from very early on. In truth, the Church was extremely interested in the stamping out of heresies from very early on and believed the use of brutal measures acceptable for this "Holy" cause. The Inquistion was NOT a response to some perceived need to reel in the abuses of secular authorities, but was generally used in areas where the secular authorities were deemed to have been not vigourous enough or where heresies were particulary strong. The Spanish Inquistion is somewhat of an exception as it came about due to Royal insistence, but the Papacy was only too glad to appoint a Grand Inquistor who regularly reported to the Pope.

In short, pretty much everything claimed in the Inquistion thread was wrong. It's a very easy matter to show that Inquistional judical proceedings were a backslide from far fairer methods used in early systems of law and those in England and other areas. I could go on, but the bottom line is this: The Inquistion was part of a widespread attempt by Church authorities to stamp out heresies in which the Church and its allies used extremely brutal mehods which were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings. There really isn't a "sunny side" to that, even if later historians got some of the numbers wrong (which I'm not convinced of).

Originally posted by Nemesio
LH:

Do you know of a list of all the historical canons and whatever other documents pertaining
to faith and/or morals that are considered infallible?

I recall that you said the canons of these various councils, but I don't want to have to sift
through ones that are disciplinary and, thus, irrelevant to my study.

Nemesio

Do you know of a list of all the historical canons and whatever other documents pertaining to faith and/or morals that are considered infallible?

All canons and proclamations of the Church considered infallible can be found in Denzinger-Schönmetzer's Enchiridion Symbolorum. Not having used DS myself, I don't know if it contains only the dogmatic extracts of the Councils and Papal Bulls or the full texts.

Cardinals Ratzinger and Bertone published a partial, non-exhaustive list of infallible teachings of the Church in 1998, but I haven't seen this list either.

As far as I can tell, only canon 1 and the second paragraph of canon 2 from Lateran IV are infallible.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Whatever they might be, it doesn't justify the mass murder of tens of thousands of people in cold blood in a war and pogrom initiated by the so-called "Vicar of Christ".

Of course it doesn't. But do you know what they are?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Of course it doesn't. But do you know what they are?

Yes. They didn't believe in sex or swearing oaths. So what?