Falsifying religion history

Switching gears to this whole clerical-fascist mess:

So, kom1 and Kenneth Cruz67 are out here trying to argue that the Inquisition and those religious heresy trials never actually happened. Honestly, it’s the same kind of delusional nonsense you hear from Holocaust deniers claiming Hitler didn't go after the Jews. Look, there's a massive difference between debating if certain numbers were exaggerated and straight-up falsifying history to suit an agenda, but these two aren't even debating—they're just lying.

I say we permaban kom1 and hand Kenneth Cruz67 500 points for being such a clown.

Besides, kom1 has been riding everyone on this forum for the last week straight, insulting basically anyone who breathes, and I haven't seen a single moderator step in with a warning yet.

Will these accusations of clerical fascism just be allowed to slide during such volatile times? I really wonder if people will get away with it.

I suppose only Judolino has any right to call me a fascist. When anyone else tries to pull that stunt, well, it's honestly just not a very pleasant experience to deal with.

I’m pretty sure Kenneth Cruz67 is just a textbook troll, basically stirring the pot for kicks. His whole goal is just to get under your skin with his "naive"

Kenneth Cruz67 said:What's wrong with the Inquisition?

Of course, when he goes on to claim it was just the "police of that era" and

out of those who were burned, 90% of them deserved it because they were killers, thugs, thieves, and all that

, it's total garbage. Secular authorities and the police—or at least the law enforcement of the time—existed back then too, and they didn't need the church to hunt down murderers, thugs, or thieves. Also, they weren't actually being burned by the church: the ecclesiastical Inquisition would finish an investigation and hand over those convicted of heresy or witchcraft to the secular government, along with a "humane" suggestion not to spill blood—basically, telling them to burn them. Regular criminals were hanged, decapitated, or in worse cases, tortured on the wheel.

The word "inquisitio" in Latin literally just means "investigation." What we call the "Inquisition" today was actually known as "inquisitio haereticae pravitatis," or the Investigation of Heretical Depravity. That was the jurisdiction of church authorities. A standard murder or theft wasn't heresy.

I bet Kenneth knows this and is just loving how much he's getting to you. He wouldn't write like this on a formal history PDF because he knows he'd get banned for breaking the subforum rules.

lonetrucker4 said:people were convicted of heresy or witchcraft by secular authorities, often receiving a "humane" instruction to avoid spilling blood—which basically meant they were burned at the stake. Meanwhile, your average passerby might end up being hanged, decapitated, or in even more extreme cases, tortured on the rack.

Look, there were all sorts of punishments and plenty of crimes to go around. In Spain, for instance, you could pretty much choose your own adventure—hanging, crucifixion, burning, drowning; they didn't really sweat the small stuff when it came to the method.

It’s quite clear we’re discussing heresy and witchcraft here.

Witchcraft accusations weren't just thrown around randomly out of some religious fervor, either; I suspect there was usually a very specific sin or a bit of greed driving those charges. In England, for example, the pyres were often fueled by brewers who were watering down their ale, poisoning folks, or straight-up robbing them. You also had instances of infanticide and pyromania, and I believe grave robbing wasn't uncommon either. There were even times when people were burned simply because they were sick—you know, like when the plague is sweeping through and you suddenly break out in a rash. All of that was just swept under the rug as witchcraft.

The Orleans case is actually a pretty good example of that.

When it comes to heresy, though, it wasn't exactly some mindless savagery; I'd say it was mostly just internal factional maneuvering and power struggles happening right within the Church itself.

If this were posted on the History PDF, it wouldn't be phrased like that, since they know they'd get flagged for breaking the subforum rules.

With a moderation style like yours, I guess you might have even burned Galileo alive if you had been the Pope back in his day!👍

David Vaughn75 said:kom1 and Kenneth Cruz67 are out here trying to claim the Inquisition and those ecclesiastical heresy trials never actually happened. Honestly, telling that story is just as absurd as someone standing there claiming Hitler didn't commit the Holocaust. You can argue about whether certain numbers were exaggerated by historians, sure, but what these two are doing is straight-up falsifying history...

I really think we need to look at the Inquisition within the broader context of its era.
If you want to understand the mindset, I’d highly recommend picking up a manual or a guide used by inquisitors, specifically the "Malleus Maleficarum," or the "Hammer of Witches."
It is considered a definitive work by perhaps the most brilliant scholars of the Middle Ages, Jakob S. & Henrik I. These two gentlemen were absolute experts on witches and sorcery—truly charming and lovely characters, if you ask me—and here is how they suggest one should begin an interrogation:
https://dokumen.tips/documents/malle....html?page=361

The procedure for initiating such an inquiry goes like this. While the
officials (specifically the executioner and his assistants) get ready for the examination,
the accused should be stripped. If it’s a woman, let some decent women
take her, lead her to the cells, and strip her there. This is done purely
to ensure she hasn't sewn any magical tools into her clothing, items which,
following demonic instructions, witches often craft from the limbs of unbaptized children
to deprive them of their blessed state. Once those items are removed,
the judge will personally, or with the help of other upright citizens and zealous believers,
encourage her to confess the truth voluntarily. And if she refuses to speak, the judge should
instruct the officials to bind her with rope and place her upon one of the
torture devices. They should carry this out dutifully and immediately, though not too enthusiastically,
but rather as if the duty itself weighs heavily upon them. Afterward, the accused
should be released again at someone's earnest request and pulled aside,
where they should try once more to persuade her to confess, warning her
that this is her only way to avoid the death penalty.

The writings of these two wholesome priests are enough to stir anyone's soul. 😁 Where on earth could they have possibly gotten such ideas? 🙏
You can find more info at https://dokumen.tips/download/link/m...ubija-vjestice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Maleficarum

Besides the Malleus, I’d definitely suggest checking out a more recent book by an American author, Deniver Vukelić—Magic in American Historical Spaces. It basically tracks the whole history of magical beliefs throughout this part of Europe, frequently referencing the Malleus and really putting everything into perspective.

@Kenneth Cruz67/">@@Kenneth Cruz67, what you’re putting out there is just straight-up wrong. Total fiction.

Go ahead, pretend the Inquisition was some kind of win—but let's be real, we actually have freedom of speech and conscience today.

Besides, that whole Holy Office outfit never really went away; it just rebranded as the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
So, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (you know, the CDF) is one of those nine congregations within the Roman Curia. Basically, their whole job is looking at how faith is expressed in today's world and putting out statements—which, of course, the Pope eventually signs off on. Their main goal is really just translating Catholic belief into language people actually understand today. For instance, they were the ones behind the latest Catechism of the Catholic Church back in 1994, and then the compendium version about ten years later.

Back on July 21, 1542, Paul III set up the Sacra congregatio Romanae et universalis inquisitionis seu sancti officii. And—just to be clear—that had absolutely nothing to do with the old medieval papal Inquisition. This group was made up of six cardinals acting as inquisitors who were appointed directly by the Pope, giving them authority over the entire Church. One of the reasons this was even started was because of all the friction with reformers, but honestly, its main purpose was to push back against that notorious Spanish Inquisition, which had basically gone rogue and turned into a political tool for the Spanish crown.

Fast forward to 1908, and Pius X changed the name to the "Congregation of the Holy Office" (Sacra congregatio Sancti officii). Then, thanks to Paul VI’s *Integrae servandae* letter in 1965, the name was updated again to what we call the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" (Congregatio pro doctrina fidei).

Just some quick info from Wikipedia.
It's a shame, really... there are always people who don't really get the Catholic faith and just seem to have this built-in grudge against believers, so they end up making all sorts of wild interpretations.👎

lonetrucker4 said:@Kenneth Cruz67/">@@Kenneth Cruz67, I really think what you wrote there is actually quite a major factual inaccuracy.

I suppose one might be tempted to view the Inquisition as nothing more than a series of heretical atrocities, especially since we enjoy such freedom of thought, conscience, and faith today.

However, if you consider it, the office of the Holy Inquisition actually still exists in some form today, though it's now known as the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."

Personally, I don't really look at things through the lens of good versus evil; I tend to leave those kinds of judgments to the socialites and moralists out there. I guess those concepts are pretty much relative anyway, depending on where and when you're standing. What I am curious about is just how much the Church stood out from everyone else in terms of cruelty during that era, and my impression is that it didn't really stand out all that much. People used to justify all sorts of nonsense through incredibly brutal means, and so, I feel the Church wasn't necessarily any worse or better than anyone else back then.

So, what exactly is factually incorrect here? Is it the idea that witchcraft accusations had any real substance, or perhaps the suggestion that the Inquisition only targeted believers and converts to the Catholic faith?

Actually, I suspect the whole narrative surrounding the burnings is a bit overstated. If you look at the statistics, they suggest that over a span of 300 years, roughly 150,000 people were burned. That works out to maybe 1.4 people per day. It seems to me that more people likely perished in ordinary house fires than in those persecutions.

Some of us actually bother to read more than just the American version of Wikipedia.

I chimed in because someone mentioned "falsifying history." Honestly, David Vaughn75 is spot on here—Kenneth Cruz67 wrote nothing but lies (or at least total inaccuracies) under a headline titled "church history lie." Aside from all the blatant lies and truth-dodging pushed by Roman Curia apologists (and yeah, even Orthodox folks and mainstream Protestants used to hunt down and burn heretics too), this is just a massive, straight-up falsehood.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:That was basically the police back then (…) and about 90% of those burned deserved it because they were killers, thugs, thieves, and whatnot.

That’s a huge lie and I agree it deserves a yellow card, even if we don't go straight to a red.

There's everything in this thread; half of this stuff wouldn't even fly on a History subreddit.

lonetrucker4 said:I suppose some of us happen to read a bit more than just the American Wikipedia.

I felt compelled to jump in because there was mention of "falsifying history." I honestly think Silver Bear is onto something here, mostly because Kenneth Cruz67 wrote what essentially amounts to falsehoods—or at least some pretty questionable inaccuracies—under a heading titled "church history lie." Aside from all those other little distortions and half-truths spread by Catholic apologists (and let's be honest, even mainstream Protestants and Orthodox groups have historically persecuted or burned heretics), this particular point feels like a blatant untruth. It seems like a pretty heavy lie to me, so I’d agree it deserves a warning, even if we don't go straight to a super strict penalty right away.

There is certainly a lot going on in this thread that probably wouldn't even fly on the History subreddit.

I'm curious, which part is actually bothering you? Is it the claim about them being police, or the idea that most of those cultists in the church actually got exactly what they deserved?

The Pope isn't just a religious leader; he's also a head of state, a true *pontifex maximus*. Regarding the Cathars, the administration actually tried to handle things through peaceful means first. It wasn't until they essentially "took out his ambassador," so to speak, that he finally sent in the Inquisition.