I would buy him a copy of this book:
I believe Tyndale (who also attempted to translate the bible to English and deliberately got many parts wrong) was tried and executed for heresy. Could have come from there too though it was the king and English authorities who condemned him not the pope.
Tyndale was during the Reformation, not during the Middle Ages.
Wycliffe was considered pre-Reformation and he did live during the Middle Ages.
It would upset me if a deceased friend of mine who was a minister spewed anything!
It is very sad that Ireland has fallen to Modernism in this area. It has been this way for a long time in the United States. I find it pathetic that a teenager cannot get vaccinated or take an aspirin at school with out parents permission, but the school can take a girl for an abortion without telling the parents. Is that nuts, or what?!
Yes OP, but read it yourself first!
I would disagree with this, because the Church went to great lengths to create centers of learning and education. And the Church already had authority over the flock via the sacred scriptures.
The split was inevitable and although the printing press probably sped up the process the real motivator behind the reformation was nationalism. The clear evidence for this was that King Henry VIII simply removed papal authority but didn’t change anything else when he declared himself the head of the Church in England and ending with Napolean crowning himsefl.
Papal authority was a clear threat to Kings and Queens and not to the laity.
This is precisely my point. The CC has always taught that the Scriptures need to be read in context, and that context is the Church. The NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. It makes the most sense when it is understood in the context of the faith. Those centers of learning revolved around the faith.
At the latter end of the Middle Ages, after the invention of the printing press, and the advent of the Renaissance, the grip of Sacred Tradition started slipping. The small pebble that began with John Wycliffe
was destined to become a complete avalanche with Luther, and the invention of Sola Scriptura. What they did with his body after he died is an example of the rage and panic that was felt by authorities over the influence of his ideas.
You won’t get an argument from me on this point.
I doubt those caught up in the Inquisition would agree with you there.
to which inquisition are you referring, the Spanish Inquisition? The Spanish Inquisition was run by the Spanish Crown and was definitely used for political purposes. All of this in an age where heretics were the same as traitors in the eyes of the government institutions.
However the Church courts of inquisition were far more lenient than the government run courts.
Both. Since heretics were considered traitors, there were serious and lethal consequences for espousing ideas outside the faith. Torture was considered useful to gain a valid confession, after which one could be forgiven before put to death.
but the church courts didn’t use torture and they didn’t put people to death.
The Spanish Inquisition didn’t have the faculties to put heretics to death. This is a common misconception caused by protestant propaganda
I agree that the purpose of Church involvement was to bring a more fair process and reduce torture and death, but Certainly the Papacy was fully supportive of secular rulers that were invested in eliminating heretics.
There were four major inquisitions. First there was the Medieval Inquisition (1184–1230s). Heretics might be imprisoned, but were rarely tortured or killed (except then the local rulers decided to help the church authorities.) the Spanish (1478–1834), Portugese (1536–1821) and the Roman Inquisition (1542 – c. 1860)
King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile set up the Spanish Inquisition in 1478. Rome was, of course, very supportive of this passionately Catholic royal couple, if less so about the methods used to preserve a Catholic kingdom.
When the Cathar heresy infested southern France , the Dominican order was charged with ferreting out heresy.. Despite the Dominican Charism for preaching, it became apparent that preaching and debating produced almost no converts from Catharism. (The first Grand Inquistor of Spain, Tomás de Torquemada, was also a Dominican). Their identification as Dominicans gave rise to the pun that they were the Domini canes, or Hounds of the Lord. Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to the secular authorities. There was no mystery about what would occur after this happened.
The power of kings rose dramatically in the late Middle Ages. Secular rulers strongly supported the Inquisition because they saw it as an efficient way to ensure the religious health of their kingdoms.
It is fair to say that using torture and death has never been part of the Church teaching, but to say that Catholics, including Bishops, Rulers, and Religious did not engage in or support these activities seems to be dodging the facts. This is precisely why inquisitorial tribunals answerable to Rome rather than local bishops were formed by the Church in the 13th century. Local Bishops were too intricately connected with local politics to be objective. If they stayed in step with the local rulers, they might lose their positions, lands, lifestyle and even their own lives.
On the contrary, the Spanish Inquisition was managed by King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile. They ignored requests by the Pope to desist with the barbaric and torturous tactics. Although things did improve when Church Tribunals entered the picture, they still turned over the recalcitrant for almost certain torture and death.
Great book. Fantastic.
They could (in a limited way) torture people, but not condemn them to death. You are right in that they were under the crown’s control.
I have a link for you but it is from a spanish catholic apologetics site:
The Spanish Inquisition was established at the end of the Reconquista era of Spanish history.
Between 711 and 1492 Spain was occupied by the Moors (not the Moops). The Moors were muslims who subjugated the Spanish during the period of occupation. After they were finally repelled, there were any number of people in Spain who became muslim and they had special privileges and some had civil servant jobs, etc. After the Moors were expelled, a lot of these folks converted to Catholicism.
The concern the Spanish Inquisition was dealing with was that some of these conversions weren’t real and these new converts were worshipping the muslim deity at home and just pretending to be Catholic. A real concern as Ferdinand and Isabella were concerned about a 5th column and the Moors returning after so much effort was expended to expel them.
The Inquisition was the answer they came up with.
Well, they didn’t need to condemn them to death. Instead, they excommunicated them and turned them over to the secular authorities, who would put them to death for treason. No matter how you frame it, the penalty was death for the unrepentant.
I am sure this did happen. In my part of the country there were no few crypto Jews to settle here. They were Spanish Jews who pretended to be Catholic and practice their faith in secret to avoid the death penalty.
It is ironic that the current Catechism teaches that the God of the Muslims is the God of Abraham, and that we should respect the Muslim faith for that reason (they are monotheists). That sure was not the medieval understanding!
Yes, the Reformation wouldn’t have been the success it was without the convenient patronage of princes…
A great book that answers those charges is the book "Where we got the bible; Our Debt to the Catholic Church’ - by Rev. Henry G. Graham. -
It can be viewed online at:
No it was not. The fact that the Muslims had ruled over Spain for a considerable period, a period that Ferdinand and Isabella did not want to return to was probably the biggest factor.
Are you saying that the Spanish Inquisition did not target Muslims?
Are you saying that Muslim rule was not hostile to Christians?