Pope sends direct message to Ben

[Ben Kenobi]

The Albigensian Crusade, however, was under fairly firm Papal control from start to finish, and it was in effect a war of annihilation. When the military action failed to totally annihilate the heretics, the Inquisition was set up to do the job instead. Ridiculous as the Cathars were, there's really no way to put it in a better light without twisting the truth. They were tortured and slaughtered into extinction.

You mentioned a book, who's the author of it?

[Elok]

Yes, but even there, there are limits. Most of the horrible things we remember about the Crusades were done by nobility, commoners, or low-level clergy on their own initiative: the pogroms, the massacre at Jerusalem, the Fourth Crusade, the betrayal of the Templars. Some of our commonest ideas--like the idea that Crusaders expected to get rich in the East--are false, while we tend to ignore acts of brutality done by others (e.g., Baibars).

The Albigensian Crusade, however, was under fairly firm Papal control from start to finish, and it was in effect a war of annihilation. When the military action failed to totally annihilate the heretics, the Inquisition was set up to do the job instead. Ridiculous as the Cathars were, there's really no way to put it in a better light without twisting the truth. They were tortured and slaughtered into extinction.

XPost

[C0ckney]

I'm not quite sure how Henry's 72k is less an atrocity.

much as i hate to get drawn into a debate with you, this is simply ridiculous. where do you get this figure from?

let us examine briefly why this figure is very unlikely to be true. 72,000 executions, that would have been about 2.6% of the population of england (2,800,000 in 1550). that is a greater percentage of the population than was killed during the american civil war. herny viii reigned for 36 years, so that would be an average of 5.5 executions per day. for comparison, in the 18th century, there were about 100 executions per year in england and wales, giving a daily average of 0.28.

[Ben Kenobi]

In the interests of fairness, the book also noted that the Pope was horrified by the sack of Constantinople, and the church hierarchy did what it could to stop the pogroms committed by the earlier crusaders. Even the worst excesses of the medieval church are sometimes blown out of proportion.

And that's what I'm trying to correct this perception.

[Elok]

I guess that's actually more than I expected. As for the Albigensian Crusade...ugh. The "conversions" were accomplished by the Inquisition, which was established for the first time to do what military force could not. I just returned a history of the Crusades to the library; I don't recall the exact details, but I do remember that the Inquisition's tactics would not be out of place in Soviet Russia. Any accusation (by an accuser who could remain anonymous) was as good as proof, and anybody you squealed on to save your hide was likewise condemned. Now, it did wipe out the Cathars. I'll grant you that, for what it's worth.

In the interests of fairness, the book also noted that the Pope was horrified by the sack of Constantinople, and the church hierarchy did what it could to stop the pogroms committed by the earlier crusaders. Even the worst excesses of the medieval church are sometimes blown out of proportion.

[giblets]

Yep, Elizabeth I was a *****. Who cares?

[Ben Kenobi]

Out of curiosity, BK, is there a single point in the long, blood-spattered history of the RCC where you are willing to admit that the church hierarchy, or even people vaguely affiliated with it, such as the conquistadores, did something wrong?

Yes, I do think there were things that the Catholic church did wrong. I don't think that the Crusaders were justified in sacking Constantinople and I think that the Crusades would have been far more successful had they been more concerned about serving God than serving themselves. The infighting between us and you doomed the effort and the result was what we see today. I think the constant division even between Catholic powers was not what God wanted or desired. Seeing France side with the Turks over the Habsburgs would annoy and aggravate me, but then that's France for you.

As for the Inqusition - it's reputation is not what most would say it was. It was charged with the conversion of Spain - which was part of the crusades at the time, and a successful one. There are folks who are working today to reverse it and the unfortunate thing is that Christians are being condemned for standing up against Islam. Islam hasn't stopped fighting and Christians are expected to fight with one hand behind our back.

As for the Albigensian crusade, what about it? Most were converted. They were preaching that having Children was a sin, the same old Manichean heresy we've seen time and time again.

The baptism of Indian babies, who were then immediately murdered for fear they would resort to their racially predestined life of sin?

The same folks who were blessed with Our Lady of Guadaloupe?

Are you willing to admit that even small elements of that were horrible, wicked, wrong, etc.?

I believe that everyone in this world is wicked, sinful and in utter depravity. The Church isn't exceptional in this regard and isn't the sum of all evils as many are wont to portray her. The Church is full of sinful people who commit all kinds of sins against their brethren. This includes me, or else I would not be a part of it.

As for the Church itself and not the people in it, I believe that Jesus Christ is the head. The doctine as such comes from God, and our job as Christians is to try to live up to this as best as we can.

I mean, I like Orthodoxy, but I'm willing to admit that we've done some nasty stuff. For example, the Empress Irene fought hard against iconoclasm, but she also had her own son's eyes put out, and may have even intended the process to kill him (which it did). It does not shake my faith in Orthodoxy to say she was a ghastly woman, regardless of the role she played in church history.

Sure, the Crusaders did plenty of wrong too, but the Emperors at the time were not angels even if they were Angelos. There is something to be said for being the outpost of civilization for over 1000 years. I can't even fathom how I would have thought living in those times, they could point to several thousand years of Greek and Roman culture - preserved within their walls.

I find the whole edifice of the Church boggling.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh STFU you pathetic little man. The Catholic church was routinely acting like a bunch of spoiled psychotic thugs in that period, and it says an awful lot about you that you lack the maturity and the balls to simply say 'It was a different time, and a lot of bad happened on all sides.' Instead you tie yourself in ridiculous knots trying to paint stupid untrue pictures about extremely famous people. All your lies are easily disproven, so I don't know why you bother embarrassing yourself.

What lies? Elizabeth executed her innocent cousin who, at the time, was her Heir apparent.

She also executed many Catholic nobles in her reign and also executed Catholic laypeople and priests. After Elizabeth the catholic heirarchy of bishops and priest wasn't restored until after Catholic emancipation. Thanks to the Act of Supremacy, Catholics were deprived of private property, monasteries were stripped and priests executed along with laypeople to the tune of around 72k during Henry's reign alone.

What was Elizabeth's role in all this? Did she emancipate the Catholics and restore their natural rights possessed under her father? No. She enforced the act all the same. She has had excellent press over the years, but that doesn't change the reality of what she did and approved over her long reign.

I think people should be held responsible for the decisions that they make and not the decisions that others have made and then saying, "but they did that too"? Do you think God cares?

Yes, that is a Catholic pope announcing a death sentence on a Christian woman ruler.

Excommunication for executing Catholic priests, laypeople is merciful and more mercy than she extended.

Funny how your couple of hundred Catholic deaths in about 70 years doesn't sound quite as impressive now does it.

I'm not quite sure how Henry's 72k is less an atrocity.

[Elok]

Out of curiosity, BK, is there a single point in the long, blood-spattered history of the RCC where you are willing to admit that the church hierarchy, or even people vaguely affiliated with it, such as the conquistadores, did something wrong? Albigensian Crusade? Spanish Inquisition? Encomiendas? The baptism of Indian babies, who were then immediately murdered for fear they would resort to their racially predestined life of sin? Are you willing to admit that even small elements of that were horrible, wicked, wrong, etc.?

I mean, I like Orthodoxy, but I'm willing to admit that we've done some nasty stuff. For example, the Empress Irene fought hard against iconoclasm, but she also had her own son's eyes put out, and may have even intended the process to kill him (which it did). It does not shake my faith in Orthodoxy to say she was a ghastly woman, regardless of the role she played in church history.

[kentonio]

Oh STFU you pathetic little man. The Catholic church was routinely acting like a bunch of spoiled psychotic thugs in that period, and it says an awful lot about you that you lack the maturity and the balls to simply say 'It was a different time, and a lot of bad happened on all sides.' Instead you tie yourself in ridiculous knots trying to paint stupid untrue pictures about extremely famous people. All your lies are easily disproven, so I don't know why you bother embarrassing yourself.

Here's what your pope at the time had to say by the way..

Since that guilty woman (Elizabeth) … is the cause of so much injury to the Catholic faith… There is no doubt that whosoever sends her out of the world with the pious intention of doing God service, not only does not sin but gains merit, especially having regard to the sentence pronounced against her by Pius V of holy memory. And so, if those English gentlemen decide actually to undertake so glorious a work, your lordship can assure them that they do not commit any sin.

Yes, that is a Catholic pope announcing a death sentence on a Christian woman ruler. The same pope who ordered a commemoration to be held celebrating the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre no less, which cost the lives of 5,000-30,000 Huguenots.

Funny how your couple of hundred Catholic deaths in about 70 years doesn't sound quite as impressive now does it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Clearly the words of a woman consumed by hatred for the Catholics.

Ask Thomas Percy what he thought of her 'mercy'. Or any of the laypeople and priests she executed.

She believed that there was just one Faith just as Louis XIV believed there was just one king.

[kentonio]

Elizabeth persecuted the Church. It's not really hard to figure out her attitude towards it. She hated it and hated Catholics.

Which presumably is why she said..

There is only one Christ, Jesus, one faith. All else is a dispute over trifles.

..also..

I have no desire to make windows into mens souls

Clearly the words of a woman consumed by hatred for the Catholics.

[Ben Kenobi]

Nahhh... usually he just disappears from the thread and starts some other lame argument in another thread.. until he gets beat down again... rinse and repeat

Gosh, Ming. How does it feel to be wrong?

[Ben Kenobi]

She had been a ruler. She ceased to be a ruler when her son became King.

She was still a royal.

That's how it works in other monarchies, not just the Scottish one. Remember. Elizabeth II had a Queen Mother or Queen Dowager... Boy, you're dim.

Umm, this is not the same thing. Are you really this dim? The Queen Mother isn't the same as Mary Queen of Scots. The Queen Mother had no claim to the English throne. Mary's claim is superior to Elizabeth's, fwiw. Hers is legitimate.

Mary Stuart was a distant relative

Mary Queen of Scots was the Daughter of the sister of Elizabeth's dad. That makes Mary Queen of Scots, Elizabeth's first cousin. That's not 'distant relative'. That's kin. She was also Elizabeth's heir apparent. This makes Elizabeth a kinslayer.

I'm not sure how Elizabeth felt about the Catholic Church's view of her- not much, I expect.

Elizabeth persecuted the Church. It's not really hard to figure out her attitude towards it. She hated it and hated Catholics.

Elizabeth's mother was married to Henry VIII when she was born.

Elizabeth's father was still married to Catherine of Aragon when she was born. Being born to the King's mistress doesn't make you legitimate.

Repetition of a falsehood doesn't make it true.

William III was Dutch.
William III was sole ruler of England.
England did not have the franchise when William III reigned. Hence, England was a fief of the Dutch.

Treason and rebellion. Not their faith alone.

Treason, according to the Act of Supremacy, included attending Mass. The Act of Supremacy was enforced by Elizabeth Ergo, Faith was sufficient to qualify one for Treason in the Elizabethan era.

The treason statute dated from Plantagenet days, by the way.

How about that Act of Supremacy that you're studiously evading?

You've mentioned it by title- you haven't cited it. I'd have been surprised if you did.

I've mentioned it in every post. You're the historical expert, Molly. Are you telling me that you are unfamiliar with it's content?

Were they persecuted by Richard II, Henry IV & Henry V ? Yes.

Were Catholics persecuted by Elizabeth? Also yes.

[N35t0r]

I do wonder why anyone would put themselves though it all. Being continuously proved wrong in every subject by everyone...

I actually feel sorry for the guy...

Yeah, I used to. Not anymore.