THE INQUISITION (Part 2)

 

In our last article, we dealt with a little history about the Inquisition and pointed out the inconsistencies, the cruelty and the corruption of the Catholic Church – who actually bred and established the environment that gave rise to the Inquisition.  And this is how they did it – the Catholic Church claims to be the “guardian of souls” and they also claim that they were commissioned by Jesus Christ to “root out heresy,” thus, leading up to one of history’s greatest tragedies. 

I left off addressing an article written by Catholic Answers, which can be found here:

https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-inquisition

The author of that article goes on to ask, “What’s the point?” That is, what is it that Fundamentalists [Protestants] think that the existence of the Inquisition proves?  Does it prove that “Catholics are sinners”?  That “people in positions of authority have used poor judgment”?  Does it prove “that otherwise good Catholics, afire with zeal, sometimes lose their balance”?  And the answer is that all these things could be true (for Catholics and Protestants) even without the Inquisition ever occurring.   

And that’s true, but the problem here is not just about the average Catholic in the pew.  It’s not simply about an authority occasionally using “poor judgment.”  It is about corrupt and power-hungry leaders in the Catholic hierarchy wanting control over the people and not letting the truths of Scripture dictate doctrine and behavior. 

It is possible that some who were punished in those days may have been actual heretics, but I believe the Inquisition was more about suppressing the voices of the faithful common people who questioned the authority of the Church or pointed to the Bible as the ultimate authority (2 Timothy 3:16-17).  This has always made the Catholic Church quite nervous.

Twisting the Scriptures

Toward the end of the article, the author points out that:

“… it is easy to see how those who led the Inquisitions could think their actions were justified.”  And he goes on to point to certain Old Testament passages that encourage the killing of certain offenders in order to purge the evil from their midst (Deuteronomy 17:2-5; 13:6-11; 13:12-18).  

All right then, if Catholic Answers wants to be consistent and continue with this line of thinking, they also need to push for the stoning to death of all gay Church members, gay priests, gay bishops, gay cardinals, etc. (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13).  After all, this is also part of the law in the Old Testament, right?

But of course they would never do that because they know it would be wrong to do today.  They know that we are living under a different and better covenant (Hebrews 8:6) than that of the Old Testament law because Jesus ushered in a system of grace. 

Although homosexuality is wrong, there is no reason today to put gay people to death (or sexually promiscuous straight people, for that matter) unless there are other crimes involved.

Furthermore, Catholic Answers knows very well that the Inquisition occurred under the New Testament period.  So, why would they try to apply a strictly Old Testament law in this case to support it?  I believe that they are just desperate to justify their involvement in the Inquisition.  But, remember, God does not sleep and justice will be done.

Furthermore, the author of this article tries to also use a New Testament verse as a reason to justify the Inquisition:

“But them that are without, God judgeth.  Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” (1 Corinthians 5:13)

But this New Testament passage is obviously not about civilly punishing someone, or putting him to death using the law of the land, as was done in the Inquisition.  Note the context of this passage: “… not to company with fornicators” (v. 9); “… with such an one not to eat” (v. 11).  This context is about not fellowshipping with certain people.  It does not equate to Inquisition tactics.   So we can clearly see that this argument is another good example of Catholics twisting Scripture.    

The author also brings out the fact that some Protestant Reformers also made use of their own Inquisition-type justice.  And this is equally wrong, no matter who’s doing it.  I would certainly not defend Protestants if they did the same evils that the Catholic Church did.

In light of all this, a sensible person might say that this particular article by Catholic Answers is misguided.  But remember, this article is accepted by, and in line with, the teachings of the Church, because it contains the Catholic seals of approval (the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur).  So, if the article is wrong, so is the Church. 

Another Catholic’s Lack of Remorse

One other article by Catholic Answers, written by popular author and speaker Jimmy Akin, once again focused on the Old Testament principle that heresy is a serious sin.  Indeed it is.  But everybody already knows that.  This is not new information. 

Akin states that “Anti-Catholics regularly bash the Church with the Inquisition” to show “how evil the Church truly is.”  He states that Catholics should reply by pointing to the “Mosaic Inquisition.” 

He then refers to Deuteronomy 17:2-7 and Deuteronomy 13:1-11 which speak of the evils of idolatry and Israel’s obligation to investigate the accusations and to purge this evil from their midst.

But, like I said, we already know that idolatry and heresy are horrible sins.  But that’s not the point.  The point is that when we’re talking about heresy, how do we deal with that issue TODAY, in the Christian/New Testament era of grace?  Do we put offenders back on the medieval rack or burn them alive?  Or is there some other, more biblical, avenue that Christians should take?

But notice that in Jimmy Akin’s article, there is not one word about what we should do about heresy today, and absolutely no hint of remorse for what the Catholic Church has done in the past.  Instead of defending the Inquisition, he, like many other Catholics, is simply trying to justify those horrible things that were done to (supposed) heretics.  Notice that there is far more focus on trying to cover for Mother Church for the evils she has done, than on any concern for the multitude of innocent victims she destroyed.  Akin’s “Mosaic Inquisition” argument is just a disgusting diversion from the real topic and more twisting of Sacred Scripture.  It doesn’t relieve the Catholic Church’s guilt.  See Akin’s article here:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/nobody-expects-the-mosaic-inquisition

The Pope Apologizes for the Church’s Sins

According to an article in The Guardian (March 13, 2000), Pope John Paul II, as leader of the Catholic Church, had apologized for “2,000 years of violence, persecution and blunders.”  He also sought forgiveness for “sins committed against Jews, heretics, women, Gypsies and Native peoples.”

But if the Inquisition was ever a good thing, then why apologize for “sins against heretics”?  Doesn’t this also prove that the Inquisition was wrong, after all?  Otherwise, there’d be no need for an apology.  But, practically speaking, Pope John Paul II’s “apology” amounts to “too little… too late.”  See his apology here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/mar/13/catholicism.religion

“Physician, Heal Thyself”

It is interesting that the Catholic Church was so greatly focused on the sin of heresy.  And they were willing to kill those who committed such a sin.

But what about the multitude of wicked sins that existed WITHIN the hierarchy of the Church itself during this very same time?  The Inquisition lasted from roughly the early 1200’s up until about the middle of the 1500’s.  During that time there was much sin, corruption and heresy that was happening within the Catholic Church in very high places.  Just to name a few:

Pope Leo X made Johann Tetzel an inquisitor (an officer in the Inquisition) in 1509.  Tetzel then duped the poor by selling indulgences and tricking the people into believing they could get family members out of Purgatory earlier than “scheduled.”  By the way, the lavish St. Peter’s Basilica (Catholic Church) was mainly funded by the already-burdened poor, who felt obligated to pay for the indulgences because they anguished over the eternal fate of their beloved relatives.  Note that Pope Leo apparently agreed with Tetzel’s tactics and the doctrine of indulgences.

Simony in the Catholic Church was also a major problem for many, many years.  Simony is the buying and selling of a church office – yes, even the papacy (the “Vicar of Christ’s” office) was bought and sold a number of times like a piece of common merchandise!  This is a wonderful example of the Catholic Church’s version of “apostolic succession,” which still claims a “lawful and unbroken chain of successors.”  Indeed!

The papacy was also infested with fornication, adultery, corruption and extreme greed for material goods and power.

And all this was happening, not only during this same Inquisition period, but throughout much of the Catholic Church’s history.

Jesus gave us an example of this type of hypocrisy:

“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?  Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?  Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.” (Matthew 7:3-5)

There was so much wickedness and corruption that was going on within the Catholic leadership (including the papacy) that it would be hard for most Catholics to believe.  So, Catholic Church, before you started burning people at the stake for “heresy,” why didn’t you get your act together first?

Conclusion

The first Catholic Answers article mentioned above claims that the Inquisition is “a handy stick for Catholic-bashing, simply because most Catholics seem at a loss for a sensible reply.”  But there is a reason for that.  And it is because there IS no sensible reply – the Inquisition’s method of dealing with heresy was absolutely unbiblical and demonically inspired.  There is no excuse for it.  The Catholic Church needs to quit whining and playing the martyr (no pun intended) when people complain about the Inquisition.  The blame directed at the Church is deserved, and you Catholic apologists need to stop defending it!

The Inquisition was an opportunistic power grab and a convenient way to rid the Church of her detractors which was disguised as an attempt to “cleanse” the Church.  In my opinion, the Inquisition was an exercise in absolute control, an example of man trying to take the place of God. 

Even if they would show genuine repentance for the past, the Catholic Church should still be concerned about the heresy that yet remains within her own borders today.  If any biblical church sees heresy in others, they should then reach out to those heretics by preaching the Word of God to them (like Jesus did – Matthew 4:23) and reasoning with them (like the apostles did – Acts 17:2).  If you preach the gospel to them and they are still unrepentant, apply Matthew 18:15-17 and let God deal with their hearts. 

There is, and was, no godly justification for the Inquisition, so Catholics need to stop pretending that it was a necessary event, and they need to stop pretending that the Catholic Church is the “guardian of souls.”  A closer look at Scripture will prove otherwise.

 

THE BROWN SCAPULAR

The Catholic Church has many things that they call “sacramentals.”  These are not sacraments as the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains (CCC #1667), but sacramentals are associated with the Church’s rituals and are said to put the user of the sacramental in the right frame of mind to receive the sacraments.  One type of sacramental is the scapular, which comes in different sizes, shapes and colors.  Probably the most popular one is the brown scapular.

What is the brown scapular?  It is made up of two small pieces of rectangular brown (sometimes black) pieces of wool cloth connected by a cord or string, worn by Catholics over their shoulders (thus the name “scapular,” which means “shoulder blade”).  One piece is placed in the front on the chest and the other to the back.  This scapular is said to ensure its wearer that he will make it to Heaven if he dies with it on.

Enter Simon Stock

This story of the brown scapular begins with an interesting but little known character, one “Saint” Simon Stock.  He was given the name Stock (which means “tree trunk”) because when he was twelve years old he began living as a hermit in a hollow tree trunk.  Many years later, on July 16, 1251, in Cambridge England, he allegedly received a vision from Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, and claimed that she appeared to him, holding a brown scapular in her hand and she said to him:

“Take this Scapular, it shall be a sign of salvation, a protection in danger and a pledge of peace.  Whosoever dies wearing this Scapular shall not suffer eternal fire.”  

See here:

https://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/put-on-our-ladys-protection-with-the-brown-scapular

The Pope’s Vision

According to another source, Mary also later appeared to Pope John XXII, and told him:

“I, the Mother of Grace, shall descend on the Saturday after their death and whomsoever I shall find in Purgatory I shall free so that I may lead them to the holy mountain of life everlasting.” (Sacratissimo Uti Culmine, a papal bull [i.e., an official public decree] of Pope John XXII, in 1322)

And this source also claimed:

“The Blessed Virgin of Mount Carmel has promised to save those who wear the scapular from the fires of hell; She will also shorten their stay in Purgatory if they should pass from this world still owing some debt of punishment.”  

See here:

https://www.sistersofcarmel.com/brown-scapular-information.php

This promise from Mary to release Catholics from Purgatory on the first Saturday after their death (for those who have faithfully worn the scapular) became known as the “Sabbatine Privilege.”

Entrust Yourself Totally to Mary?

According to the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship, the brown scapular is “an external sign of the filial relationship established between the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother and Queen of Mount Carmel, and the faithful who entrust themselves totally to her protection, who have recourse to her maternal intercession, who are mindful of the primacy of the spiritual life and the need for prayer.” (Emphasis added)

See here:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20020513_vers-direttorio_en.html

One source says that the scapular is used as a silent prayer and that “[A] prayer offered while holding the Scapular is as perfect as a prayer can be.” It also states that “[T]he evil spirit is utterly powerless when the wearer of a scapular faces temptation…”  

See here:

https://www.sistersofcarmel.com/brown-scapular-information.php

Indulgences

There are also indulgences (ways to reduce the amount of punishment for one’s sins) connected with the wearing of this scapular. 

On the day that the scapular is received, there is a plenary (full) indulgence if one goes to Confession and Communion in the Catholic Church.

 

One is promised a plenary indulgence at the moment of death if he has gone to Catholic Confession and Communion and if he devoutly utters the name of Jesus.

Devoutly reciting the prayer known as the “Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary,” gets one a 100 day indulgence. 

And each time the scapular is kissed one gets a 500 day indulgence!  See here:

https://www.sistersofcarmel.com/faqs-the-brown-scapular/

Ratified by Popes

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (online) admits that the bull of Pope John XXII containing the Sabbatine Privilege was later ratified by some popes in the sixteenth century.  See here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13289b.htm

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “ratify” as “to approve and sanction formally; to confirm.”

One source says that the Sabbatine Privilege was “approved and confirmed” by sixteen different popes.

https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/d026_Sabbatine.htm

At least one source says that the Sabbatine Privilege was an official teaching of the Catholic Church until 1613:

“Pope John XXII claimed that the ‘Blessed Virgin’ came to him in Rome in the year 1322, confirming to him the scapular promise made to Simon Stock and adding the ‘Sabbatine Privilege’ in which she promised to personally descend into purgatory every Saturday and free those who had died wearing her scapular.  This was an official church doctrine until the year 1613.  At that time Pope Paul V modified the Sabbatine Privilege, saying that Mary did not necessarily free the souls in purgatory on Saturday but only aided them and eased their suffering.” (Emphasis added)

https://fdocuments.us/document/a-timeline-of-anti-church-history-first-bible-mystery-of-iniquitypdf.html

Tell Me It Aint So!

But there are some sources that say that the Sabbatine Privilege and Pope John XXII’s bull was a forgery. 

According to the Catholic Dictionary (online):

“There was an earlier version of the Sabbatine Privilege that is now considered certainly erroneous, based on an alleged bull of Pope John XXII, supposedly published in 1322.  This apocryphal document has the Pope say that Carmelites and others who wear the scapular would be delivered by the ‘Blessed Virgin’ from Purgatory on the Saturday after their death.”

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36174

According to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (online), the Sabbatine Privilege is “universally regarded by scholars as inauthentic.”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13289b.htm

Concluding Thoughts

Ok, so there seem to be some conflicting ideas, even among Catholics, concerning the brown scapular and its “Sabbatine Privilege.”  What should be far more worrisome for our Catholic friends is the fact that none of this is biblical, including the concept of indulgences, Purgatory and the supposed visions of “Mary” (2 Corinthians 11:14). 

The doctrine of Purgatory denies the sufficiency of the perfect and finished work / suffering of the Savior on the cross (John 19:30, Hebrews 10:10).  There is no need for Christians to suffer any kind of punishment after this life is over.  And if there is no Purgatory, there are no indulgences.

 

Also, special articles of clothing do nothing to help save us.  God looks at the heart.  We are saved by grace, through faith, not by any works of righteousness (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5).  The term “grace” screams UNMERITED favor from God (Matthew 18:23-27; Romans 4:4-5; Galatians 2:21).

There is a definite link between the asceticism (severe religious self-discipline) in the early life of “Saint” Simon Stock (who lived in a hollow tree) and the wearing of the brown scapular.  They are both an intrinsic part of a works-based salvation and God will have no part of that.

Concerning the Sabbatine Privilege, if it was indeed a forgery, or an “un-Catholic” idea, how could it be ratified and endorsed by multiple popes over such a long period?  Does not the Catholic Church have the knowledge or the resources to detect forgeries within a short time?  What happened to those poor souls who believed Pope John XXII until 1613 who expected to be released from Purgatory on the first Saturday?  Did all those popes ratify a false teaching?  If yes, then what does this say about truth in the Catholic Church?  If no, then why did they change the teaching in 1613?

The story of the brown scapular is one containing ridiculous concepts like perfect prayer while holding the scapular, rendering demons powerless in the face of temptation while wearing it, and obtaining time off from Purgatory by kissing this inanimate object. 

Who does the scapular glorify the most?  The whole emphasis of this teaching of the brown scapular seems to be that Catholics must entrust themselves to Mary.  It is (supposedly) Mary that introduced it, and it is Mary who “sustains” it.  It is about her, not about Jesus.  Mary is the star in this story, but let us learn a critical lesson from John the baptist, who said, “He [Jesus] must increase, but I [John] must decrease” (John 3:30).  It appears here (as it often does in the Catholic Church) that, in the teaching of the brown scapular, Jesus has taken a back seat to Mary.

THE TREASURY OF MERIT

In the teaching of the Catholic Church, there is a sort of spiritual “bank” called the Treasury of Merit.  In it are the merits (good works, righteousness) of Christ and of Mary and of the “saints.”  These merits are obtained through something called indulgences, which can only be granted through the authority of the pope (CCC 1478), and are offered to man so that all who partake of them might be “set free from sin and attain communion with the Father.” 

In other words, the Treasury of Merit exists to help people by applying its contents toward their salvation, i.e., to pay for their sins.

The Catechism

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

“We also call these spiritual goods of the communion of saints ‘the Church’s treasury’, which is not the sum total of the material goods which have accumulated during the course of the centuries.  On the contrary the ‘treasury of the Church’ is the infinite value, which can never be exhausted, which Christ’s merits have before God.  They were offered so that the whole of mankind could be set free from sin and attain communion with the Father.  In Christ, the Redeemer himself, the satisfactions and merits of his Redemption exist and find their efficacy.” (CCC 1476)

Furthermore, it says:

“This treasury includes, as well, the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  They are truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value before God.  In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord… In this way they attained their own salvation and at the same time cooperated in saving their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body.” (CCC 1477)

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia

First of all, is this an authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church?  Indeed, according to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, the Treasury of Merit is a dogmatic teaching, and therefore, an “infallible” doctrine of the Catholic Church.  See here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

This same link admits that Christ’s satisfaction / payment for sins is “infinite”:

“Since the satisfaction of Christ is infinite, it constitutes an inexhaustible fund which is more than sufficient to cover the indebtedness contracted by sin.”

Yet, the Catholic Church adds the “merits” of Mary and the “saints” to this treasury, as well.  But if Christ’s merits are infinite, why add the merits of anyone else?  If they are adding anything, they must not really believe that His merits are “more than sufficient,” after all.  So, is there something lacking in the work of the Savior on the cross so that the merits of others must be added?  It would seem so in the Catholic system of salvation.

Nowhere does Scripture describe or even imply a “treasury” in which human merit is mixed with the merit of Jesus Christ to bring about justification / salvation.  The Catholic Treasury of Merit offers a false hope.  Salvation cannot be purchased with money, human merit, or good works.  It comes only from a surrender to Jesus Christ and trusting in His work on the cross, which results in a changed heart.

The Great Insult

Imagine that you owed someone a hundred million dollars (in other words, an impossible debt).  But a generous billionaire felt sorry for you and offered to fully pay that debt for you.  But let’s say that you wanted to “chip in” and you added five cents to the billionaire’s payment, then you went around bragging to your friends that you “participated” in paying your incredibly enormous debt.  But this would be an awful insult to the billionaire, whose ample wealth more than covered your debt, and he (not you) had every reason to boast (Ephesians 2:8-9).

It is the same thing with salvation.  Trying to add human merits (even from the “saints” or from Mary) to the perfect and completely sufficient merit of Jesus’ work on the cross is an incredible insult to God.  It would be poisoning the pure and infinite well of salvation that Jesus provided.

No Mixture Allowed

If anyone appears before God on Judgment Day with the hope of such mixed merit, he will be rejected!  Only the pure merit of Jesus Christ will be sufficient to allow us to enter glory, and He needed no help from anyone to do it.

If you attempt to add anything (any work, any merit) to the cross, you bring upon yourself the curse of the Judaizers (Acts 15:1, 5; Galatians 1:8-9).  See this link:

https://theresurrectionstillspeaks.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-curse-of-judaizers.html

A Catholic Objection

But the Catholic may say, “But there are two types of punishments for sins:  One is eternal punishment (which has to do with the guilt of sin – CCC 1472, 1473).  In this case, a person is forgiven the guilt, yet still requires work, effort, or suffering by the sinner.  That is, he is still required to satisfy some temporal punishment (CCC 1471, 1472, and 1473), which is satisfied either by suffering and / or good deeds done here in this life, or suffering in Purgatory.  This Treasury of Merit is to provide remission (forgiveness) only for the temporal punishments for sin.”

But isn’t this Treasury supposed to contain Christ’s merits?  And isn’t His merit “inexhaustible” and “more than sufficient to cover the indebtedness contracted by sin”?  So why would this “treasury” not be enough to take care of ALL punishment for sin, both temporal and eternal?

 

Again, the following are the phrases that the Catholic Church itself uses in describing the contents of the Treasury of Merit:  Its merits supposedly “set [a person] free from sin,” they “attain communion with the Father,” they are “truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value,” they are “an inexhaustible fund which is more than sufficient to cover the indebtedness contracted by sin,” and they consist of Christ’s merits, which are “the infinite value, which can never be exhausted.” 

All this, yet this treasury’s merits can only satisfy the so-called temporal punishments of sin?!!!  The best we can say is that it is only partially effective in setting one “free from [his] sin.”  The Catholic Church speaks highly of this treasury’s “efficacy,” but apparently, it is not effective against the eternal penalty for sins, i.e., it is not enough to satisfy one’s guilt.  Therefore, it cannot be of Christ (John 1:29; 19:30; 1 John 2:2; 4:10).

There is a great contradiction here!

Conclusion

One last thing.  Note that CCC 1477 above says that Mary and the “saints,” through their own merits, have not only attained their own salvation, but have merit left over to apply to others in need of merit.  This would mean that they were able to obtain for themselves excess righteousness!  They were able to earn more than enough to be saved!  This is an absurd and absolutely unbiblical concept.  According to Scripture, we can’t pay for our own salvation (Romans chapters 3 and 4; Galatians 2:16; Titus 3:5), and if we can’t even pay for our own, then how in the world could we get “extra” merit to pay for others?!!!  If anyone could merit salvation for himself, then Jesus came and died for nothing! (Galatians 2:21) 

This concept of the Treasury of Merit totally nullifies the sufficiency of the Savior’s suffering and work on the cross.  And not only that, according to Indulgentiarum Doctrina (an Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul VI – Chapter 4, Section 8) the Catholic Church threatens an anathema (condemnation) for anyone who says that indulgences are useless, or for anyone who denies the power of the Catholic Church to grant them.  So the Catholic is obligated to believe in this false “treasury.”

It is obvious that the Treasury of Merit is part of a system designed to make its members totally dependent on a man-centered, works-based salvation… which is no salvation at all.

See also this article on indulgences: 

https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B171030/the-obscenity-of-indulgences