Correcting Misconceptions About The Inquisitions

[ClaytonB]

The death penalty in a religious context post the death, burial, resurrection and ascension of Christ is indeed evil.

Edit: jmdrake pointed out I misread his post...

But the problem with this view (taken to its fullest limit) is then I can't defend my wife and children from some thug breaking into my home because that might (and probably will) cause him to die. This is throwing out the Bible in order to misinterpret one verse. Rather, we are to defend the innocent with Christ-like bravery. And if I may defend the innocents by killing an intruder, then the State may also defend the innocents by killing an intruder in my home. If the intruder happens to be taken alive, nothing changes... he can still be put to death, if convicted, because he already hazarded his life upon entering the home.

That said, I do think that the State is always evil, because it is part of Satan's world-order (Matt. 4:8,9), and so it is a poor instrument for administering the death penalty. And furthermore, the attempt to use any State punishment or any form of State power for the Gospel is antichrist. As a political question, the godless government may make Christianity the state-religion or not, but Christians themselves must never support the use of State power in this way. We cannot stop the godless government from doing bad things, but we must never support its doing so.

 

[jmdrake]

You're always twisting things. You mentioned the Crusades and then you RE-NAMED the link "the Fourth Crusade" which doesn't even GO to Wikipedia (not an unbiased source of history) page for the Fourth Crusade, but rather it links to the Sack of Constantinople. They are NOT the same thing. Wikipedia has a Fourth Crusade page, and that's not it, so you RE-NAMED it. I prefer not to even write against you. It's a waste of time because you don't listen.

Okay. The point still remains that the Catholic church was engaged in wonton bloodshed long before there official Protestant reformation kicked off. And yes the Orthodox church gave back as good as it got with the "massacre of the Latins." Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[jmdrake]

But the problem with this view (taken to its fullest limit) is then I can't defend my wife and children from some thug breaking into my home because that might (and probably will) cause him to die. This is throwing out the Bible in order to misinterpret one verse. Rather, we are to defend the innocent with Christ-like bravery. And if I may defend the innocents by killing an intruder, then the State may also defend the innocents by killing an intruder in my home. If the intruder happens to be taken alive, nothing changes... he can still be put to death, if convicted, because he already hazarded his life upon entering the home.

That said, I do think that the State is always evil, because it is part of Satan's world-order (Matt. 4:8,9), and so it is a poor instrument for administering the death penalty. And furthermore, the attempt to use any State punishment or any form of State power for the Gospel is antichrist. As a political question, the godless government may make Christianity the state-religion or not, but Christians themselves must never support the use of State power in this way. We cannot stop the godless government from doing bad things, but we must never support its doing so.

Please re-read what I wrote.

The death penalty in a religious context....is indeed evil.​

If you kill someone in self defense or in defense of your wife and child then 1) that's not a "death penalty", it's self defense and 2) it's not in a "religious context.'

For something to be a "penalty" it is applicable even if the threat is no longer there. Someone who is secure in prison for life is no more a threat to your wife and kids than someone on death row. Killing them is a penalty. But even then, that person isn't being killed in a "religious context." They aren't being killed because the "sinned." They are being killed because they broke a secular law. An atheist country can have a law against murder, and in fact they all do. An atheist country isn't going to have a law against blasphemy.

And again, this is in the New Testament and beyond. In the OT Yahweh did indeed institute the death penalty for all sorts of things, many being a "religious context."

 

[Snowball]

Okay. The point still remains that the Catholic church was engaged in wonton bloodshed long before there official Protestant reformation kicked off. And yes the Orthodox church gave back as good as it got with the "massacre of the Latins." Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

No, the point is that people who know next-to-nothing about history shoudn't attempt to form opinions on it, especially in important matters, and those who need to quickly pull up "muh wikipedia" in order to find a hot line that supports their bias should perhaps not be making wide historical judgements.

There not even a "Fourth Crusade" anyway. The armies sacked Constantinople against papal orders. It's an example of the beginning decline in Catholic power in European kingdoms and the East/West schism. If they did what Innocent III wanted, (the Pope is supposed to call and direct the nature of a Crusade), then there wouldn't have been a grimy Sack of Constantinople, that happened because secularist politics and Venetian powers interfered, like ClaytonB's precious Republics of which Venice was one.

Clayton should direct his ire against those who disobeyed Innocent III and followed Republicans.

 

[ClaytonB]

Please re-read what I wrote.

The death penalty in a religious context....is indeed evil.​

Apologies, I completely overlooked that... we're in agreement.

 

[ClaytonB]

No, the point is that people who know next-to-nothing about history shoudn't attempt to form opinions on it,

People who know absolutely nothing about what other people know about shouldn't attempt to form opinions on it. Try to abridge your instinctive "MUH EXPERTS" reflex. Experts are valuable. Sometimes, they are even mission-critical. But they're not gods and they're not even mediators between man and God, they're just people. Like priests are just people. And bishops. And especially people who have the audacity to label themselves The Father. On earth. In diametric contradiction to the Lord's express command, Matthew 23:9. And no, I didn't need to pull up "muh wikipedia" to find that verse, I've got the Word of God on hair-trigger in my noggin, as good or better than any "Pope"-approved eggspurt.

especially in important matters, and those who need to quickly pull up "muh wikipedia" in order to find a hot line that supports their bias should perhaps not be making wide historical judgements.

The Wiki article is an Establishment-censored stub, nothing more. If you want to make hay out of me simply pointing to the article, have at it.

There not even a "Fourth Crusade" anyway. The armies sacked Constantinople against papal orders.

Even if that were true (and I see no good reason to believe it's true), you can't have it both ways. If the "Pope" is literally the Father on earth, as the cardinals claim he is, then "the buck stops here" -- don't raise an army that's going to run off the train-tracks and go on a mass-murdering spree and pillage and raze half of Christendom to the ground.

It's an example of the beginning decline in Catholic power in European kingdoms and the East/West schism. If they did what Innocent III wanted, (the Pope is supposed to call and direct the nature of a Crusade), then there wouldn't have been a grimy Sack of Constantinople, that happened because secularist politics and Venetian powers interfered, like ClaytonB's precious Republics of which Venice was one.

I'm no Republican.

Clayton should direct his ire against those who disobeyed Innocent III and followed Republicans.

No, my ire is directed at the whole lot of antichrist pagans, both those parading around in silk robes and pretending to be followers of Jesus, as well as those parading around in Roman armor and raping Christian women over the altar, with the blessing of the hypocrites in silk robes. The Roman order is mostly just rank paganism with a cross slapped on it and the Fourth "Crusade", that is, the siege and murder of Constantinople Christians, is just a symptom of the underlying disease, which disease has still never yet been addressed by Rome. Not even by way of opening a discussion. Nothing but magical incantations like "the Chair of St. Peter!" to infinity and beyond. Neither the Orthodox churches of the East (who are senior to Rome), nor the Reformed Anglo-European churches of the West, nor any of the churches which have been planted by them since, recognize Jesus in the church of Rome. Nobody but Rome can recognize Jesus in Rome. But Jesus is competent to shepherd His catholic church, which is not Roman. The shepherd's rod and staff will be applied to those who are his sheep among them, and the rest of the wolves will be driven off.

But hey, I'm not an eggspurt, so what do I know...

 

[fisharmor]

Okay. The point still remains that the Catholic church was engaged in wonton bloodshed long before there official Protestant reformation kicked off. And yes the Orthodox church gave back as good as it got with the "massacre of the Latins." Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Not accurate.

Orthodox laity committed the "massacre of the Latins". There was no official Church missive calling for or defending these actions.
Even if you could find a priest or bishop or even a patriarch who expressed support for it, the Eastern churches do not operate in the same way. There is no top-down pronouncement unless what is being said tracks with the entire corpus of Orthodox Holy Tradition.
Which, obviously, this does not.

You can say both sides had blame. You can say the entire situation snowballed for 200 years. You can say it was wrong.
You cannot say it was committed by the Church. It wasn't.

 

[fisharmor]

People who know absolutely nothing about what other people know about shouldn't attempt to form opinions on it.
......
And especially people who have the audacity to label themselves The Father.

Luke 4:23

......
Even if that were true (and I see no good reason to believe it's true), you can't have it both ways. If the "Pope" is literally the Father on earth, as the cardinals claim he is, then "the buck stops here" -- don't raise an army that's going to run off the train-tracks and go on a mass-murdering spree and pillage and raze half of Christendom to the ground.Neither the Orthodox churches of the East (who are senior to Rome), nor the Reformed Anglo-European churches of the West, nor any of the churches which have been planted by them since, recognize Jesus in the church of Rome.

That's another a misrepresentation of Orthodoxy.
We don't say anything about Jesus being absent from any of those. I mean Rome is pretty lenient when you put them to task on whether people can find Christ in those other outfits - but we wear it on our sleeves.
We don't know whether they have found Christ and we're not going to tell Christ he's not allowed to work in those other groups.
All we say on the topic is, look, we know Christ is here, so if you're looking for Christ, this is a known location.

Now, you absolutely can find the odd priest or deacon and especially quite a few lay "ortho-bros" these days who will say what you wrote. But I've personally witnessed one of them getting dressed down by a metropolitan for it, and I've heard more sermons in response to this than any other single topic in the last 5 years because it's a problem that Orthodox clergy are trying to address as people flock to the Church and become zealots.

We don't define ourselves that way.

 

[jmdrake]

No, the point is that people who know next-to-nothing about history shoudn't attempt to form opinions on it, especially in important matters, and those who need to quickly pull up "muh wikipedia" in order to find a hot line that supports their bias should perhaps not be making wide historical judgements.

There not even a "Fourth Crusade" anyway. The armies sacked Constantinople against papal orders. It's an example of the beginning decline in Catholic power in European kingdoms and the East/West schism. If they did what Innocent III wanted, (the Pope is supposed to call and direct the nature of a Crusade), then there wouldn't have been a grimy Sack of Constantinople, that happened because secularist politics and Venetian powers interfered, like ClaytonB's precious Republics of which Venice was one.

Clayton should direct his ire against those who disobeyed Innocent III and followed Republicans.

It's indisputable that long before Martin Luther the Roman Catholic Church was brutally murdering people like Jan Huss for nothing more than questioning their authority. And since you're whining about Wikipedia:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jan-Hus

He left for Constance but did not receive the safe-conduct until two days after his arrival there, in November 1414. Shortly after arriving in Constance he was, with Sigismund’s tacit consent, arrested and placed in close confinement, from which he never emerged. Hus’s enemies succeeded in having him tried before the Council of Constance as a Wycliffite heretic. All that the earnest intervention by the Bohemian nobles could obtain for him was three public hearings, at which he was allowed to defend himself and succeeded in refuting some of the charges against him. The council urged Hus to recant in order to save his life, but to the majority of its members he was a dangerous heretic fit only for death. When he refused to recant, he was solemnly sentenced on July 6, 1415, and burned at the stake.​

 

[jmdrake]

Not accurate.

Orthodox laity committed the "massacre of the Latins". There was no official Church missive calling for or defending these actions.
Even if you could find a priest or bishop or even a patriarch who expressed support for it, the Eastern churches do not operate in the same way. There is no top-down pronouncement unless what is being said tracks with the entire corpus of Orthodox Holy Tradition.
Which, obviously, this does not.

You can say both sides had blame. You can say the entire situation snowballed for 200 years. You can say it was wrong.
You cannot say it was committed by the Church. It wasn't.

Even if I could find a priest? According to pro Orthodox website I linked to, multiple Orthodox clergy encouraged the massacre. And I never claimed there as a "top down pronouncement." But...whatever. The bottom line is that under the New Covenant, Christians murdering people because of their religious beliefs or lack thereof is not godly. I only brought up the massacre of the Latins because I figured Snowball would bring it up.

 

[fisharmor]

It's indisputable that long before Martin Luther the Roman Catholic Church was brutally murdering people like Jan Huss for nothing more than questioning their authority.

No, it's not indisputable.
The article you linked to makes it clear that his treatment was in part driven by secular authorities who were tired of the Western Schism continuing to happen and were trying to force consensus and get rid of the split.

Hus is also in the same bucket as Giordano Bruno which is labeled "Maybe don't take a job to explicitly support the theology of the church of Rome and then do the exact opposite".

 

[jmdrake]

No, it's not indisputable.
The article you linked to makes it clear that his treatment was in part driven by secular authorities who were tired of the Western Schism continuing to happen and were trying to force consensus and get rid of the split.

Hus is also in the same bucket as Giordano Bruno which is labeled "Maybe don't take a job to explicitly support the theology of the church of Rome and then do the exact opposite".

Bollocks. He was ultimately murdered for heresy. And if he went out the scope of his "job" the appropriate remedy was a firing instead of being burned at the stake.

With the Western Schism continuing unabated, King Sigismund of Hungary, as the newly elected (1411) king of Germany, saw an opportunity to gain prestige as the restorer of the church’s unity. He forced John XXIII to call the Council of Constance to find a final solution of the schism and to put an end to all the heresies. Sigismund, therefore, sent an emissary to invite Hus to attend the council to explain his views—an invitation Hus naturally was reluctant to accept. But when John threatened King Wenceslas for noncompliance with the interdict, and after Sigismund had assured Hus of safe-conduct for the journey to Constance and back (no matter what the decision might be), Hus finally consented to go.


Jan Hus
Jan Hus in confinement.
He left for Constance but did not receive the safe-conduct until two days after his arrival there, in November 1414. Shortly after arriving in Constance he was, with Sigismund’s tacit consent, arrested and placed in close confinement, from which he never emerged. Hus’s enemies succeeded in having him tried before the Council of Constance as a Wycliffite heretic. All that the earnest intervention by the Bohemian nobles could obtain for him was three public hearings, at which he was allowed to defend himself and succeeded in refuting some of the charges against him. The council urged Hus to recant in order to save his life, but to the majority of its members he was a dangerous heretic fit only for death. When he refused to recant, he was solemnly sentenced on July 6, 1415, and burned at the stake.​

 

[fisharmor]

Even if I could find a priest? According to pro Orthodox website I linked to, multiple Orthodox clergy encouraged the massacre. And I never claimed there as a "top down pronouncement." But...whatever. The bottom line is that under the New Covenant, Christians murdering people because of their religious beliefs or lack thereof is not godly. I only brought up the massacre of the Latins because I figured Snowball would bring it up.

This is the full quote:

Donald M. Nicol wrote in Byzantium and Venice that “the people needed no encouragement. With an enthusiasm fired by years of resentment they set about the massacre of all the foreigners that they could find. They directed their fury mainly against the merchant quarters along the Golden Horn. Many had sensed what was coming with the arrival of Andronikos Komnenos and made their escape by sea. Of those who remained, the Pisans and Genoese were the main victims. The slaughter was appalling. The Byzantine clergy shamelessly encouraged the mob to seek out Latin monks and priests.

This entire page is lifted from one book by Donald M Nicol titled "Byzantium and Venice". Nichol is a university professor who wrote one data point which I can't cross-reference. Moreover, the paragraph clearly starts by saying they were already riled up and killing people. What the Byzantime clergy "encouraged" them to do is not defined. All it says is they were encouraged to "seek out" the Latin clergy - and without context, I have no evidence that clergy actually called for killing people.

And even if they did, that would still be one data point. It is not in the same category with issuing a papal bull that we still have copies of that clearly states that it's less wicked to kill the infidel. And even if that was what happened with the massacre, even if we had all that, it's still commonplace in the Eastern churches to refuse to dignify it with a response. It wasn't the Church committing the act. It can't have been the Church, because if it was, there wouldn't be any such thing as the Church. I realize you're completely on that wavelength, but I'm not. The Church exists and if it exists then it doesn't do things like this. I believe we both have the same motivations in calling it evil - but there's a way to do that which doesn't simply deny the existence of a large part of what the last half of the New Testament talks about.

 

[Snowball]

It's indisputable that long before Martin Luther the Roman Catholic Church was brutally murdering people like Jan Huss for nothing more than questioning their authority. And since you're whining about Wikipedia:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jan-Hus

He left for Constance but did not receive the safe-conduct until two days after his arrival there, in November 1414. Shortly after arriving in Constance he was, with Sigismund’s tacit consent, arrested and placed in close confinement, from which he never emerged. Hus’s enemies succeeded in having him tried before the Council of Constance as a Wycliffite heretic. All that the earnest intervention by the Bohemian nobles could obtain for him was three public hearings, at which he was allowed to defend himself and succeeded in refuting some of the charges against him. The council urged Hus to recant in order to save his life, but to the majority of its members he was a dangerous heretic fit only for death. When he refused to recant, he was solemnly sentenced on July 6, 1415, and burned at the stake.​

It's indisputable that long before Martin Luther the Roman Catholic Church was brutally murdering people like Jan Huss for nothing more than questioning their authority. And since you're whining about Wikipedia:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jan-Hus

He left for Constance but did not receive the safe-conduct until two days after his arrival there, in November 1414. Shortly after arriving in Constance he was, with Sigismund’s tacit consent, arrested and placed in close confinement, from which he never emerged. Hus’s enemies succeeded in having him tried before the Council of Constance as a Wycliffite heretic. All that the earnest intervention by the Bohemian nobles could obtain for him was three public hearings, at which he was allowed to defend himself and succeeded in refuting some of the charges against him. The council urged Hus to recant in order to save his life, but to the majority of its members he was a dangerous heretic fit only for death. When he refused to recant, he was solemnly sentenced on July 6, 1415, and burned at the stake.​

Why do this back-and-forth detraction? It's not history. You wrote nothing that refutes what I said, nor did Clayton. You've seen he meme - one does not simply. Which is about as much of my time I can further spend in this thread. I'll leave some links and raise your Jan Hus with Joan of Arc. It's all very complicated, you see.

Now, Treebeard's going to be careful what he posts. Be assured, all he meant was to make readers think about history. I'm sure Clayton and yourself didn't read the article I posted early on. That's about all. I might add that besides all the fighting, there had been no less than 3 contested popes around this time, as France was really having sway. Sigismund the HRE was involved. Hus was given his chances, many times... over and over... you see, CUI BONO is the question you Protestants never ask about the happenings in England, Germany, or Czechia (HRE) for that matter, when the Church's and its peoples bounty over the course of a thousands years was suddenly handed over to some secular prince and his band of compadres. This spirit is what brought on the American and French revolutions also. Ergo, here we are. And power doesn't kill anymore. It's all good.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigismund,_Holy_Roman_Emperor
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07584b.htm

 

[ClaytonB]

Luke 4:23

I mean, Matthew 13:57. So .

That the Beast System will persist until it is destroyed by the Lord Jesus proves nothing, especially nothing in respect to its durability.

That's another a misrepresentation of Orthodoxy.
We don't say anything about Jesus being absent from any of those. I mean Rome is pretty lenient when you put them to task on whether people can find Christ in those other outfits - but we wear it on our sleeves.
We don't know whether they have found Christ and we're not going to tell Christ he's not allowed to work in those other groups.
All we say on the topic is, look, we know Christ is here, so if you're looking for Christ, this is a known location.

Yes, wherever Rome does not have political power, this is what she says. However, she transmutates into another creature altogether when she has political power, as the history books amply prove. If Rome were ever to say, "Hey, you know what, our ancestors committed a lot of sin when they had ready access to the ears of kings and when the Pope took on earthly power, but we realize this was sin and we repent, and we see that we must never do that again, and we cast all our crowns at the feet of Jesus", that would be the start of a dialogue. (I specifically mean a statement from the whole college of cardinals, not just a throwaway statement from the Pope). But since Rome remains unrepentant and unabashed in her bloodlust and whoredom with the secular powers, there is no remedy through dialogue, 1 Cor. 4:20. Beware of fratricide!

Now, you absolutely can find the odd priest or deacon and especially quite a few lay "ortho-bros" these days who will say what you wrote. But I've personally witnessed one of them getting dressed down by a metropolitan for it, and I've heard more sermons in response to this than any other single topic in the last 5 years because it's a problem that Orthodox clergy are trying to address as people flock to the Church and become zealots. We don't define ourselves that way.

Liberal and conservative is cross-cutting through all branches of the church. You happen to go to a liberal church, and the Orthodox I listen to are conservatives who do not give honor to the lying, murderous, blasphemous "Pope", just as many in SSPX and other conservative Catholic dissenters do not. It's looking more and more like the only "error" the Reformers made was being 5+ centuries ahead of their time...

 

[jmdrake]

Why do this back-and-forth detraction? It's not history. You wrote nothing that refutes what I said, nor did Clayton. You've seen he meme - one does not simply. Which is about as much of my time I can further spend in this thread. I'll leave some links and raise your Jan Hus with Joan of Arc. It's all very complicated, you see.

Now, Treebeard's going to be careful what he posts. Be assured, all he meant was to make readers think about history. I'm sure Clayton and yourself didn't read the article I posted early on. That's about all. I might add that besides all the fighting, there had been no less than 3 contested popes around this time, as France was really having sway. Sigismund the HRE was involved. Hus was given his chances, many times... over and over... you see, CUI BONO is the question you Protestants never ask about the happenings in England, Germany, or Czechia (HRE) for that matter, when the Church's and its peoples bounty over the course of a thousands years was suddenly handed over to some secular prince and his band of compadres. This spirit is what brought on the American and French revolutions also. Ergo, here we are. And power doesn't kill anymore. It's all good.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigismund,_Holy_Roman_Emperor
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07584b.htm

You're not fooling anyone but yourself. For any real student of history there is no doubt that the Catholic Church punished heretics with death. And I happen to have a problem with that. You may be okay with that and that's your right.

 

[jmdrake]

This is the full quote:



This entire page is lifted from one book by Donald M Nicol titled "[/FONT][/COLOR]Byzantium and Venice". Nichol is a university professor who wrote one data point which I can't cross-reference. Moreover, the paragraph clearly starts by saying they were already riled up and killing people. What the Byzantime clergy "encouraged" them to do is not defined. All it says is they were encouraged to "seek out" the Latin clergy - and without context, I have no evidence that clergy actually called for killing people.

And even if they did, that would still be one data point. It is not in the same category with issuing a papal bull that we still have copies of that clearly states that it's less wicked to kill the infidel. And even if that was what happened with the massacre, even if we had all that, it's still commonplace in the Eastern churches to refuse to dignify it with a response. It wasn't the Church committing the act. It can't have been the Church, because if it was, there wouldn't be any such thing as the Church. I realize you're completely on that wavelength, but I'm not. The Church exists and if it exists then it doesn't do things like this. I believe we both have the same motivations in calling it evil - but there's a way to do that which doesn't simply deny the existence of a large part of what the last half of the New Testament talks about.

Straw man argument. I never said there was a papal bull. And if your argument is "It's not the true church when it does something wrong" Umm.....okay. Again, I only brought this up because, years ago, when I saw Eduardo (Catholic on this forum who was banned for using sock puppets) and T.E.R. (orthodox Christian who seems to have dropped off this form) arguing back and forth about what happened in Constantinople, Eduardo would bring up the Massacre Of The Latins as some sort of "Whataboutism" so I just mentioned if first. Regardless, anybody who puts someone to death for heresy, whether that person is Jew, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant, is not following Christ at that moment. And people being put to death for heresy happened in the inquisition. I don't think the OP cleared up anything.

 

[acptulsa]

T.E.R.

He popped up on April Fool's to wish us a happy Easter. It was nice to hear from him.

 

[jmdrake]

He popped up on April Fool's to wish us a happy Easter. It was nice to hear from him.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acptulsa again.

 

[Snowball]

You're not fooling anyone but yourself. For any real student of history there is no doubt that the Catholic Church punished heretics with death. And I happen to have a problem with that. You may be okay with that and that's your right.

You're not getting my point. Many times the church restrained the secular authorities, and capital punishment was the penalty for traitors.
Hus was not just a heretic. He was a revolutionary and had multiple opportunities with leniency that he refused. You can read about it.
The Hussite Wars also killed and displaced many Catholics. Remember, this was not merely about a theological difference. It was about
kingdoms and empires, and to overthrow the Church meant to become the new owners of that bounty.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07584b.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussite_Wars