First inquisition

I already wrote about the persecution of Jews under Visigoths: Until they were arians they were using the same laws concerning the Jews as previous christian Roman empire, so there were restrictions but not yet so hard. But under king Reccared who was first catholic king of Visigoths ( larger part of population was Hispano Roman and catholic, Visigoths being just a rulling class ) and specially king Sisebut things got worse. Sisebut ordered forced conversion of Jews in 616. If they did not want to be baptized they were expelled from Spain. You got a lot of false conversions of course on that way.

Also we are not talking here about persecution against some real crimes, but about terror against freedom of conscience. As christians ( orthodox and un-orthodox ) were persecuted because of this under pagan Roman empire, the official Church soon started to do pretty much the same. Also pagans allowed christians to reject their faith and be left alive.

Yet edict of Milan ( 313 ) at first granted religious liberty to all:

When we, Constantine Augustus and Licinius Augustus, met so happily at Milan, and considered together all that concerned the interest and security of the State, we decided ... to grant to Christians and to everybody the free power to follow the religion of their choice, in order that all that is divine in the heavens may be favorable and propitious towards all who are placed under our authority.

Spanish and Roman Inquisition was more sceptical about the witches yes. But still you had also witch trials organized by inquisition. For example in Navarra in 1609 six witches were burned on the stake. One Maria de Zozaya died in inquisition prison so her bones were burned.

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

But concerning heretics they were very active. I wrote some Italian states were not ready to punish religious dissidents. Yet the papal bulls forced them to do it. In fact you had a war in southern France against Cathars because the local rulers did not want to persecute catharism, but allowed it to exist together with catholic church.

 

From the case of certain Baruch who was a Jewish rabbi in Toulouse we can see how Jews became ''christians'' in many cases with
baptism under threat of death. Yet they were still subjects of inquisition. Baruch was jailed under Jacques Fournier
Bishop of Pamiers ( 1318-1325 ), later pope Benedict XII. Fournier was known to be more lenient inquisitor, yet some people were still burned under his command. For example a woman Agnes Francou, member of pacifistic christian group of the Waldensians.

Baruch explained his forced baptism like this before inquisition:

The following Sunday, the sub-deputy (subvicarius) of Toulouse, Alodet, brought to Toulouse 24 wagons full of Shepherds, whom he had arrested for the massacre of 152 Jews, commited at Castelsarrasin and vicinity. And when the Shepherds arrived at Chateau-Narbonnais, and 20 wagons had already been brought into the chateau, the people of Toulouse gathered in a great crowd nearby. The Shepherds who were in the last wagons gazed at this crowd and began to call for help against those who were taking them prisoner, saying they wished to avenge the death of Christ, but instead they were going to prison. Certain members of the Toulousian mob then broke the ropes which tied them in the wagons. Thus freed, they jumped from their wagons and began to cry with the crowd. "To death, to death, let us kill all the Jews!" I heard this recounted throughout Toulouse, but I was not witness to it myself.


The Shepherds and the crowd then swept through the quarter of the Jews. I was in my study, when a large number of these people arrived at my house, shouting "To death, to death, be baptized or we will kill you immediately!"


Seeing the furor of these people, and that they were killing before my eyes other Jews who refused to be baptized, I replied that I would prefer to be baptized than to be killed.

Baruch considered his forced baptism not valid and lived later again as Jew, but inquisition did not agree. Fournier told him he should live as christian now othervise he would be considered by inquisition as unrepentant heretic, so in fact he would be put to death. After this Baruch agreed to live as christian. He had to swore this and promise he would doing spy work for inquisition as it was normal in all such cases when somebody was forgiven by inquisition.

"I, Baruch, appearing for questioning before you, Reverend father in Christ My Lord Jacques, by the Grace of God Bishop of Pamiers, abjure entirely all heresy against the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Roman Church, and all beliefs of heretics, of whatever sect condemned by the Roman Church and especially the sect to which I held, and all complicity, aid, defense and company of heretics, under pain of what is rightfully due in the case of a relapse into judicially abjured heresy;

I swear and promise to pursue according to my power the heretics of whatever sect condemned by the Roman Church and especially the sect to which I held, and the believers, deceivers, aiders and abetters of these heretics, including those whom I know or believe to be in flight by reason of heresy, and against any one of them, to have them arrested and deported according to my power to my said Lord Bishop or to the Inquisitors of the heretical deviation at all time and in whatever places that I know the existence of the above said or any one of them.

https://www.cathar.info/121221_baruch.htm

 

Oh, it goes back at least to around 33 CE.

Do not forget, Joshua Bar Joseph was tried for heresy. Working on the Sabbath, Sorcery, and claiming to be the Messiah. But the Temple officials had no right of high justice, so he was ultimately sent to the Provincial Governor for trial for treason and insurrection.

And it goes back even farther, as during the Maccabean Revolt (167-141 BCE) it was a crime in Judea. Which was then passed to other Jewish dominated areas.

 

Inquisition means legal procedure against heretics or religious dissenters. Usually it is also understood as special court inside catholic church or under christian theocracy regimes. Internal affairs in one religious community or even lynching by a mob does not fit in this definition. Romans looked on early problems between Jews and christians as an internal affair of Judaism. So in the case of Jesus they presented him as dangerous for the Roman authority, claiming he wants to be the real king of Jews. It was not so much that he was killed because of his teachings about God, afterlife, way of salvation etc. but because of the supposed rebellion. Jews were not able to practice their theocracy in the times of Jesus. It even seems that according to New Testament Jesus complained his trial before high priests was not done according to the law of Moses. ( Jn 18,19-24 in connection with 5 Mz 19,15-21 )

The first victim of Jewish theocracy between christians was probably James brother of Jesus. Josephus wrote about it:

1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

https://pages.charlotte.edu/james-tabor/ancient-judaism/josephus-james/

We can see this was done by Sadducees while Pharisees apparently were still following the instructions of Gamaliel mentioned also in the New Testament. ( Acts 5,38-39 )

 

This campaign of terror and repression was carried out by a church and a state against its own people as an excuse to increase their power and control. Divergent views that had been long present and 'tolerated' suddenly became the focus of concentrated force. Innocent, innocuous populations were victimized for the aggrandizement of princes in the state and the R.C.C.

 

The Cathars were left alone for over 100 years, then they decided to murder some priests and organize a revolt, which hardly counts as 'persecution'; the local nobility took up arms.

The 'three 'Inquisitions', of which the Portugese was actually the worst, were never the mass horror story portrayed by the later Protestant and Jewish propagandists, which is why all these cites are mostly baseless anecdotes and myths.

 

Cathars were in no revolt against local authority in southern France. Local authority considered Them as not dangerous and did not want to persecute Them. That's why Albigensian crusade started. Since Cathars were like 10% of population or even less of course many local catholics were killed by crusaders too while defending their country.

In fact the King of Aragon was very catholic and started inquisition in his kingdom but was against crusade against his vassals in southern France and joined Them with his army against crusaders. The local lords of southern France which were mostly also still catholic with some exceptions like Raymond de Thermes were in no rebellion against him.

 

The Vaudois were sincere, peaceful, productive Christians. They were slaughtered, raped and robbed by R.C. and French forces only because they existed. This began internal "crusades" and religious wars in Europe and caused protesting Christians to become militant.

 

Rubbish.

 

More rubbish, just anti-Catholic propaganda from Protestant propagandists and 'Enlightenment' era pseudo-intellectuals. Same with all the 'Inquisition' exaggerations and falsehoods.

 

Official apology to Waldensians. From catholic pope and from catholic web site:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ca...f-christian-group-over-historical-persecution

 

See post #36.

 

More rubbish.

 

See post #37.

 

Thanks. It looks as if this thread has turned sterile.

 

Well since we are talking primarily about the roots of inquisition before its official start in 1231 by the pope Gregory IX i think it would be interesting to look also at different practices concerning heretics in the western Europe. As we already mentioned episcopal inquisition was established some years before by pope Lucius III.

Cathars and spiritualists

According to some information, which is not very reliable, the first beginnings of the Cathars in the West date back to the first half of the 11th century. According to the practice of the time, heretics were not always persecuted particularly harshly, nor was there any common and established practice or clear law in this respect. The first record of Cathars in France dates back to 1022, when thirteen Cathars were condemned to the stake at the Council of Orleans, which was attended by the King of France. Almost all of them had been Catholic priests, one even a confessor to the Queen. But it is more likely that they were a spiritualist faction who, like the Cathars, rejected Jesus' suffering on the cross and resurrection. These early groups do not have the typical structure of the Cathars, but there are certain similarities that can be explained also in other ways. Shortly afterwards, another group was discovered in France. Its members claimed to be pupils of a certain Gundulf from Italy. This suggests that Catharism spread from the Balkans, first to Italy and then to France. They recanted their views and were left alone, without any punishment. Then they are not mentioned for a while. In the 12th century, the movement began to spread rapidly. In 1114, a mob rounded up and burned several Cathars while the local church assembly was still deciding their fate.

They were first discovered in Italy around 1030 in a castle in northern Italy. The Archbishop of Milan tried and failed to get them converted. The civil authorities then gave them the choice of renouncing their doctrine or being executed. Most of them chose death. As in the case of France, they are not mentioned for a long time afterwards in Italy, whereupon, in the same way as in France, they spread rapidly again in the 12th century, by which time they had already taken on a characteristically Cathar form. This original Italian group was also in all probability not actually Cathars, since they recognised and publicly read both the New and the Old Testaments, which they interpreted in a rather allegorical way. They confessed to the Holy Spirit and therefore had no priests. They were vegetarians and held all their property in common.


The Cathars never really took root in Germany. The first group was discovered very early in 1052, when they were hanged by order of Emperor Henry III. At the beginning of the 12th century, another group was discovered again in Trier, but they were not punished. Thirty Cathars of German nationality fled from Flanders to England around 1159. When they were discovered seven years later, they were handed over to the secular authorities by the Bishops' Council of Oxford. The King of England decided that they should be banished to a snowy region and that no one should help them. So they died of cold.

 

Well since we are talking primarily about the roots of inquisition before its official start in 1231 by the pope Gregory IX i think it would be interesting to look also at different practices concerning heretics in the western Europe in 11th and 12th century. As we already mentioned episcopal inquisition was established some years before by pope Lucius III.

Cathars and spiritualists

According to some information, which is not very reliable, the first beginnings of the Cathars in the West date back to the first half of the 11th century. According to the practice of the time, heretics were not always persecuted particularly harshly, nor was there any common and established practice or clear law in this respect. The first record of Cathars in France dates back to 1022, when thirteen Cathars were condemned to the stake at the Council of Orleans, which was attended by the King of France. Almost all of them had been Catholic priests, one even a confessor to the Queen. But it is more likely that they were a spiritualist faction who, like the Cathars, rejected Jesus' suffering on the cross and resurrection. These early groups do not have the typical structure of the Cathars, but there are certain similarities that can be explained also in other ways. Shortly afterwards, another group was discovered in France. Its members claimed to be pupils of a certain Gundulf from Italy. This suggests that Catharism spread from the Balkans, first to Italy and then to France. They recanted their views and were left alone, without any punishment. Then they are not mentioned for a while. In the 12th century, the movement began to spread rapidly. In 1114, a mob rounded up and burned several Cathars while the local church assembly was still deciding their fate.

They were first discovered in Italy around 1030 in a castle in northern Italy. The Archbishop of Milan tried and failed to get them converted. The civil authorities then gave them the choice of renouncing their doctrine or being executed. Most of them chose death. As in the case of France, they are not mentioned for a long time afterwards in Italy, whereupon, in the same way as in France, they spread rapidly again in the 12th century, by which time they had already taken on a characteristically Cathar form. This original Italian group was also in all probability not actually Cathars, since they recognised and publicly read both the New and the Old Testaments, which they interpreted in a rather allegorical way. They confessed sins to the Holy Spirit and therefore had no priests. They were vegetarians and held all their property in common.


The Cathars never really took root in Germany. The first group was discovered very early in 1052, when they were hanged by order of Emperor Henry III. At the beginning of the 12th century, another group was discovered again in Trier, but they were not punished. Thirty Cathars of German nationality fled from Flanders to England around 1159. When they were discovered seven years later, they were handed over to the secular authorities by the Bishop's Council of Oxford. The King of England decided that they should be banished to a snowy region and that no one should help them. So they died of cold.

 

The community of Christianity was much more accepting of great degrees of variation in expressing belief before the 11th century. As the temporal and R.C.C. authorities grew and began to have more opportunities to accrue power, they saw both the necessity of putting themselves more at the center of law and doctrine as well as the occasion to exploit a visible minority.

 

Early use of torture by Inquisition - from the case of Angelo da Clareno and his group called fraticelli.

The use of torture by the inquisition was allowed in 1252 by pope Innocent IV. It was meant as a tool for interrogation.

Fraticelli were radical supporters of the poverty of the Church and claimed to continue the legacy of Francis of Assisi, Jesus and the Apostles. It was on this point that they came in dispute with the pope and the bishops. The movement was started by Angelo da Clareno, who, with his followers, was disappointed at the failure of Francis' reform, as the new order too was slowly becoming encumbered by worldly wealth. They were imprisoned in 1278 and then exiled to distant Armenia. From there they returned to Italy and Pope Celestine V, himself an elderly ascetic monk, who came to the papacy only because the cardinals could not agree on another candidate, gave them permission for their way of life.

Celestine V resigned after six months. The new Pope Boniface VIII reversed Celestine's decision and the Fraticelli withdrew to Greece. As they criticised the Pope's decision there, he intervened to get the Greek authorities to take action against them, so they returned to Italy. Efforts to have their order recognised failed. In 1317, Pope John XXII excommunicated their leader, Angelo da Clarena. The latter continued his opposition. The Fraticelli began to claim that the papacy had fallen away from the Gospel with John XXII. His decrees are invalid, and priests who follow the secular church are not entitled to distribute the sacraments. The true church is now only their order. The Inquisition had already burned four fraticelli in 1318.

There would certainly have been many more victims, but the secular authorities were not prepared to take any action against them, because they were completely harmless to them. For example, in 1334 John XXII specifically demanded the arrest of the "demented heretic" Angelo da Clarena, who presented himself as "the leader of the excommunicated sect of the Fraticelli". Angelo had protectors and managed to escape to the south of Italy, where he died. His order, now leaderless and under pressure from the Church hierarchy and the Inquisition, fragmented into several factions. Persecuted, but also unable to find wider support among the laity, they slowly died out.


Around 1304, shortly after Boniface VIII's death, Angelo's group was drifting back into Italy hoping to convince the new pope that they should be recognized as a separate order. By the time they arrived the new pope himself was on his deathbed and some of the Spiritual brothers settled into hermitages in the kingdom of Naples. There King Charles II and the local Inquisitor, Thomas of Aversa, conspired to make their lives miserable. Thomas arrested a group of Spirituals he came across, and wrote the king telling him he had captured, not Spirituals, but members of Fra Dolcino's sect, which was then considered the most dangerous heretical group in existence. They are described here as "Lombards" since Dolcino's group was based in Lombardy and were also using violence against catholics.

Testimony

Then the Lord Andreo wrote the Inquisitor informing him trustworthy people had told him that among all those the Inquisitor had captured there was only one Lombard. He advised him to attend to the dignity of his Inquisitorial office. He advised him as a good friend to stick to the truth in carrying out his duties, because without it neither human nor divine justice is justly performed. When the Inquisitor read Lord Andreo's letter he was furious and vengefully turned all his indignation and wrath on the poor brothers he currently held. And he sent to the men of that town, who love the poor brothers deeply, a summons to appear before him in the city of Trevi after a certain number of days, with a fixed fine as penalty if they failed to appear. When they came on the appointed day he had them shut up in an old cistern and kept them there for five days, with no more ventilation than if he'd shut them up in a wine cask, not even letting them out to attend to the necessities of nature. After five days this new Dacian had a certain place in the city hastily prepared so they could be tortured by the executioners. But when he saw that the bishop and other principle people in the city took the spectacle of such men being tortured very poorly, he changed his mind and, passing through Boiano, ascended to the castle of Maginando, a remote place with a lord vicious enough to conspire in his own evil plans. There he had the prisoners, whom he had dragged along behind him in chains and who were exhausted by the trip, placed under heavy guard. The next day he visited them and, binding himself with a terrible oath, said, "Unless you confess to me that you are heretics, may God do thus and so to me if I don't kill all of you right here with a variety of tortures and torments. If, as I ask, you do confess to me that you do or did err in something or other, I'll give you a light penance and set you free immediately." The brothers replied that he should not ask them to say something that wasn't true. Telling such a wicked lie would cause death to their souls and offense to God.

The furious Inquisitor selected one of them who seemed more fervent than the others and was a priest, and ordered that he be tortured. The torturer entered with his assistants and tied the prisoner's hands behind his back. Then he had him raised up by means of a pulley attached to the roof of the house, which was very high. After the prisoner had hung there for an hour the rope was released suddenly. The idea was that, broken by the intense pain, he would be defeated and confess that he had once been a heretic. After he had been raised and suddenly dropped many times they asked whether he would confess that he was or had been a heretic. He replied, I'm a faithful and Catholic Christian, always have been, and always will be.. If I said anything else to you shouldn't believe me, because I would only have said it to escape the torture. Let this be my perpetual confession to you, because it's the truth. Anything else would be a lie extorted by torture."

Driven out of his mind by anger, the Inquisitor ordered that, dressed in a short tunic, the prisoner be put first in a bath of hot water, then of cold. Then, with a stone tied to his feet, he was raised up again, kept there for a while, and dropped again, and his shins were poked with reeds as sharp as swords. Again and again he was hauled up until, on the thirteenth elevation, the rope broke and he fell from a great height with the stone still tied to his feet. As that destroyer of the faithful stood looking at him, he lay there only half alive, with his body shattered. The treacherous man's servant's took the body and disposed of it in a cesspool.


That Inquisitor, although he was a learned man and of noble family, was so demented by fury that he began to inflict torture with his own hands. When one of the brothers who was to be tortured devoutly recommended himself to Christ, he was so insane with anger that he struck the man on the head and neck. He hit the man so hard that he drove him to the ground like a ball. For days afterward the man's neck and head hurt and his ears rang. Another brother had his head bound in the Inquisitor's presence, and the binding was tightened until the torturers heard the bones in his head crack, after which they ended the torture and took him away for dead.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Spirituals

https://www.cathar.info/121210_torture.htm

 

Humans have so often exhibited deeply sadistic tendencies.

 

And this committed by "Christians" for "sins" that, according to Jesus, can be forgiven.

 

Augustine of Hippo on persecution of the religious dissidents.

Influential catholic bishop and thinker Augustine of Hippo was at first against the persecution of heretics, but changed his mind later. He was explaining that the evils of heretics on one hand and the success of state force being used against them influenced his opinion being changed. Since he is primarily talking about Donatists which were quite popular in North Africa at his time with ''depths of evil'' he probably thinks on the suicidial and violent sect of Circumcellions which was the radical part of larger donatist movement. We can see that he is talking pretty much like pope Leo the Great mentioned before in this Topic. Both were writing in 5th century.

In 397 CE he admits: “In the first of the books [Contra partem Donati and Retractions] I said that I was not in favor of schismatics being forcibly constrained to communion by the force of any secular power. And indeed at that time I did not favor that course, since I had not yet discovered the depths of evil to which their impunity would dare to venture, or how greatly a careful discipline would contribute to their emendation.”

How persecution works. If a man “sees that it is unrighteousness for which he suffers, he may be induced, from the consideration that he is suffering and being tormented most fruitlessly, to change his purpose for the better, and may at the same time escape both the fruitless annoyance and the unrighteousness itself … .” Our motive is Christian love. Since we love the sinner and are concerned for his salvation, we must not ignore any methods, however distasteful, when “seeking with a mother’s anxiety the salvation of them all”. Also: “What then is the function of brotherly love? Does it, because it fears the short-lived fires of the furnace for a few, therefore abandon all to the eternal fires of hell?”

In 408 CE, a letter to Vincentius, Bishop of Cartenna and a Donatist: “I have therefore yielded to the evidence afforded by these instances which my colleagues have laid before me. … . [For example,] there was set over against my opinion my own town, which, although it was once wholly on the side of Donatus, was brought over to the Catholic unity by fear of imperial edicts, but which we now see filled with such detestation of your ruinous perversity, that it would scarcely be believed that it had ever been involved in your error.”

Coercion is not intrinsically right or wrong; it depends on “the nature of that to which he is coerced, whether it be good or bad.” In the letter to Vincentius: “Let us learn, my brother, in actions which are similar to distinguish the intentions of the agents .... In some cases both he that suffers persecution is in the wrong, and he that inflicts it is in the right. In all these cases, what is important to attend to but this: who were on the side of truth, and who on the side of iniquity; who acted from a desire to injure, and who from a desire to correct what was amiss?”

But not just anyone can use coercive force against another. Only the State may persecute. Individuals serve God by being faithful individuals, but kings serve God by “enforcing with suitable rigor such laws as ordain what is righteous, and punish what is the reverse.” “Let the kings of the earth serve Christ by making laws for Him and for His cause.”

https://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Augustine-On-Righteous-Persecution.pdf

 

"...and you never ask questions when "God" is on your side."

 

You also never ask for proven facts when babbling hearsay, rumor, and old Protestant propaganda to fit a ridiculous narrative. If all the alleged killings by Inquisitors were true, the population of Europe would have disappeared. Also never admit there were three Inquisitions, and the Roman Inquisition killed almost no one,less than 1,000 were convicted in the Spanish Inquistion out of maybe 10,000 cases, with maybe 400 actually put to death, 600 or so merely burned in effigy, and never ever mention that the majority of cases had nothing at all to do with Jews lying about converting. The Spanish Crown was far more lenient than the Muslims and their Jewish soldier allies when it came to religion, being given a choice of leaving or converting. Muslims and Jews would have merely slaughtered any Christians who objected to being oppressed n stuff, and certainly weren't offered an option to leave.

 

Concerning Spanish inquisition dr. Henry Kamen in his book ''Spanish inquisition a historical revision'' explains in details different periods of persecution. The most strong was between years 1480-1530 when around two thousand people were killed. Somewhat smaller numbers of people executed later can be explained also with the fact that persecution of muslims baptized by force was never so strong as it was in the case of Jews.

However concerning the roots of inquisition which is the main topic here we can see from laws of Theodosius that already at the end of fourth century his government was the first christian chancery , which turned religious beliefs into legal affairs. In 382 his law against Manicheans established specialized teams which had to conduct police hunt against Manicheans and denunciations were accepted.

Next year Theodosius issued a strict law against Eunomians, Arians, Macedonians and Apollinarians, whose purpose was to prevent their organization, to limit their freedom of movement and to involve public authorities in their persecution. For this goal the praetorian prefect was ordered to act ex officio, that is, to seek out these heretics in every town and place and in agreement with the law, banish them and repatriate them to the lands they originally came from, ensuring that they could not go from place to place or enter towns.