THE INQUISITION (Part 1)

Someone recently made a comment about wishing that the “Holy Inquisition” was still around.  I found that to be a very strange and twisted desire and I think it speaks volumes about that person’s mental state.  But what about the Inquisition?  When we think about it, we conjure up images of people being tortured, body parts being cut off, people being stretched on “the rack” until their joints were dislocated, people being fed to wild animals and all sorts of heinous treatment. 

And these things did indeed happen.  These unfortunate people were usually first tried in court, yet many times the victims were not even able to confront their accusers, since the state kept their identity a secret.  But who caused this and why were these people treated in such a horrible manner?  What did they do to deserve this? 

Well, the Inquisition happened because the Catholic Church considered these “offenders” heretics who went against the teachings of the Church.  The Catholic Church claims that they were simply trying to remove heresy, and if that involved threatening “heretics” with using such severe tactics, causing obedience to the Catholic Church, then so much the better.

According to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (online), there were actually three different periods of “Inquisition” in history. 

The first one, in southern France in the early 1200’s A.D., was known as the Medieval Inquisition.  A little later began the Spanish Inquisition (probably the most infamous one) at about 1478 A.D.  And finally came the Roman Inquisition at about 1542 A.D.  See here:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm

But was the Inquisition really that barbaric, that horrific?  Maybe so, maybe not.  Some tell of extreme horror stories, of atrocities done against Protestants (and other groups) by the Catholic Church.  Others downplay the stories, asserting that these punishments were “necessary” to keep heresy at bay.

I would not doubt that some of those claims are most likely exaggerated.  But on the other hand, I would think that many of them are indeed true.

Admissions

One article on the Catholic Straight Answers website concerning the purpose of the Inquisition claims:

“Not only was a heretic’s soul in jeopardy, but also his false teaching jeopardized the souls of others.  The [Catholic] Church, as the guardian of souls, had to ‘root out’ any such heresy.”

This is actually an admission of the Catholic Church’s involvement in the Inquisition(s).  We need to remember this admission when they tell us that the Church had nothing to do with it, and that they simply turned over the “violators” to the state authorities to be punished. 

This article also admits that the Church and the state often “worked together in this endeavor,” since “the Roman Catholic Church was the only Church in western Europe until Martin Luther started the Protestant movement in 1517.”

I make this point because Catholics often try to push off the blame onto the state for such cruel abuse.  But when the Catholic Church turned someone over to the authority of the state to be punished, they knew exactly what to expect, so they can’t plead ignorance or innocence in this matter.  In fact, the Catholic Church brags that her authority is higher than the state’s authority.  Pope Nicholas I (858 A.D. – 867 A.D.) was quoted as saying:

“Fear, then, our wrath and the thunders of our vengeance, for Jesus Christ has appointed us with his own mouth absolute judges of all men, and kings themselves are submitted to our authority..."

See here:

https://popenicholas.weebly.com/quotes.html?c=mkt_w_chnl:aff_geo:all_prtnr:sas_subprtnr:1538097_camp:brand_adtype:txtlnk_ag:weebly_lptype:hp_var:358504&sscid=31k8_u2hf&utm_source=ShareASale

Also, according to Catholic priest, theologian, and church historian Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger:

“It is the office of the Papacy to tread under foot kings and emperors.” (The Pope and the Council, London 1869, p. 339)

It is a well-known fact that kings/emperors/monarchs feared the pope because they knew that he could excommunicate them.  This gave the pope great leverage, since they feared for their souls and they believed that the Catholic Church could actually keep them out of Heaven.  

Here is a list of examples of kings/emperors/monarchs who were excommunicated from the Catholic Church:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_excommunicated_by_the_Catholic_Church

And here are examples of kings who were deposed (removed from office) by popes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_deposing_power

So, there is certainly blood on the Church’s hands and they can’t blame the Inquisition on the state.

A Catholic Event

The article by Catholic Straight Answers also states that after the Inquisition climaxed, it began a decline, which continued throughout most of Europe and was finally suppressed in 1834.

Ok, interesting thought here.  If the Inquisition was the right thing to do, if it was rooting out heresy (like the beginning of this article said it was), then why did it fade out?  Why did the Catholic Church allow the Inquisition to decline and be suppressed?  Didn’t they consider it God’s will to extinguish heresy and wouldn’t they try to continue with a new Inquisition?  Was there no one left in all Christendom at this time who was involved in heresy?  I believe that it stopped because the Church was losing its grip on its reign of terror and the people were seeing the truth of what was happening.

At the end of the article, it claims that the Inquisition was not a “Catholic event.”  But that contradicts what they said earlier about the Church being the “guardian of souls” and their responsibility to “root out heresy.”  But it is interesting that now they want to distance themselves from it?  Why?  Again, because they know it was wrong.

Torture

The article also admits that the Inquisition sometimes used torture to gain a confession of heresy, but not everyone thought that this was a moral thing to do:

“Bernardo Gui, one of the most famous inquisitors, commented that torture was deceiving and inefficacious because it forced the confession.” (Emphasis added)

I absolutely agree.

Furthermore, there is much quibbling today about the accuracy of the actual numbers of those killed.  But even if there was only ONE person wrongly killed, tortured or punished by the Inquisition, it was still too many!  Instead of arguing about numbers, how about showing some legitimate regret for those poor souls who suffered under the boot of the Church?  Indeed, the Catholic Church will have to answer for that.

See the article by Catholic Straight Answers here:

https://catholicstraightanswers.com/what-are-the-facts-about-the-inquisition/#:~:text=The%20Inquisition%20climaxed%20in%20the,being%20finally%20suppressed%20in%201834.

What Would Jesus Do?

The highly influential and very popular Catholic Answers website also weighed in on this topic of the Inquisition.  See their article here:

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

In their article, it states that the purpose of the Spanish Inquisition was:

“To identify conversos – Jews and Muslims who pretended to convert to Christianity for political or social advantage and secretly practiced their former religion.  More importantly, its job was also to clear the good names of many people who were falsely accused of being heretics.”

But what would Jesus Christ say about this?  How did He go about trying to “root out heresy” when He was here on earth?  Did He advocate the burning at the stake of those who didn’t obey what He taught?  No, He set no such example, nor did He encourage it.  But rather, He left that judgment for the afterlife.  He just preached the gospel.  Those who refused His message He neither chased nor punished.  They made their decision and they would have to live with it.

Also, 2 Peter 2:1-22 has some harsh things to say about the promoters of heresy, but suggests nothing about civil penalties or punishment in man’s court.  We could also mention 1 Corinthians 11:19, Galatians 5:20, and Titus 3:10, which all mention heresy, but say nothing about civil penalties for it.  I hope the reader can see a pattern here.  Heresy is wrong, but we don’t kill people for that today (in the New Testament).

Whitewashing the Inquisition

That Catholic Answers article goes on to mention two “Fundamentalist” authors who wrote about the Inquisition, claiming that they harbored fierce animosity toward the Catholic Church “that had little to do with the Inquisition itself.”  In other words, Inquisition or no Inquisition, they had an agenda against Holy Mother Church.  Well, maybe they had some hostility toward the Church, but remember again, this is the same Church who claims that her job was to “root out heresy,” thus, starting this whole reign of terror.  This doesn’t sound like a Church that had “little to do” with the Inquisition.  In my opinion the Catholic Church is indeed the cause of it all.

Right after that, the article states that some Catholics (knowing that something is amiss) have glossed over the admittedly incontrovertible facts and tried to whitewash the Inquisition, fearing that the facts about the Inquisition might prove the illegitimacy of the Catholic Church.  But the author goes on to assure Catholics that “no account of foolishness, misguided zeal, or cruelty by Catholics can undo the divine foundation of the Church.”

Well, I’m sorry, dear Catholics, but it is far too late for that.  The “divine foundation” of the Catholic Church is, and always was, a fallacy.  This whole blog (and many other sources) is a testament to that.  The events of the Inquisition are only one of the many things that points to the illegitimacy of the Catholic Church.  But more devastating than that, it is the God-breathed Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16-17) that clearly demonstrate the corruption, heresy and false teachings of this Church.  The Inquisition was only one symptom of the real problems.

Ok, I’ll stop for now and continue with Part 2 next time.  To be continued…

THE ORIGIN OF TRUTH

 

When Catholics and Protestants engage in debate, there is generally a lot of back and forth (we discuss the Marian doctrines, faith alone, Purgatory, the Eucharist, Confession, the priesthood, the papacy, etc., etc.)  But there is a foundational topic that we should probably address first: What is truth?  Where is the truth that carries authority?  How can a Catholic or Protestant know what’s true in these spiritual matters?   

Of course, different levels of truth can come from many sources, some more dependable than others.  We can get some spiritual truth from the early church fathers,  we can get it from church history, or even some secular history sources; we can get truth from eyewitnesses of biblical events, etc.  But in the end, what we are really asking is, “Where can we find the ultimate and infallible source of truth on spiritual matters that neither side can deny?” 

In these spiritual debates, both sides use Scripture as a source of truth (and rightly so).  But Catholics also insist that we need to add “infallible” Sacred Tradition and the “infallible” Catholic Magisterium (which they call “the living, teaching office” of the Church).

But are Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium really infallible sources of truth?  Let me say up front that I believe that there is only ONE infallible source of truth, or rule of faith, for the church today.  And that source is the God-breathed Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16-17).  If this is indeed true, then Catholic arguments fail and crumble to the ground, because Catholics invest so much in the Magisterium and Tradition.

Misuse of Terms

One of the first things I wish to address is the definition of the phrase “the Church,” used so often by Catholics.  The word “church” comes from the Greek “ecclesia,” which means “called out ones.”  The phrase has only two meanings within the pages of Scripture:

1   1) The faithful members of the universal church, worldwide (in other words, all those who are saved), or

2   2) The faithful members of the local body of believers.

But Catholics have a third (and unbiblical) meaning of the term “the Church,” which they use far, far more often than the biblical meaning.  They use the term to mean the LEADERS (or the Magisterium) of the Catholic Church.  For example, when they say things like, “The Church teaches ABC…” or “The Church believes XYZ,” etc., they mean a Magisterium.  One way that they misuse the term in Scripture is when they quote Matthew 18:17: “…And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the church…”  Jesus is not saying to tell it to the Magisterium, He is saying to tell it to the local church body, not just the leaders, but the whole assembly.   And it is the duty of the whole congregation to treat the man as an outsider until he repents.

But, as I said, using the term to mean Magisterium is not biblical.  The term is never used this way in the Bible, so it causes much confusion between Catholics and Protestants and it distorts the idea of authority.  But when used in its intended sense, as stated above, much of the confusion can be avoided. 

I will offer the reader an experiment.  Go through the Catholic Catechism and find the word “church.”  See how many times it is described as the universal church or as the local body, as opposed to a Magisterium.  It may come as a surprise to Catholics that in the great majority of cases, it is used as the latter (i.e., in an unscriptural sense).

How the Church Started

Extravagant claims are made by the Catholic Church about itself and its authority, claiming to be the “one true Church,” i.e., the Church that Jesus Christ founded.  Why do they say this?  They usually break it down and present their argument something like this:

1   1) Jesus Christ established a Church (Matthew 16:18).

2   2) He founded this Church upon Peter (Matthew 16:18).  Peter is the foundation and human head of this Church worldwide.

3   3) Jesus gave Peter primacy over the other apostles by giving him the keys to the kingdom with the power to “bind” and “loose” (Matthew 16:19) when determining doctrine, faith and morals, and to rule over the whole Church.

4   4) This made Peter the first pope.

5   5) This authority extends to all of Peter’s successors (future popes), as well.  This is called Apostolic Succession, and it includes an unbroken, lawful chain of successors throughout history, from Peter to now.

6   6) This authority also includes the gift of infallibility (teaching without error) when the pope makes an official statement or proclamation to the whole church.

7   7) This necessarily established a Magisterium of Church leaders (with the pope as head) who are the ONLY ones who can truly interpret Scripture and Sacred Tradition (which is equal with Scripture).

8   8) This created the “three-legged stool,” consisting of Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, faithfully preserving and transmitting this deposit of faith.

9   9) The Catholic Church’s Magisterium has truly, and infallibly, determined the correct list of books of the Bible, thus, giving the Scriptures to the world.

1 10)       The early Church fathers unanimously agreed with this and wrote about it.  Not only that, but Church history confirms all of this.

Logic Leaping and Scripture Twisting

Ok, there are a lot of assumptions and giant unproven leaps of logic here.  Catholics may say that it’s a cumulative argument – that each piece of the puzzle forms a part of the whole picture.  But I would say that if each piece individually can be refuted, then the whole thing collapses.  I will attempt to very briefly address each one now:

1   1) We all agree that Jesus Christ established a church.  No problem there.

2   2) The Church of Jesus Christ is not founded upon any mere man (like Peter).  It is Christ’s church (“Upon this rock I will build MY church” – Matthew 16:18).  And He is the Head of it.  The focus here is on Jesus, not the apostles or disciples.  The rock refers to the truth of the revelation Peter was shown just a couple of verses earlier – “And Simon Peter answered and said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’”(Matthew 16:16).  THAT is what the church of Jesus Christ is built upon.  See also this link:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/09/matthew-16-who-or-what-is-rock.html

3   3) Peter was definitely a prominent leader in the early church.  But there is no scriptural reason to believe he had primacy over the other apostles.  As far as the keys to “bind” and “loose,” all the apostles received them (Matthew 18:18-19).  Jesus may have first mentioned that they will be given to Peter, but that doesn’t prove primacy.  The New Testament must be taken as a whole.  It is obvious that Peter, in his day, was never recognized by the other apostles as he is by the modern Catholic Church (Mark 9:33-34).  He had a position of prominence, but not primacy over the others.  Again, all the apostles were given the keys.  See this link:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/10/matthew-16-keys-binding-and-loosing.html

4   4) There is no mention of an office of pope, pontiff, or “vicar of Christ” in this passage.  Actually, there is no such office anywhere in the New Testament, although several other offices are indeed mentioned there.

5   5) There is nothing in Scripture about a “lawful” and “unbroken” chain of successors with infallibility who will obtain “Peter’s office” in the future.  A direct pedigree or lineage was not, and still is not, necessary for the church to function.  Something was definitely handed down to his successors, but that was the teachings he got from Jesus, not a papal position.  See this link on Apostolic Succession:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/apostolic-succession.html 

6   6) Nowhere in the New Testament do we find any post-apostolic teachers or leaders who acquired infallibility. 

7   7) There are leaders in every church today, but it is extremely arrogant for any of them to say that ONLY THEY can correctly interpret for the common people.  See here: 

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/07/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-6.html

Concerning Sacred Tradition, it cannot be equal with Scripture, nor can it be infallible, since it often contradicts God’s Word.  Furthermore, Catholics cannot even tell us exactly what Tradition is.  I have asked many times, and no Catholic seems to be able to give a meaningful and specific definition of “Sacred Tradition,” much less demonstrate why it is infallible.  All we get is extremely vague descriptions, like, “It is the Living Voice of the Church,” or “The fullness of divine truth proclaimed in the Scriptures, preserved by the apostolic bishops and expressed in the life of the Church…”  In other words, it is whatever the Catholic Church wants it to be!

8   8) There can only be one ULTIMATE source of revelation for today.  It can also be demonstrated that Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium often contradict Scripture.

9   9) The Catholic Church did NOT give us the Bible.  See here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2012/02/did-catholic-church-give-us-bible.html

1 10)    Many of the early church fathers had some valuable and useful information, but the idea of a “unanimous consent of the fathers” is inflated and untrue.  See here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/church-fathers.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/10/eucharist-part-1.html

Whose Authority?

Ok, what about authority?  Who really has it?  This simply boils down to authority being for the person who is faithful to the Scriptures.  Authority does not belong to a spiritual dictator.  It does not belong to one who flirts with error or false doctrine.  A “common” Christian in the pew can use the authority of Scripture to rebuke a “pastor” who is flippant or careless with God’s Word.  Pastors, deacons and bishops have their role as leaders in the body, but they cannot, and should not, lord it over the people.  As Christians, we are all brothers and sisters (Matthew 23:8), and we all have biblical roles/positions.  But being a pastor or bishop does not automatically give one authority, but rather, responsibility in his God-given role should be emphasized, so he can rightly divide Scripture.  This produces true authority… a “Magisterium” does not.

What Has Proven True?

So where can we find truth?  I hope that we would all agree that the following entities have proven themselves:

God the Father – through mighty miracles, like creation, the parting of the Red Sea, the Jews’ victories over multiple larger armies, miraculously providing manna, the Tabernacle’s cloud and pillar of fire.

Jesus the Son – through His fulfilled prophecies, His many personal miracles, including raising the dead, and by His own resurrection.

The Bible – through the intricate tapestry of its design (God’s fingerprints are all over it), archaeological proofs, and through fulfilled prophecies and ample manuscript evidence.  Furthermore, Jesus recognized it as the Word of God, He pointed others toward it.  He lived it and obeyed it, and used it Himself during His temptation in the wilderness.  Furthermore, we cannot deny the changed lives (for the better) it has caused over the centuries.

THESE ARE TRANSCENDENT SOURCES and God has caused Scripture to prove itself as a source of divine authority.  God is using His Son (the Word) through the written Word, as the last word for the church today (Hebrews 1:1-2).

There is no Tradition of any kind and no Magisterium of any church that matches the Bible in its divine essence.  Scripture is the one infallible source for the church today.  And that, my friend, is the origin of spiritual truth.

 

 

MARTIGNONI AND THE AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET

In the latest edition of his Bible Christian Society newsletter, popular Catholic apologist John Martignoni is addressing comments that were made to him by a Protestant named Don Jackson.  We don’t know Don Jackson and our purpose here is not to defend him or the things he said.  We simply want to comment on just one specific aspect of what John Martignoni said.  Martignoni’s newsletter article can be found here:

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/detail/339

In this newsletter (#268), Martignoni encourages his readers, when debating with Protestants, to “get to the issue of authority as soon as possible.”  He feels that this is a strong point for Catholics.  He assures his readers that Protestants are unable to answer his questions concerning authority without somehow falling back on the authority of the Catholic Church. 

 

At one point, he asks, “Who is it that can authoritatively interpret Scripture?”

 

But the question contains a false premise.  Martignoni is assuming that one must have some special authority to interpret Scripture correctly.  But that’s not true at all.  This would be like asking, “What authority must I have to follow the Ten Commandments?”  In either case, it’s not about authority; it’s just something that God wants and expects us to do.

And it’s not just church leaders who are expected to rightly divide the Word of truth (2 Timothy 3:15; Acts 17:11; Matthew 13:3-9).  The people that followed Jesus were not mostly the rich, or scholars, church leaders, teachers or the elite.  Most of them were just plain folk, the uneducated, the poor, the down and out, and the lost.  It was these people who cried out to God, recognizing their need, and followed Jesus.  It was those who were spiritually hungry and those who pressed in and wanted to do God’s will that understood His message (John 7:15-17).  Jesus never said or implied that one needed “special authority” to understand His words.  See these articles:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/dialogue-on-bible-interpretation.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2014/07/private-interpretation.html

Toward the end of the newsletter, Martignoni tells Jackson, “I do not follow my own teachings based solely upon my own authority and my own private interpretations of Scripture as you do, so I have no need of being infallible.  You, however, relying on your own authority and your own private interpretations, which you have admitted could be wrong, have need of being infallible – but you’re not.”

Here, Martignoni now goes a step farther and implies that not only does one need an “authoritative” interpretation, but he needs an infallible one!  Again, this is a false premise.  First of all, who says that one has to be infallible to interpret Scripture?  He certainly doesn’t get this idea from the Bible (Mark 4:3-9).  Second, let’s break down what he said.  He implies that his teachings are not based on his own authority / interpretations, but those of the “infallible” Catholic Church, as opposed to the Protestant, who merely follows his own interpretation of the Bible.

 

But in order to understand and follow the (supposedly infallible) teachings of the Catholic Church, Martignoni must still use his own fallible understanding to do so, just as the Protestant does when interpreting his infallible source (the Bible).  There is no escaping the fact that we are ALL fallible today, and must ALL use our fallible minds to understand an infallible source.

 

So, Martignoni is simply playing word games when he says he doesn’t follow his own authority or his own private interpretation.  It is still his fallible interpretation of what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

Just before the previous quote that we gave from the newsletter, Martignoni had asked Jackson,  “Will you admit that you could be wrong in your interpretations of Scripture and that you could mistakenly be following the father of all lies by relying on your own private, fallible, non-authoritative, man-made interpretations of Scripture?”  Martignoni thinks that he has Jackson over a barrel here and that Jackson cannot escape his trap.  But we would turn this question around on him and ask:  “John Martignoni, will you admit that you could be wrong in your interpretations of the Church and that you could mistakenly be following the father of all lies by relying on your own private, fallible, non-authoritative, man-made interpretations of the Church?”  Is Martignoni humble enough to answer yes to this?  He needs to remember that this sword cuts both ways.

 

The bottom line… one does not need infallibility, or even “authority,” to interpret Scripture correctly.

We just might do some commentary on more of John Martignoni’s newsletters in the very near future.  By the way, we’d also like to refer our readers to a very good website that deals in-depth with many of Martignoni’s teachings here: 

 

http://www.martignonirevealed.com/index.html

[Update - This link is no longer in service]