The Inquisition ...

[juantoo3]

Sorry, I sound so rude: of course I would try to respond to dialogue directed specifically in my direction. I'm just not hoping to keep sticking my voice in, where I'm not too sure of what I know, lol?

Great thread. I learn such a lot from this site ...

You are far too modest, you've made it plainly clear that you know more on the subject than you let on. I know it in a cursory manner, enough so as to quickly dig up the briefs that explain far better and more accurately than I can do from memory.

On a whim I looked into Lord Acton's famous quote and found this:

"But if we might discuss this point until we found that we nearly agreed, and if we do agree thoroughly about the impropriety of Carlylese denunciations and Pharisaism in history, I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. That is the point at which the negation of Catholicism and the negation of Liberalism meet and keep high festival, and the end learns to justify the means. You would hang a man of no position like Ravaillac; but if what one hears is true, then Elizabeth asked the gaoler to murder Mary, and William III of England ordered his Scots minister to extirpate a clan. Here are the greatest names coupled with the greatest crimes; you would spare those criminals, for some mysterious reason. I would hang them higher than Haman, for reasons of quite obvious justice, still more, still higher for the sake of historical science.[4]"
ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton,_1st_Baron_Acton

It seems his most famous quote was from a dialogue with a Bishop of the Church of England Mandell Creighton, both of whom were reknowned historians of their era (Creighton it seems researched at least one work on the Borgias - mentioned earlier), so while I have not been able yet to place this conversation into specific context, it would appear that Catholic Church history was a fairly frequent topic of discussion between the two men, and it is not unlikely that Acton's famous quote was directly related to this subject of Church history....serendipity!

 

[Thomas]

Perhaps I fail to see the difference. From where I sit that is precisely what the Church was selling in Luther's day.

As I said, there were abuses, and the Church condemned them. That indulgencies proved to be a great money-spinner is beyond doubt. I condemn that. The Church, like any bureaucracy, will always ask its followers for money. My parents were asked to contribute to my school when I went to a Catholic secondary school ... now parents are being asked to contribute to the state schools in the same way, some are dependent on parents for paper, pencils ...

So it goes ...

I am not saying the Church is lily white, I'm just saying there's a lot of misinformation, assumption, prejudice and propaganda about the favourite 'go-to' handbags with which to clobber the Church — the Crusades, Galileo, the Inquisition, the Reformation, popes, priests, etc., etc.

If people care to look, there's plenty of legitimate ammo, but that doesn't mean we have to shoulder the burden of ignorance because of it.

When I was at my Catholic high school we learned about 'the Dissolution of the Monasteries' under Henry VIII. The line then was that what was going on inside the monasteries was sinful, scandalous, etc., etc ... that was the PR line the barons sold Henry. That was the line the Reformation perpetuated from then on. It's become the standard assumption.

The reality was that no-one really gave a flying fig what went on behind the walls. and those that did were often hardly in a position to throw stones. Was every convent and monastery corrupt? No. But what the barons did care about was the monasteries and convents managed huge estates, and they wanted that income. So they sold the idea, in Henry's case, that the income would fund his wars with France. So he did it. And the income? Straight into the baron's coffers. The crown saw less than 5%, I think. It was a land-grab.

Ah, so the Reformation is essentially trying to make a silk purse from a sow's ear?

I'm not, but that is often the general consensus, that it was 'a good thing'.

I'd say the Reformation was essentially three things:
1 — the desire to reform a bureaucracy of its inevitable bureaucratic corruptions.
2 — the desire to break with the Christian Tradition — Not simply the governance of Rome and the curia, but the fabric of Christendom as it then was.
3 — the desire to reinterpret Scripture in such a way to teach that man's nature is essentially and fundamentally corrupted by sin and his is therefore incapable of doing anything towards his own salvation.

Did it achieve those ends?

1: — No.
2: — Yes, and the ones who suffered most was the general laity.
3: — Yes.

All in all, Luther did not succeed in reforming the church, but he did succeed in getting his own theology accepted in certain limited areas, whilst others followed suit and achieved the same for themselves.

And the corruption went on ... just more diverse across competing bureaucracies.

And who paid the bill? The laity. Yesterday they were tenants of the Church. Today they were tenants of the state. Did their situation improve? No.
If anything, it got worse — wars, persecutions, burnings ...

So it goes.

Shall we list the failings of the various Popes leading up to, during, and after Luther?

Well if you want to voice a general attack on everything, go ahead.

But if you're telling me I have no right to defend myself against false accusations because of the true, then I'd say stones, glass houses?

I close with this:
In looking at the Inquisition ... was there a better system at the time?

 

[Thomas]

Even a blind pig can find a truffle now and then. For Luther's failings, he brought more to the wayward sinners longing to reach out to G!d than the Vatican offered at that time...

D'you think so? I think he brought less.

Christian life was far from moribund. Traditional Catholic customs formed an important part in moderating everyday life and binding all levels in communities. The liturgical calendar, fasting and abstinence, saints days and the abstinence from labour (Medieval world had more holidays than we do today). A rich symbolic life and practice was replaced by Bible reading — read as instructed by the Reformers who published their own catechisms and clamped down on difference as much as any.

They cult of saints and remembrance of the dead (in Zwingli's Switzerland a woman was burned at the stake for putting flowers on her husband's grave) were forbidden. Local guilds were banned. The burning of candles and praying the Rosary was forbidden. Pilgrimages and processions were banned. Even altars were removed from churches, along with art and decoration that was most often the gift of the laity ... all went ... you were left with sterile spaces and preaching from the pulpit.

Much as people would like to have it ... not everyone suffered.

Seems to me G!d has never had a *perfect* man to champion his cause...

Well no-one's perfect. God doesn't expect perfection ... we demand it of others.

yet you demand Luther be perfect in order for his arguments to bear merit?

No, I ask that his demands be viewed in the light of truth. Not only what he demanded, but why.

Seems to me a bit of a dual standard, and convenient application when it suits. <sigh></quote>
So we're allowed to be condemned on falsehoods? Isn't that like fitting up the criminal, making the man who committed one crime plead guilty to ten to make 'us' look good?

So if Luther's character is worthy of assassination ...

Whoa. Truth is assassination when it's your guy?

in order to be scholastically fair, you've opened the Popes to the same set of standards...and every single one of them will fall, by the same rules of engagement.

Not every one, I think, but most.

It seems to me God chooses the little person to champion His cause. It's a fact that, on comparable figures adjusted for the total number, there have been way more saints from the laity than from the priesthood, but the reformation did for that, too.

 

[juantoo3]

Shall we list the failings of the various Popes leading up to, during, and after Luther?

Well if you want to voice a general attack on everything, go ahead.

Ah, when you level ad hominem against Luther it is valid scholarship, when I level the same (legitimately) against the Papal excesses - by specifics! - that is voicing a general attack on everything. I've long found it difficult to grasp your rhetorical style, but in all of our conversations going back over a decade you know full well my stand on ad hominem. Ad hominem is a nice, effective *rhetorical* device that has no business in a scholarly discussion.

So I will lay it out plainly...if the mutually assured destruction of Ad Hominem is fair game, then be prepared for what you have let loose. Otherwise, respectfully, cease and desist. So long as the conversation focuses on the merits and demerits of the various parties philosophical points of view...I'm good with that. But if calling a person's character into question in order to shame and devalue the POV...then all bets are off, as there is PLENTY of shame to go around. Which, when you get down to the heart of the matter, is what got Luther's goat. He saw through the excesses - the money grabbing, the fleecing of the poor who could scarcely afford it, the selling of patronage, the political manipulations, the outright extra-Biblical lies and superstitions foisted on the unsuspecting and trusting laity...these are what drove Luther to what he did. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

As I said, there were abuses, and the Church condemned them.

When did the Church *finally* get around to condemning these abuses?

"Various Counter-Reformation theologians focused only on defending doctrinal positions such as the sacraments and pious practices that were attacked by the Protestant reformers,[3] up to the Second Vatican Council in 1962–1965."
ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Reformation

"Pope Paul III (1534–1549) initiated the Council of Trent (1545–1563), a commission of cardinals tasked with institutional reform, to address contentious issues such as corrupt bishops and priests, indulgences, and other financial abuses... Other practices that drew the ire of Protestant reformers, such as indulgences, pilgrimages, the veneration of saints and relics, and the veneration of the Virgin Mary were strongly reaffirmed as spiritually vital as well." (emphasis mine, -jt3)
ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation_Papacy

So it is not like the Church wizened up because of Luther, and dispense with the abuses wholesale. Rather, the fact of the matter is, the Church dug in its heels and redoubled its efforts. It wasn't until Vatican II in 1962-65 that the Church "condemned" the practice of selling indulgences, and the closely related matter of Purgatory was still being taught in the late 60s, I had several Catholic schoolmates at the time.

 

[wil]

Thought.... If it wasn't Luther, it would have been someone else...if not that century, then another.

Power corrupts....be it the hiearchy of a business, gov't or the church...humans are humans, be they CEOs, Politicians, Ministers, Priests or Popes... Pointing out the individual failiings are largely anecdotal...we can point fingers back and forth "yeah well he did" these are not hard to find...and also using 'Well they did" as an excuse for your favorite teams bad behaviour solves nothing either.

luv ya both.

 

[wil]

The popularity of Luther, of Protestantism, the fact that the denomination of lapsed Catholics is so large, it is apparent that the people...were ready for change.

Does that mean they are right and practicing Catholics are wrong (or are they right?) This is a thing that again...none of us know. (while many are certain they do...on both sides, or all 3000 plus sides)

Hence our attempt to live in a world of interfaith respect (unless you step on my sensitive bunions, I mean buttons)

 

[RJM]

Perhaps it's a good thing the Christian religion is no longer able to dictate from a position of power, but will have to be accepted by its truth, at this new time?

 

[wil]

Perhaps it's a good thing the Christian religion is no longer able to dictate from a position of power, but will have to be accepted by its truth, at this new time?

I recall in the old movies and books (three musketeers for example) where the Bishop seemed to rule, sort of like Secretaries of Treasure for Unions...Presidents and Kings come and go....but these other guys stick around for the next one, and the next...

Maybe fodder for another thread...but other than the Ayatolla in Iran, with the President as a figurehead...or maybe in NK where the Supreme leader (umm err, I mean Chairman) is the spiritual leader as well as head of state... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion most don't seem to have the power that the paper is printed on...

 

[RJM]

I recall in the old movies and books (three musketeers for example) where the Bishop seemed to rule, sort of like Secretaries of Treasure for Unions...Presidents and Kings come and go....but these other guys stick around for the next one, and the next...

Maybe fodder for another thread...but other than the Ayatolla in Iran, with the President as a figurehead...or maybe in NK where the Supreme leader (umm err, I mean Chairman) is the spiritual leader as well as head of state... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion most don't seem to have the power that the paper is printed on...

Perhaps. They followed Jesus because he healed them, not the words. Because he healed them, they believed the words too?

 

[RJM]

Until a person feels the power of Christ/God it's meaningless. And once they do, it doesn't matter what you say -- they know.

 

[juantoo3]

Which brings around full circle to, it's not what you know that is important...it is what you do with what you know that is.

 

[juantoo3]

Perhaps it's a good thing the Christian religion is no longer able to dictate from a position of power, but will have to be accepted by its truth, at this new time?

As it should have been all along.

 

[RJM]

I recall in the old movies and books (three musketeers for example) where the Bishop seemed to rule, sort of like Secretaries of Treasure for Unions...Presidents and Kings come and go....but these other guys stick around for the next one, and the next...

Maybe fodder for another thread...but other than the Ayatolla in Iran, with the President as a figurehead...or maybe in NK where the Supreme leader (umm err, I mean Chairman) is the spiritual leader as well as head of state... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion most don't seem to have the power that the paper is printed on...

Sure. I didn't really mean state/political power. I don't know what I really meant, lol. But it's true that bishops used to have a lot of power. They were wealthy landowners, I think?

Tibet was another theocracy, ruled by the Dalai Lama.

 

[Thomas]

Ah, when you level ad hominem against Luther ...

Ah, you mistake me. It's not an ad hominem, rather an insight into Luther's troubled nature goes some way to explaining the development of his theology. It's all in the public domain, it's no great exposure on my part.

Another factor was Luther was more into the school of William of Occam than Thomas Aquinas, so that impacted his theology and his metaphysics. It's all background that sets the foreground.

As for papal abuses, I'm not defending anyone! Popes abused, princes abused, peasants abused.

But I re-iterate my point: The Inquisition went a long way to curbing the execution of people on dubious theological grounds at best, theological ignorance at worst. Yes, of course the Inquisition was abused. Every authority abuses its position and its power, yesterday, today and tomorrow — that's a flaw of human nature, not the office, we have to separate the two when looking at the issue.

But again, the Inquisition was better than the system it sought to rectify, it was better than any other contemporary judicial system, which was why so many elected the Inquisition rather than the secular alternative, and it saved a lot more than it sentenced.

Same with indulgences. The theological position, the authority of the Church can loose, then the Church can bind.

+++

When did the Church *finally* get around to condemning these abuses?

The abuse of indulgences was always condemned. It was condemned before Luther's time, and in his day Tetzel was reprimanded, and the practice soundly rejected. Indulgences cannot be sold, salvation cannot be bought.

Chaucer, centuries earlier, in "The Pardoner's Tale" shows a dishonest and fraudulent pardoner who's actions were condemned by the Bishops of the time. pardoners were arrest in Germany under the Council of Mainz in 1261, and by the Bishop of Durham in 1340. The Church sought to stem the abuses in 747, 1392, 1450, 1478, and continued, and continues, to do so ...

"... Other practices that drew the ire of Protestant reformers, such as indulgences, pilgrimages, the veneration of saints and relics, and the veneration of the Virgin Mary were strongly reaffirmed as spiritually vital as well." ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation_Papacy

And what's wrong with those? Nothing. In fact they were part of the lay life and popular piety, which was rendered somewhat sterile in its wake.

 

[Thomas]

Thought.... If it wasn't Luther, it would have been someone else...if not that century, then another.

Yep. It's a baby/bathwater thing.

Power corrupts....be it the hierarchy of a business, gov't or the church...humans are humans, be they CEOs, Politicians, Ministers, Priests or Popes... Pointing out the individual failings are largely anecdotal...we can point fingers back and forth "yeah well he did" these are not hard to find...and also using 'Well they did" as an excuse for your favourite teams bad behaviour solves nothing either.

Indeed. But that does not mean the innocent should accept his condemnation on a false premise.

 

[Thomas]

The popularity of Luther, of Protestantism, the fact that the denomination of lapsed Catholics is so large, it is apparent that the people...were ready for change.

No, I think that's rather an anachronist generalism.

Hence our attempt to live in a world of interfaith respect (unless you step on my sensitive bunions, I mean buttons)

Well none of us are proof against those!

 

[juantoo3]

Sure. I didn't really mean state/political power. I don't know what I really meant, lol. But it's true that bishops used to have a lot of power. They were wealthy landowners, I think?

Thomas could explain better than me, I'm sure. The Bishops and other "executive level" clergy didn't *personally* own estates (something to do with a vow of poverty, I believe), however they administered them as a collective on behalf of the Church. The Church was the biggest landowner and estate holder across Europe for the better part of the Middle Ages. The easiest modern correspondent would be a multi-national corporation, with the Bishops as high level executives. They don't own (all of) the company outright, but they absolutely benefit from the profits.

And yes, using the forged "Donation of Constantine" the Church gained secular power...though it certainly wasn't called that, but in practice it is quite evident.

 

[RJM]

I don't think the Catholic Church was made to change because 'the people ... were ready for change'. The Catholic Church doesn't change because people want it to. Not like some others. It's not competing for votes. It should change to correct errors or abuses, when these are exposed.

Bishops are powerful pieces on the chessboard.

 

[juantoo3]

Ah, you mistake me. It's not an ad hominem, rather an insight into Luther's troubled nature goes some way to explaining the development of his theology. It's all in the public domain, it's no great exposure on my part.

Very well...Likewise the fact that Leo X, the Pope during the particular 10 critical years of Luther, was from the infamous Medici banking family (basically the Rothschilds or Rockefellers of their time), which explains his theology of money, money and more money is in the public domain. Even in the notes you have forwarded is evidence of sale of not only indulgences, but of bishoprics and other positions of power...for sale to the highest bidder... is in the public domain. So by that time (and arguably and demonstrably long before and long after) positions of power in the Church were for sale to the wealthy willing to pony up enough cash. Bishops were not bishops by virtue of their faith (though some, *maybe* were, though I believe a minority), they were bishops by virtue of cold, hard cash. It was (another) rich man's social club.

As for papal abuses, I'm not defending anyone! Popes abused, princes abused, peasants abused.

No one else was in a position to abuse power on a level and scale as that of the Vatican.

But I re-iterate my point: The Inquisition went a long way to curbing the execution of people on dubious theological grounds at best, theological ignorance at worst. Yes, of course the Inquisition was abused. Every authority abuses its position and its power, yesterday, today and tomorrow — that's a flaw of human nature, not the office, we have to separate the two when looking at the issue.

I haven't called into question the methods of the Inquisition...I don't think anyone seriously does. It is the abuse of that system by those so inclined and in position to do so that tends to draw notice. We are told Justice is blind, but in point of fact she has one eye peeping under the blindfold and one finger tipping the scale...and that practice seems to be rather universal (and not limited to the time we are currently discussing).

Same with indulgences. The theological position, the authority of the Church can loose, then the Church can bind.

Or so the authority of the Church would have us believe. You choose to believe this, I do not. I believe that authority vested through what is written in the Bible belongs to fervent, believing individuals..

And what's wrong with those? Nothing. In fact they were part of the lay life and popular piety, which was rendered somewhat sterile in its wake.

Darned if I do, darned if I don't....I bolded the specific point I was referencing so as to leave it intact...and therefore in context, eliminating that objection. Allow me to try again, editing the unnecessary bits in order to stay on subject and to make my point, now that clear context has been established:

"... Other practices that drew the ire of Protestant reformers, such as indulgences ... were strongly reaffirmed as spiritually vital as well." ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation_Papacy

Which pretty well contradicts your claim of indulgences being condemned in any kind of wholesale and comprehensive manner even prior to Pope Leo X. As for the remainder that I've edited, those are certainly issues of import, but many have already been discussed elsewhere, and going off on those tangents would derail our discussion. We don't need any further diversion of attention... Sincerely, I am not about attacking your or anyone's faith - merely pointing to what actually occurred historically. Clearly there are items and issues that you find to be compelling assistance in your faith walk...items and issues I do not personally find a need for. My position is not some ego trip, mine is based on years of study and prayer on the matter, no different than yourself. You have made your choices, and follow...warts and all. I've made my choices, and when the Day comes I will answer for my choices...warts and all, as we all will. The difference being I will answer to G!d, not men.

 

[wil]

The Church was the biggest landowner and estate holder across Europe for the better part of the Middle Ages

Ya look at the prime real estate they sit on in NYC, DC, SF...every major city in the states....and go in on Sunday and be among 3/4 empty pews...

I don't think the Catholic Church was made to change because 'the people ... were ready for change'. The Catholic Church doesn't change because people want it to. Not like some others. It's not competing for votes. It should change to correct errors or abuses, when these are exposed.

Bishops are powerful pieces on the chessboard.

Yes, they slide sideways into situations...

And Yes, since the people were in disagreement with various Church points...when another comes along...it makes it easier to jump ship (vs a day when there only is one ship and the law requires you be on it.)