First inquisition

Discussion in 'History & Past Politicians' started by Anonymous.Professor, Apr 23, 2021.

  1. Anonymous.Professor

    Anonymous.Professor Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2020
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    First papal inquisition started officialy in the year 1230's when pope Gregory IX appointed a number of Papal Inquisitors, mostly Dominicans and Franciscans. Before that you had episcopal inquisition, which was established in the year 1184 by pope Lucius III. It was administered by local bishops and death penalty for heretics was not yet used on this level ( for relapsed or unrepentant ), but rather prison sentences and confiscation of property.


    Before that some countries did not have or use laws against heretics, for example early kingdom of Franks. But when exactly first legislation against heretics was made? I found in the code of Greek emperor Justinian an answer as i think.

    With christianization of Roman empire slowly came also laws against those who opposed official church council and teachings. Now decisions of church councils were considered a decrees of the state also. Such laws intented also to bring conversions to the official faith and doctrine.

    All heretics must take notice that they are without question to be deprived of all places, whether held under the name of churches or private houses where opportunity for their meetings is furnished. All these buildings or private structures are to be claimed for the Catholic Church. 1. In addition to this we forbid all those to meet in profane assemblies, either day or night, for the litany. A punishment of a fine of 100 pounds of gold shall be inflicted on the officials of Your Sublimity, and a fine of 50 founds on the officials of the president, if they permit anything of the ort to be done either in public or in private places. ( Constantinople March 2 396 ).

    In the case of Manicheans and Donatists the word inquisition is mentioned very early.

    The inquisition shall extend beyond death. For if the memory of a deceased may be accused when the crime is treason, judgment should not undeservedly be suffered also in this case. ( Rome 407, by emperor Theodosious II )

    Also they were banned by the same law from inheritance, buying, selling and making contracts.

    Further, we do not want them (the Manichaeans and Donatists) to be able to take any gift or inheritance, free from whatever source that may come. 3. Besides, we leave to no one who is convicted (of such heresy) any power of giving, buying or selling anything or even of making contracts.

    Ban of religious meetings also they were banned to do baptisms etc.

    The Arians, Macedonians, Pneumatocahi, Appollinarians, Novatians or Sabbatians, the Eunomians, Tetraditae or Tessarescaedecatitae, the Valentinians, Montanists or Priscillianists, or Phrygians or Pepuzitae, the Marcianists, Borbarians, Messalians, Eutychians, or Enthusiasts, the Donatists, Audians, Hydroporatatae, Tascodrogists, Batrachists, Hermeiecians, Photinians, Paulians, Marcellians, Ophites, Encratites, Apotactiles, Saccophori, and those who arrived at the deepest depths of crime,
    the Manichaeans, shall have no permission to meet and pray anywhere in the Roman Dominian.

    The Manichaeans must also be expelled from the cities and delivered over to capital punishment, since there must be left to them no place in which an outrage may even be committed against the elements (by magic).

    ( Constantinople 30 May 428 )

    Public mark as heretic sect

    Since Nestorius, the founder of a monstrous superstition has been condemned, his followers should be branded by a suitable mark of his name, so that they may not misuse the name of Christians; for as the Arians, in a law of Constantine of blessed memory, on account of the similarity of impiety, are called Porphyrians after Porhpyrius; so the adherents of the nefarious sect of Nestorius shall be called Simonians so that they rightly seem to have obtained the name of the person whose crime, in deserting God, they imitated. ( Constantinople, August 5 435)

    Ban on holding public jobs by heretics

    We have permitted heretics to meet and have their own name, so that, shamed by our patience, they would voluntarily come to their senses and return to better things. 1. But an intolerable audacity has seized them, and disregarding the sanction of law, they have intruded themselves into the imperial service which such men are clearly, by the very words of imperial orders, prohibited from doing. 2. We mean by heretics all outside of the orthodox faith.

    We therefore forbid anyone of the aforesaid persons to obtain any position of dignity, acquire any girdle of office, civil or military, or to belong to any order whatever except to that of the so-called provincial apparitors (cohortalium). We want them to be bound to this order as though subject thereto from birth; they shall not be excused therefrom by reason of their evil faith, but they shall remain in that order, fulfill all the duties thereof, undergo every burden pertaining thereto, and be kept from every promotion, and from acting as enforcement officers in any cause public or private against orthodox Christians. Their offspring, too, shall be bound to she same lot, and shall, if they succeed in hiding for a time, be forced into it.

    We do not permit heretics to undertake the duty either of defender or curator (father) of a city, lest under pretext of power connected therewith, they may injure the other Christians and especially the reverend bishops, and lest they obtain the power to judge and to condemn. We do not even permit them to become advocates, who should rightly understand the imperial precepts, in proportion as they leas a cultured life.

    If any heretics, and above all pagans, Jews, or Samaritans, and those who are like them, hold any of the aforementioned places, and having acquired any position of rank, are either registered as advocates, or have obtained any position in the imperial service, or girdle of office, we order them to be immediately removed therefrom. ( order by emperor Justinian from 527 )

    In the case of mixed marriages between orthodox christians and heretics children should be raised in orthodox faith.

    Knowing, moreover, that the opinions of non-orthodox parents are often at variance, the father or mother wishing to bring the children up in the orthodox faith, while the other opposes it, therefore we order that the opinion of that parent shall prevail who leads the children to the orthodox faith; by reason of which the wish of one of the parents will obtain, and there will be added that the better party will depart victorious. ( order by emperor Justinian from 527 )

    Critical writtings about orthodox faith were banned

    Nor shall anyone be permitted to dictate, write, publish, or emit anything against the venerable synod of Chalcedon, or bring forth the writings of others on the same subject.
    ( Constantinople August 1 455 )

    Heretics can not manage land

    Heretics shall not be able to hold meetings, assemblies, or synods, or make installations, confer baptism, ... or manage any lands either by themselves or through fictitious persons, or do any act that is forbidden them. ( order by emperor Justinian )

    Just orthodox christians are able to inherit property

    We entirely forbid anything to be left to a heretic as an inheritance or gift or in any other manner; and if it appears that anyone has done anything of the kind, whatever has in this manner been left or given, shall be confiscated. ( order by emperor Justinian )

    If a heretic husband cohabits with an orthodox wife, or, on the contrary, a heretic wife has an orthodox husband, their children shall be brought up in the orthodox faith, and if it happens that some of those children become orthodox while others, for any reason remain adherents of the same or some other heresy, then only the orthodox children shall be heirs of the father and mother, and so that the others shall have no claim on the maternal or paternal inheritance. ( order by emperor Justinian )

    Heretics can not have slaves

    We also forbid them to deal in slaves, lest, by delivering them over to the associates of their faith, they may seduce them to their own perversity. ( order by emperor Justinian from 530 )

    Heretic can not be a witness in court against orthodox christian

    Since many judges, in disposing of cases, have applied to us asking us to tell them what to do about heretical witnesses, whether their testimony should be accepted or rejected, we ordain that no heretic and those who cherish the Jewish superstition shall give testimony against orthodox Christians whether one of them is orthodox or the other. But if heretics or Jews want to litigate among themselves, we permit promiscuous agreement and witnesses worthy of them to be introduced. Pagans and Manachaeans were not allowed even to do this. ( order by emperor Justinian from 531 )

    The punishement for breaking these laws was confiscation of property, expullsion and also death penalty in some cases.


    Comments welcomed...
     
    1stvermont likes this.
  2. Anonymous.Professor

    Anonymous.Professor Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2020
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Some early laws concerning the burning of heretical books and banning the non-orthodox meetings under the threat of confiscation of property.

    1. Nor shall anyone dare to have, read or copy the impious books of the nefarious and sacrilegious Nestorius written against the venerable body of the orthodox and against the decretals of the holy synod of bishops held at Ephesus; these books, we decree, shall be diligently searched out and publicly burned. 2. So that no one shall make mention of the aforesaid name in any religious discussion; nor secretly or openly furnish any meeting place, in any houses, villa or suburb to anyone of them (the Nestorians) for the purpose of holding a council; we have decided to deprive all them of every permission of holding a meeting. And all must take notice that the violator of this law will be punished by the confiscation of his property. Given at Constantinople, August 5 (435).

    Concerning those who opposed council of Calcedon ( so called Apollanarians or Eutychians )

    No one shall possess books of this kind, or dare to preserve the sacrilegious memorials of their authors. If any are caught in these crimes, they shall be condemned to perpetual exile.

    Those, moreover, who in the desire to learn shall listen to those who discuss the unholy heresy, shall incur the loss of 10 pounds of gold, which must be paid into the fisc (treasury). Nay, those who attempt to teach the prohibited doctrines shall be punished by death.

    All writings and books, moreover, containing the destructive dogma of Eutyches, that is to say, of Apollinaris, shall be destroyed by fire, so that the very vestiges of the criminal perversity may be destroyed by the flames. For it is proper that monstrous sacrileges be stricken by commensurate punishment.

    Therefore the Apollinarians, that is Eutychiansóbetween whom though there is a difference in name, there is identity in the depravity of heresy; the name is dissimilar, the sacrilege the same whether in this noble city and the different provinces, or in Alexandria, or in the diocese of Egypt, who do not profess the faith of the aforesaid venerable fathers, and who are not communicants of the reverend Proterius, bishop of the city of Alexandria, who is of the orthodox faith, are forbidden to appoint or to have bishops, presbyters or other clergymen. And the Eutchians or Apollinarians who shall dare to give anyone the name of bishop, presbyter or other clergymen, or those who permit themselves to retain the priestly name so given them, shall undergo the punishment of exile and of confiscation of their property.

    Constantinople August 1 455
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2021
  3. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    29,009
    Likes Received:
    9,100
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Before we can discuss the Inquisition (especially the first Inquisition), there is some historical background we need to understand.

    It had only been about 38 years earlier that the muslim occupiers in Spain had been defeated. The population in Spain had lived under oppressive muslim rule, so there was plenty of impetus for a backlash.
    Many of the cruel and barbaric torture practices used in the Inquisition had originated from the muslims.

    You can't fully understand how the Inquisition could seem like a reasonable response until you understand what had previously gone on under muslim rule in Spain. Many history books give the very misleading impression that the Moors were tolerant of different religions, when in reality these other religions lived under severe subjugation in many ways, had special oppressive taxes placed on them, and could often be killed on the slightest provocation.

    The Inquisition really began with muslims, and Jews since they were seen as conspiring with muslims (there were some reasons for that), but then the religious scrutiny soon after that turned against other Christian sects.

    So a lot of this was really one set of circumstances setting the precedent for the next set of circumstances. Or said another way, things escalated.

    Muslims still existed as a threat to Spain at the time of the Inquisition, although by that time they had mostly been pushed out to North Africa. But it would have been perfectly reasonable to the people in Spain at that time to view Islam as a threat.

    So that set the precedent to try to purge out the element of religion, and then things rolled out of hand.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2021
  4. Anonymous.Professor

    Anonymous.Professor Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2020
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ok, of course i do agree that under sharia law there is always religious persecution and also that Spain was firstly conquered by jihad as many other countries. Yet the begginings of inquisition did not have much to do with this. As i pointed out persecution of those who were not part of official church doctrine started already at the end of forth and at the beggining of fifth century together with christianization of Roman empire. It was already well developed in the times of emperor Justinian at part of his code of laws. However it is true that not all christian states in this early period had such laws.

    Also before Spanish inquisition you had medieval inquisitions: episcopal ( 1184 ) and then papal led by Dominicans and Franciscans. Their targets were mainly cathars and waldensians. This medieval inquisition operated also in Aragon. Aragonese king was in fact the one who made religious dissent punishable by death penalty in Aragon. Yet this king Peter II ( 1173-1213 ) also went in to the war against crusaders in south France as he felt his interests in danger, against crusaders which attacked the country because its rulers did not want to persecute cathars ( they constituted around 5% of the population of southern France ).

    Concerning Spanish inquisition established in 1478 its targets were primarily Jews. The reason was that many Jews in Spain were forced to convert and baptize ( for example between civil war in 14th century ) and then some still in secret practiced Judaism. Such Jews were called Marranos and they were target of inquisition. Other Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492 already after the fall of last muslim stronghold in Granada.
     
  5. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    29,009
    Likes Received:
    9,100
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's too complicated to get into in this discussion, but I think that earlier inquisition was completely different from the Spanish inquisition, although you could point out some similarities. The Church had some good reasons to suppress the Cathars, they were not only just disagreements about religion (the Cathars were lending and charging interest rates, being one of the primary ones).
    There are some very good defenses out there written by modern ultra-conservative Catholic factions about the Church's historical suppression of the Cathars, and they are not apologetic about it. It's not quite as cut and dried of a case as the Spanish inquisition, which you won't find any modern Catholics defending.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2021
  6. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    29,009
    Likes Received:
    9,100
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is just from memory, so forgive if the details are not correct, but from what I read I seem to remember that the Spanish had some reasons to fear they might side with the moslems in North Africa if there was an invasion, and they had some fair reasons for believing so. So they were seen as a security threat. The Spanish were very concerned about the possibility of the moslems coming back and being conquered, so they didn't want to take any chances.

    It may have been a self-reinforcing phenomena. Most Spanish Jews would have probably preferred to side with the Spanish if the Spanish had not had reason to be wary of smaller segment of them.

    It seems to be the more international element that hurt them here, since many Jews in Spain had ties to North Africa and they were very accustomed to living among cultures of which they were not a part of, so could move with ease between Christian and Moslem societies.

    Well, that is how it started. But these things tend to escalate, spiral out of control, and get out of hand.

    Keep in mind the Church in Rome never entirely condoned what was going on in Spain. Although they probably did not do enough to try to stop it.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2021
  7. Anonymous.Professor

    Anonymous.Professor Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2020
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    @kazenatsu can you maybe post a link about conservative catholics defending the persecution of cathars?

    Othervise it is true that some cathar believers were lending money with interests. Cathars were dualists and had two classes: the so called ''perfect members'' or perfecti which were in fact considered the only true cathars and were bound to strict asceticism and so called ''believers'' or credents which were living quite normal lives, but believed they can be saved with the ritual of ''consolamentum'' - the perfecti layed their hands on them, usually before death and with that they were like cleansed from sins and corruption of material world. For cathars material world was created by the devil and only spiritual world by the good God... However waldensians were proto-protestants.

    Yet quite soon also catholic church allowed interest rates and calvinists for example were saying modest interest rates are good ( around 5% ). It is the fact that some interest rates are beneficial for economy.

    Concerning Spain - Jews were trying to defend themselves before being expelled in 1492 also with the fact that they helped to finance the liberation of Granada. Yet some Jews in the past were indeed more in favour of muslim rule. That attitude started already in the time of Visigoths. Until they were arians they were using the same laws concerning the Jews as previous christian Roman empire, so there were restrictions but not yet so hard. But under king Reccared who was first catholic king of Visigoths ( larger part of population was Hispano Roman and catholic, Visigoths being just a rulling class ) and specially king Sisebut things got worse. Sisebut ordered forced conversion of Jews in 616. If they did not want to be baptized they were expelled from Spain. You got a lot of false conversions of course on that way.
     
  8. Anonymous.Professor

    Anonymous.Professor Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2020
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Concerning Jews and king Sisebut i would like to add that he reinforced his laws also in the lands which his army conquered from Greco Roman empire in Spain.

    In Greco-Roman empire Jews were allowed to have public meetings contrary to unorthodox Christians. However they should read just Old Testament and not the Talmud at their meetings. Justinan was thinking that on that way they will more easly become Christians.
     
  9. Anonymous.Professor

    Anonymous.Professor Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2020
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    In this connection of first ( ancient ) inquisition i would like to mention also some letters written by pope Leo the Great from fifth century. In 444 he wrote a letter to Italian bishops informing them how he took action against Manichaeans. As an example to be followed, Leo reports how he tracked down the Manichaeans with the help of the secular authorities and was on that way able to persuade a number of them to condemn Mani and his teachings by a public confession. Other Manichaeans who were so deeply involved in their false belief that they were unable to repent, were punished with perpetual exile by the public judges in accordance with the laws promulgated by the Christian princes, Leo wrote.

    We should explain here that public judges were not trained in theology so bishops became involved in the persecution of heretics. They have to ground why somebody should be considered heretic.

    The use of imperial authority and executive power is, in Leo’s eyes, a legitimate way of achieving ecclesiastical unity. The emperor is responsible, as a Christian ruler, to take measures against schismatics and heretics. Because of this, the execution of Priscillian which was condemned by contemporaries such as bishop Martin of Tours to have been too harsh a punishment, is defended by Leo as the proper way of dealing with the founders of a heresy.

    Leo wrote in his letter to bishop Turribius of Astorga: »Our fathers, in whose times this abominable heresy [Priscillianism] erupted, were right to take firm action throughout the whole world in order that this impious fury might be expelled from the universal Church; at which time, the leaders of the world likewise began to detest this sacrilegious madness: to such an extent that they struck down its originator with the sword of the public laws together with a great number of his disciples. For they saw that all care for honesty would be taken away and every conjugal bond would be untied and that, at the same time, divine and human law would be subverted, if people of this kind were allowed to live anywhere under the terms of such a profession. This severity was for long conducive to ecclesiastical lenience, which, though it avoids bloody revenges, content as it is with priestly judgement, is aided by the severe constitutions of Christian rulers: not rarely do those who fear corporeal punishment take recourse to spiritual remedy.«

    Bishop Priscillian of Avila was founder of an ascetic movement from fourth century which had a goal to reform the church which became much to wordly in his eyes. His followers were known for practising spiritual gifts ( like prophecy ). He was accused by official church for being a ''Manichaeans seducer''. He rejected Manichaeanism in his writtings, but it might be that he was some kind of gnostic since he viewed the material world as evil.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2022
  10. Bezukhov

    Bezukhov Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    194
    Trophy Points:
    43
    "Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also." John 15:20

    So those groups persecuted as heretics were actually in the right.
     
  11. (original)late

    (original)late Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,280
    Likes Received:
    3,913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's my impression, after a while the Inquisition morphed into a way to make money.
     
  12. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    29,009
    Likes Received:
    9,100
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Um, no. I'm not sure where you pulled that one out of.

    Likely both sides were in the wrong.

    This was an early example of government trying to legislate "truth".
    In an area where there was no obvious tangible truth that could be proved, and where the logical arguments were much more complicated than simple.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2022
  13. (original)late

    (original)late Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,280
    Likes Received:
    3,913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "It was widely accepted that the Inquisition existed only to rob people, as they openly affirmed (Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition, p 150). Both rich and poor knew that it was the rich who were most at risk. The fact that the Inquisition funded itself from the property it confiscated meant that it burned people on commission. Individual inquisitors also funded themselves, acquiring great wealth during their careers. Some inquisitors were known to have fabricated evidence in order to extort money from their victims, but even when discovered they received no punishment. Similarly their staff of helpers, called familiars, were free to commit crimes without fear of punishment by the secular courts. After 1518 this was formalised. Familiars enjoyed immunity from prosecution similar to benefit of clergy or modern diplomatic immunity. This provided another cause of popular scandal, along with their exemption from taxation"
    http://www.jewishwikipedia.info/financing.html

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/2592562

    "The Spanish Inquisition was unique in that it was established by secular rulers, King Ferdinand II and Queen Isabella, with the approval of Pope Sixtus IV. The monarchy was Catholic, and it had just united two kingdoms, Aragon and Castile, as a single country in the late 15th century. Reasons for the Inquisition included a desire to create religious unity and weaken local political authorities and familial alliances. Money was another motive -- the government made a profit by confiscating the property of those found guilty of heresy."
    https://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-figures/spanish-inquisition1.htm

    "The wealth of the conversos created jealousy and their uncertain conversions hatred in a population that traditionally saw itself as the defender of Christianity against the infidel. The Catholic Monarchs, ever good tacticians, profited from this feeling. In 1478 they first obtained a papal bull from Sixtus IV setting up the Inquisition to deal with the conversos whose conversions were thought to be insincere. Since the Spanish Inquisition was constituted as a royal court, all appointments were made by the crown."
    https://www.britannica.com/place/Spain/The-Spanish-Inquisition

     
  14. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    29,009
    Likes Received:
    9,100
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not so different from today. Incentivizing people with money in the legal process is a bad idea. Nothing is more likely to cause abuse than if someone stands to gain money depending on the legal outcome.
     
  15. Anonymous.Professor

    Anonymous.Professor Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2020
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Spanish inquisition is not so much the main topic here, but i think if we are talking about abusing inquisition for financial and political gains the best example is the case of Diego Rodríguez de Lucero, inquisitor in Cordoba between 1499-1507.

    Full text of article concerning his case:

    https://archive.org/stream/jstor-1833979/1833979_djvu.txt
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2022
  16. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,139
    Likes Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Most of the whining about 'The Inquisition' is based on lies, old Protestant anti-Catholic propaganda, and commie bullshit. So far, only 11,000 cases have been found for the Spanish Inquisition, and 1,000 or so convictions, most of them of Protestants, not Jews, and of those 1,000 or so some 600 were burned in effigy, not actually put to death in real life.

    There were actually three 'Inquisitions', the Portuguese, the Spanish, and the Roman, the latter ended near 1850.
     
  17. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,139
    Likes Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    83
    lol so what? Some Jews lied about converting, to avoid having their loot confiscated upon being deported and sniveled about getting caught at it. Jews were loyal allies of the Muslim invaders; only idiots think they should have been allowed to take all their plunder with them when they got expelled. The U.S. should be doing the same with criminal illegal aliens that get caught here, as well as their employers.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2022
  18. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,139
    Likes Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Sounds reasonable enough, since nearly all of those groups at one time or another did their best to massacre Orthodox Christians to the last man, woman, and child. And, much more lenient as well.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2022
  19. (original)late

    (original)late Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,280
    Likes Received:
    3,913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So persecuting Jews for fun and profit is fine and dandy, didn't Hitler say something like that?

    Btw, why is lying to save your life, in a freaking Inquistion, a problem for you? Why are you calling all the business Jews were doing loot?

    Enquiring minds want to know...
     
  20. Anonymous.Professor

    Anonymous.Professor Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2020
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    A lot of mistakes here. There were more inquisitions we started here from the ancient christian Roman-imperial inquisition, then you had also episcopal and medieval ( also called papal ) Inquisition and then the Portuguese, the Spanish, and the Roman, yes.

    About documentation for Spanish inquisition we have much more sources and cases ( auto-da-fé reports, documentation of state and local authorities concerning the work of spanish inquisition etc. ).

    And there were not so much cases against protestants in fact but mostly against Jews which converted to christianity mostly under pressure ( Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492 and during civil war in Spain in 14th century both sides were responsible for large scale massacres against Jews ). It is no wonder you got also some false conversions under such pressures.

    There were just three ( secret ) protestant groups in Spain. One Lutheran, made mostly from clergy was in Valladolid, another in Seville and one made of French members ( calvinists ) in Toledo. According to auto-da-fe report in Seville from 1559 for example 22 lutherans were burnt at stake ( one in effigy ). Inquisition against protestants was more harsh in sense that leaders were executed even if they converted to catholicism.

    Yet even later after inquisition was already abolished protestants in Spain were many times expelled, put in jail or sent on forced labour...up to the times of Franco.

    It is true that inquisition was not so sufficient as modern totalitarian regimes and it was easier to escape at that time. But even in that case you were burned in effigy and your property was confiscated.
     
  21. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,139
    Likes Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    83
    If fyou have any adult questions, have one post them for you. I don't do strawmen from snivelers.
     
  22. (original)late

    (original)late Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,280
    Likes Received:
    3,913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How do questions post themselves??

    That's one way of saying ya got bupkus.
     
  23. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,139
    Likes Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The last three are the ones people most cite, almost always with highly exaggerated numbers.



    No, they were given the choice to convert or leave, same as the Muslims they came in with during the Muslim invasions; Jewish administrators ran the cities and Jewish soldiers garrisoned them, and a few local Jews aided the invaders in taking some of the cities as well, so yes, Jews were not trusted, nor did they do much to endear themselves to the locals while they were in charge. Protestant propagandists weren't the only ones who made bullshit about Da Evul Catlicks of Spain and Europe, Jews have many centuries of whining and lying, and of course modern Jewish historians haven't played that game and tend to stick with facts as opposed to hearsay. How many people know that those who left went to other Christian countries as well as back to Muslim kingdoms, and the Pope had to force local Jews in the Papal states to accept some 10,000 of their own fellow tribesmen after the Jewish communities rejected them?

    And again, nobody thinks people who lose wars are somehow entitled to take their loot with them when they leave, and obviously nobody would want such a large fifth column of possible traitors in their midst, so it was generous to let them leave rather than the usual pagan practice of just slaughtering them all.

    The Roman Inquisition didn't kill hardly anybody; even a death sentence allowed the convicted to convert. Local rulers would have had to carry out death sentences.

    IF the Evul Catlicks hand Xians had killed as many people as the 'Enlightenment' and Protestant propaganda claimed they did, Europe's population would be around 5 people, 3 of them Japanese tourists.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2022
  24. Anonymous.Professor

    Anonymous.Professor Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2020
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Jews were persecuted harshly even before Muslim invasion of Spain under Visigoths as explained in my previous post here. And already then persecution was of course causing some false conversions. That is nothing so special. Also you had Jews serving in Spanish army, some spanish kings claimed to be their protectors and many of them were financing the Spanish army offensive against muslim stronghold Granada in 15th century.

    About death sentence being applied by civil authorities we should add here that it was not just supported by the catholic church hierarchy, but even they demanded it.

    Some Italian states were not very much ready to act against heresy so pope issued bull in 1252
    called "Ad exstirpanda". It reads: When those adjudged guilty of heresy have been given up to the civil power by the bishop or his representative, or the Inquisition, the podestà or chief magistrate of the city shall take them at once, and shall, within five days at the most, execute the laws made against them.

    He directs also that this Bull and the corresponding regulations of Frederick II be entered in every city among the municipal statues.

    http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/01p/1252-05-15,_SS_Innocentius_IV,_Bulla_'Ad_Extirpanda',_EN.pdf
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2022
  25. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,139
    Likes Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    83
    They were treated harshly by forbidding them from forcibly converting their slaves? Oh the horrors. They weren't treated any more harshly than they themselves treated others. They weren't slaughtered like they and their Muslim allies routinely did to conquered peoples.

    Hey, let's all jump around 500 to 1,100 years here and there in an attempt to confuse and conflate and deflect.

    And so what? Do you believe pagans were innocent little hobbits n stuff? We know they were treated better by Christians in general than pagans, Jews, and Muslims treated Christians in general by far, hence all the ridiculous lies and super exaggerated hysteria by the usual sources.

    So where are the cases, how many of them were there, and how many actually put to death? I would say they are about as numerous as witch burnings in Spain and the Papal states, mostly non-existent in real life.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2022

Share This Page