Monday, Sep 14, 2009
Although, this time, I've done it to myself. The opportunity has arisen to finally put into words a book idea I've had percolating in the back of my mind for some time; I would be a fool not to pursue it. Doing so will naturally limit my time online, however, but I will at least attempt to get in some Gamespotting before the week is out.
In the meantime, here's a wee bit to chew on, a little tidbit of Calvinist history for those who like to point out that the Catholic Church has much blood on her hands:
Geneva at this period experienced a moral dictatorship such as has scarcely a parallel in history. It had begun at the time of Calvin's return in 1541, but it went on perfecting itself all the time. The police or 'guardians' watched everything, even the most intimate details of men's private lives. Anyone thinking evil thoughts or doing evil things was punished with brotherly ferocity.
There was prison for those who liked dancing . . . enjoyed drinking . . . cardplayers . . . Barbers were forbidden to tonsure priests passing through the city, and jewellers prevented from fashioning chalices. Both these offences were punishable by hanging. It was regarded as a confession of blasphemy and heresy to murmur 'rest in peace' over the grave of a dear departed . . . Two small children were beaten with rods for having eaten two rounds of cake on leaving Church, and another young ragamuffin was nearly beheaded because he returned a box on the ears given him by his mother . . .
It is common knowledge that dictatorships inevitably end by seeking to regulate every single thing.
(Henri Daniel-Rops,The Protestant Reformation, vol. II, translated by Audrey Butler, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1961,180,194-196)
Just for reference, no Inquisition was ever thisharsh or brutal
Comments
Page
1
« prev
|
next »
Posted Sep 14, 2009 7:52 am PT
I've been following US political events, for sure...but was there some specific thing you were referring to?
Posted Sep 14, 2009 10:35 am PT
I see your 'The Prodestant Reformation' and raise you one 'Foxe's Book of Martyrs'.
The officers of the Inquisition, preceded by trumpets, kettledrums, and their banner, marched on the thirtieth of May, in cavalcade, to the palace of the great square, where they declared by proclamation, that, on the thirtieth of June, the sentence of the prisoners would be put in execution. Of these prisoners, twenty men and women, with one renegade Mahometan, were ordered to be burned; fifty Jews and Jewesses, having never before been imprisoned, and repenting of their crimes, were sentenced to a long confinement, and to wear a yellow cap. The whole court of Spain was present on this occasion. The grand inquisitor's chair was placed in a sort of tribunal far above that of the king.
70 people executed in a single sitting and you are picking on ultraconservative Calvinists? I dont even agree with calvinists but making them out to be on par with inquisitions is rather, skewed, to say the least.
The officers of the Inquisition, preceded by trumpets, kettledrums, and their banner, marched on the thirtieth of May, in cavalcade, to the palace of the great square, where they declared by proclamation, that, on the thirtieth of June, the sentence of the prisoners would be put in execution. Of these prisoners, twenty men and women, with one renegade Mahometan, were ordered to be burned; fifty Jews and Jewesses, having never before been imprisoned, and repenting of their crimes, were sentenced to a long confinement, and to wear a yellow cap. The whole court of Spain was present on this occasion. The grand inquisitor's chair was placed in a sort of tribunal far above that of the king.
70 people executed in a single sitting and you are picking on ultraconservative Calvinists? I dont even agree with calvinists but making them out to be on par with inquisitions is rather, skewed, to say the least.
Posted Sep 14, 2009 7:27 pm PT
So your response to my pointing out that Protestants -- Calvinists in this case -- were, historically, every bit as brutal as the Papists they professed to despise the methods of (and, at least in Calvin's case, were measurably worse) is to simply opt for a distraction tactic?
And yet it is a matter of historical fact that Spanish prisoners tended to request to be tried by the Inquisition, because it was far and away the more just court as compared to the Spanish civil courts. It also serves to note that the Inquisition was itself a matter more concerned with Spanish governance than with official Church policy. That is not mentioned to excuse what was done, though it goes to offer a proper framing context all the same.
Having said that, yes, there were injustices perpetrated by the Inquisition. But to say as much is a distraction from the issue at hand, which is that Calvinism as a whole -- not some ultraconservative branch -- began, from Calvin himself, in a persecutorial mode, and exercised brutal powers over the people of Geneva. I think Calvin's strictures were worse than Luthers, though one notes that Luther argued for the application of the death penalty to "frigid wives" amongst other sorts of offenders.
This would be a lot simpler, Dan, if you could just accept that no Christian denomination is unmarred by historical injustices ostensibly perpetrated by it or in its name.
And yet it is a matter of historical fact that Spanish prisoners tended to request to be tried by the Inquisition, because it was far and away the more just court as compared to the Spanish civil courts. It also serves to note that the Inquisition was itself a matter more concerned with Spanish governance than with official Church policy. That is not mentioned to excuse what was done, though it goes to offer a proper framing context all the same.
Having said that, yes, there were injustices perpetrated by the Inquisition. But to say as much is a distraction from the issue at hand, which is that Calvinism as a whole -- not some ultraconservative branch -- began, from Calvin himself, in a persecutorial mode, and exercised brutal powers over the people of Geneva. I think Calvin's strictures were worse than Luthers, though one notes that Luther argued for the application of the death penalty to "frigid wives" amongst other sorts of offenders.
This would be a lot simpler, Dan, if you could just accept that no Christian denomination is unmarred by historical injustices ostensibly perpetrated by it or in its name.
Posted Sep 16, 2009 5:13 am PT
The cardinal, having gained his point by deluding the people of one town, sent for troops of soldiers, with a view to murder those of the other. He, accordingly, despatched the soldiers into the woods, to hunt down the inhabitants of St. Xist like wild beasts, and gave them strict orders to spare neither age nor sex, but to kill all they came near.
This one happened in southern Italy. An entire town exterminated. Your notion that the catholic church was somehow irresponsible for the bloodletting in Spain is not only erroneous, it is irrelevant, as the Spanish inqusition was far from the only inquisition.
I have no problem with you wanting to point out that Calvinists started off on a persecutive note; I am afraid I do not know their history well enough to say one way or the other. What I take issue with is saying that they were as bad or worse than the inquisitions.
And I suppose you are right, it would be simpler. I, however, do not intend to sacrifice truth for simplicity. Some denominations are stained with the blood of innocents, others are not.
This one happened in southern Italy. An entire town exterminated. Your notion that the catholic church was somehow irresponsible for the bloodletting in Spain is not only erroneous, it is irrelevant, as the Spanish inqusition was far from the only inquisition.
I have no problem with you wanting to point out that Calvinists started off on a persecutive note; I am afraid I do not know their history well enough to say one way or the other. What I take issue with is saying that they were as bad or worse than the inquisitions.
And I suppose you are right, it would be simpler. I, however, do not intend to sacrifice truth for simplicity. Some denominations are stained with the blood of innocents, others are not.
Posted Sep 22, 2009 5:12 pm PT
| Dantheman102100 wrote: |
| The cardinal, having gained his point by deluding the people of one town, sent for troops of soldiers, with a view to murder those of the other. He, accordingly, despatched the soldiers into the woods, to hunt down the inhabitants of St. Xist like wild beasts, and gave them strict orders to spare neither age nor sex, but to kill all they came near. |
You should probably mention that you're citing a book here.
You should probably also mention that the events discussed herein do not pertain to any historical Inquisition, at least not that I can find documentation for.
You should probably also mention that it's darned hard to find historical corroboration for the events depicted in the book you've cited, apart from other books which more or less seem to derive from the source text cited above. I'm not going to go so far as to deny that such things as this could have taken place...but I would expect to find more and better records had they taken place. It's easy enough to find such records in regard to other heresies, after all.
| Dantheman102100 wrote: |
| This one happened in southern Italy. An entire town exterminated. |
Okay, a town was exterminated. That's fine as an emotional appeal, but what are the logical implications of the event, especially in light of e.g. Calvin's execution- and flogging-happy regime in Geneva, or in light of the early Lutheran propensity to execute adulterers and "frigid wives," or in light of various bloody English persecutions of Catholics, which resulted in an untold number of gruesome deaths?
Connect the dots for me, and see if you can do so in a way that does not also leave other Christian denominations open to the same de-legitimization you would seek to apply to Catholicism.
| Dantheman102100 wrote: |
| Your notion that the catholic church was somehow irresponsible for the bloodletting in Spain is not only erroneous, it is irrelevant, as the Spanish inqusition was far from the only inquisition. |
True, but it still serves to note that no inquisition took place in which the Church was directly allowed to mete out punishment; this role was always deferred to secular authorities. Various colourful historical fictions have left us with the impression that the opposite is the case, but it simply is not so.
| Dantheman102100 wrote: |
| Also, I have no problem with you wanting to point out that Calvinists started off on a persecutive note; I am afraid I do not know their history well enough to say one way or the other. What I take issue with is saying that they were as bad or worse than the inquisitions. |
They were. Deal with it. I won't deny that the Catholic Church made its share of errors, but I will deny, vehemently, that Catholics were the worst offenders. They weren't, except in the fever dreams and distorted histories of post-Reformation Europe.
| Dantheman102100 wrote: |
| And I suppose you are right, it would be simpler. I, however, do not intend to sacrifice truth for simplicity. Some denominations are stained with the blood of innocents, others are not. |
A minor correction to your last sentence: "some" should be replaced with "all," while "others" should be replaced with "none." Otherwise, you are entirely correct.
Posted Sep 24, 2009 8:36 am PT
You are pinning your whole arguement on the notion that if you can prove one fringe segment of non-catholic Christianity acted against the nature of Christ, then all non-catholic denominations are de facto corrupt, which patently isn't the case. Case in point: Baptists and Quakers have NEVER persecuted on the basis of ideology or religious creed, much less inflicting corporal or capital punishment on those of different beliefs than they.
I find it infinitely amusing that you openly accept that the RCC is responsible for the deaths of thousands (and arguably tens of thousands) of deaths, and yet think that the RCC is somehow NOT the worst offender. In what way, perchance, is the RCC not the worst offender?
I find it infinitely amusing that you openly accept that the RCC is responsible for the deaths of thousands (and arguably tens of thousands) of deaths, and yet think that the RCC is somehow NOT the worst offender. In what way, perchance, is the RCC not the worst offender?
Posted Oct 2, 2009 5:35 pm PT
| Dantheman102100 wrote: |
| You are pinning your whole arguement on the notion that if you can prove one fringe segment of non-catholic Christianity acted against the nature of Christ, then all non-catholic denominations are de facto corrupt, which patently isn't the case. |
1) John Calvin's church in Geneva, and Calvinism more generally, are hardly a fringe sect.
2) My initial intent was to leave the focus on Calvinism. It was your post which made the discussion more general.
3) Despite this, your point is granted...though it's not like it's hard to find examples of bloodshed and persecutions put on by the other elements of Protestant Christianity (or the progenitor churches to the modern ones, at any rate) that would serve to invalidate them per the logic you have yourself time and again attempted to employ against Catholics.
| Dantheman102100 wrote: |
| Case in point: Baptists and Quakers have NEVER persecuted on the basis of ideology or religious creed, much less inflicting corporal or capital punishment on those of different beliefs than they. |
I'd be inclined to agree with you on the Quakers, but only because I haven't bothered researching them (they're kind of...minor...). Baptists, on the other hand...well...
...see, the problem there is, "Baptist" is itself too broad a term. One can find "Baptist" churches that preach Arminian theology, and others that preach Calvinist theology. There are Baptist churches that derive from Puritanism, others that derive from Anabaptism, and some from a fusion of the two with additional theological influences added in. There are conservative strains, and liberal strains.
And given this, it would be wholly inaccurate to say that "Baptists" have never persecuted others. "Baptists" can and have been associated with racial violence in the US, and may even have been involved in some of the anti-Catholic persecutions that took place in the dawning days of America. If we move up a degree and look at e.g. Puritanism and Anabaptism, we can find examples of various persecutorial undertakings pursued by both groups.
So no, Baptists are not innocent of the blood of others. And as I believe you said once before, some time ago: even one is too many (per your reasoning).
| Dantheman102100 wrote: |
| I find it infinitely amusing that you openly accept that the RCC is responsible for the deaths of thousands (and arguably tens of thousands) of deaths, and yet think that the RCC is somehow NOT the worst offender. In what way, perchance, is the RCC not the worst offender? |
Firstly, because it isn't strictly a numbers game. The underlying theology, and its application, must also be looked at. It may be that Catholics have a longer record of departing from the theology in matters like the Inquisitions, but that is still better than having a perverted, poisonous theology to begin with (e.g. Luther's "Biblical" punishment of death for frigid wives).
Posted Oct 5, 2009 8:02 am PT
Page
1
« prev
|
next »
Friends
My Friends
iowastate
We are getting there also