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.
Romans 13
ReplyDeleteNew International Version
Submission to Governing Authorities
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
Hello Anonymous,
ReplyDeletePlease answer me this. Does this mean that you agree with the torture and killing of "heretics" today?
Hello Russell,
ReplyDeleteI was wondering what you thought of this article?:
https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2018/02/is-roman-catholic-eucharist-logical.html
The protestant deformation was full of crazed fanatics such as the Dutch Calvinist who violently killed Catholics as well as the many many other examples of Protestant aggression that ultimately led to the destabilization of Europe as a Christian continent. Almost immediately half of Protestant thought was submissive to enlightenment atheism and the tradition of Luther and the German universities immediately went towards higher criticism. The reformation may in fact be the worst event to happen to Europe and what was once a devout Christian continent.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteIt is true that Protestants did bad things also during this time. I never denied that. I don't know if you're the same "Anonymous" in the first comment above, but if not, I'll ask you the same question I asked him. "Are you ok with the mistreatment, torturing and killing by the Catholic Church during the Inquisition? Should we continue this kind of treatment of 'heretics' today? Is that your conclusion?"
Look, if you actually read the article above, you'll see that I addressed the fact that some Protestants were involved with violence, as well, and I said I did not approve of it. Neither side is totally innocent in all this, but it is the Protestants who were labeled "heretics" by the Catholic Church and it is they who suffered the attack first.
This question makes no sense as the Catholic Church never doctrinally declared heretics must be punished. Its a fallacious question that is irrelevant to the truth or falseness of a claim. In addition do you think it was better to desacralize the Bible by promoting notoriously bad translations such as Tyndales and Luthers (Luther even adding and removing words based on how he thought it would better appear) for the sake of sticking it to the Church? That Church lasted 1500 years but within 200 Germany and all the heirs of the reformers had moved to higher text criticism and the beginning of atheist Europe soon followed. In addition, the Inquisition, though it was flawed was actually considered more humane than the state and was the frontrunner for modern legal law. Many stories and claims from 200 years ago used by propogandist against the Church are considered no longer valid.
DeleteAnonymous,
DeleteThis was the question I asked:
"Are you ok with the mistreatment, torturing and killing by the Catholic Church during the Inquisition? Should we continue this kind of treatment of 'heretics' today? Is that your conclusion?"
And you claimed that it was a fallacious and irrelevant question, apparently because the Catholic Church “never doctrinally declared heretics must be punished.” But Protestants were indeed punished by the Church anyway, whether it was doctrine or not! That makes it even worse! It wasn’t “required doctrine,” yet they did it anyway! What did they torture and kill them for, then? For fun?!!
What happened historically after the Reformation (bad translations, moving to higher text criticism, promoting atheism, etc.,) has nothing to do with my original question. You’re just using this as a smokescreen. The inquisition was always wrong, no matter what happened afterward.
To your credit, you admit that the Inquisition “was flawed,” but then you immediately turn around and try to say that the Inquisition was better (more humane) than the state’s dealings with these victims. But I already dealt with this in Part 1. Did you bother to read it, or are you (again) just jumping to conclusions without first hearing my argument?
When the Catholic Church would claim to turn the “violators” over to the state authorities, it made no difference, because the outcome was one and the same. As I quoted from the Catholic Straight Answers article in Part 1, “the Church and the state often WORKED TOGETHER in this endeavor (the Inquisition).” So the Catholic Church can’t claim that they were more lenient than the state, as you suggest.
You Catholic apologists try very hard to whitewash the event of the Inquisition(s), but you can’t if you want to be honest (and biblical). Once again, the things you bring up are simply a smokescreen.
Hi Russell, I enjoyed reading your whiny and apathetic reply. It reflects the attitude of most deformers whose entire false religion is based on hatred of the Catholic Church. To answer your question the inquisition was actually constructed around monitoring Jewish and Muslim converts who sought to undermine the Church and people of the city. For example, the gates of Toledo were opened in secret by jews who allowed Muslims to sack the city and allowed for the death and rape of the cities inhabitants for hundreds of years. It is important to note that during the middle ages heresy actually meant something to the Christian faith and it was considered worse than murder to allow for something that would send someone to hell to spread. In many ways the work of the inquisition worked to counter bad teachings which might negatively influence groups like the anabaptist who sacked cities and starved their own citizens, from spreading. Whether every decision they made was right or whether they overstepped on many occasions with over authoritarian actions doesn't matter because not then or now did anyone every claim they did.
Delete"Unknown,"
DeleteI’m not sure why you are calling my response “apathetic.” I find that ironic, since you and many other Catholics don’t care who the Catholic Church hurt, tortured and killed in the Inquisition. I do care and that’s why I wrote the articles in the first place.
I’ve been pointing out that the Inquisition was done by the authority of the Catholic Church and I have seen absolutely no remorse about it from you or from many, many Catholics. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. You are more concerned about covering for the sins and lies of the Church and excusing her abominations than you are about actual victims.
You said:
“Whether every decision they made was right or whether they overstepped on many occasions with over authoritarian actions doesn't matter because not then or now did anyone every claim they did.”
“Doesn’t matter”? If the Inquisition was not really that bad, then why would the pope (John Paul II) apologize for “violence, persecution and blunders” and for “sins against heretics”? This was an obvious reference to the Inquisition. But why do Catholics continue to feel that it was “no big deal”?
Russell, I am glad that you have shown your true colors.
DeleteSince you are against the Church you will focus only on the negatives. Are you aware that the Catholic Church is historically the most charitable organization within Western Civilization? Are you aware that the modern hospital system comes from the Monks and Nuns, it was cultivated under the Church. The modern university system was an achievement and development out of the Churches and by the Abbots?
Are you aware that late ancient and medieval Europe was cultivated by missionary monks who are today considered the Fathers of agriculture. In fact many modern historians confess that it was the most rapid and quickest advance in machinery of any civilization ever.
Are you aware also that the modern sciences were also pioneered under the Church. From Albert Magnus and Roger Bacon to Copernicus as well as the Father of Genetics, Johann Mendel many modern scholars and historians are baffled by the work of the Catholic Church towards the sciences.
The greatest and most devout Christian thinkers in history as well are from the Catholic Church. Justin Martyr, one of the first great Christian apologist and early martyr is a great Saint within the Church. Augustine of Hippo, perhaps the greatest Christian writer of the late ancient world/early medieval era was a Catholic. Jerome, Ambrose, Gregory the Great, the eastern Fathers like John Damascus and Basil the Great all the way into, what even many protestants admit is one of the greatest thinkers of all time, Saint Thomas Aquinas.
Historically the Catholic Church is considered the largest preserver of Biblical manuscripts. From the dawn of Christianity, that is its spread into Europe and Asia minor into the age of exploration. The Catholic Church has been one of the largest missionary forces for Christianity.
Yet much like a antagonistic liberal you want Catholics to apologize to you, someone who wasn't alive during the medieval era, for things they never did at a time when both Protestants and Catholics were killing each other. Yet rather than admit this, you quickly dismissed it as something that has nothing to do with you.
Your attitude is not much different than a Marxist or atheist, but that isn't surprising since that same attitude is what caused the reformation and spun Europe into a atheistic and divided continent, the opposite of what it was during the height of Catholicism.
Andrew,
DeleteI am very much aware of the things you mentioned concerning the work that the Catholic Church has contributed to society. I agree with you (believe it or not) about all that. Those are indeed good things, but those things are temporal. You can be part of all the great advancements in technology and humanitarian aid in the world, but still teach false doctrine and end up in Hell (along with all the people you deceived). And that is exactly the case with the Catholic Church.
You seem to be far more concerned with the temporal than the eternal. But nothing matters more than where you spend eternity. I hope you personally consider the implications of that, Andrew. And I am asserting that the Catholic Church is crippling mankind with its many false doctrines. How about we address that instead of all the peripheral issues?
By the way, I’m not asking for an apology from anyone. I simply want everybody to see the very serious issue of the Church’s false teachings. Everything else is secondary.
Hi Russell, I'm not sure why you called me Andrew as that is not my name but we can make it mine. While some of the accomplishments are temporal not all are. How we treat others and how we profess the Christian faith are temporal in action but emphasize the eternal Faith. Jesus says, "And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, as you did it to me" (Matthew 25:36-40) and "You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden" (Matt 5:14) as well as he says, "You will know them by their fruits"(Matthew 7:15-20). So I would say that in fact acts of the temporal, while not as serious as the spiritual, are incredibly bound up with the Church and how Christ dictated it would look.
DeleteThat being said I agree that despite all these accomplishments they are completely useless if one was not teaching the correct doctrine. Any argument from pragmatism will fail as many false prophets and teachers did signs and wonders.
The major problem with Protestantism is that it has several key factors and doctrines that are anti Biblical and anti historical. For example, the protestant notion of forensic justification is, now, to the admission of even the top protestant scholars completely absent from Church history. That is a problem because you claim that false doctrine will lead one to hell. If that is the case than it would not appear anyone was going to heaven until recently, yet Christ says the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. In addition other doctrines which I assume you denounce as heretical such as the doctrine of the Eucharist are universally withheld from the earliest of Christian days. I am not aware of any competent scholar or historian who would claim otherwise.
Finally you made a confession in your last paragraph. That you do not want an apology for the inquisition but rather for it to show the false teachings. Yet by saying this you are admitting the point I was making all along. What a Church teaches and does are separate. For example Calvinist will cite Calvin as a genius and conform to his doctrine but admit he was at times quite wicked. Likewise the Catholic Church can have teachings that a Catholic subscribes too, yet make personal errors like the Inquisition often did. That is why I made the distinction between the two because they are irrelevant to the truth of falseness of a given claim.
Well Andrew,
ReplyDeleteIt looks like we can agree on SOME things, after all. But certainly not everything.