Tales of the Questor — 9 Comments

  1. A Pope? Hmm. I must confess that, as a pernicious Papist, I find little sympathy with the poor-heroic-Protestants-saving-science-from-the-big-nasty-backwards-Church-who-will-brook-no-dissent theme. Still, your universe, your rules. But really, the “Catholic Church as pig-headed opponent of anything they don’t understand” idea is simply false-to-facts, largely the product of Black Legends and Reformation-era propaganda. Just my two cents.

    • You’ll get little sympathy from me, I fear. I tend to have little sympathy for a heretical church that tortured and burned my spiritual forefathers at the stake. The Vatican may not have committed all of the sins they are credited with, but they more than sinned enough.

      • If no one minds me interjecting, I feel I should point out that the Catholic Church has tended to change dramatically across time, which is only to be expected considering the fact that like all churches it is under human control. It’s silly to throw Alexander VI (Assassin’s Creed villain) and Francis (current guy) into the same category. However, I’m a Catholic and I still don’t see anything inherently unfair with portraying them as villains in medieval works. After all, the priest in the last story arc was pretty understanding. I just hope you’re careful to avoid accidentally doing something hypocritical: Quinten’s reaction to seeing werewolves just a few pages ago wasn’t exactly a warm one.

      • “… and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us…”
        “… let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
        “… forgive your brother seven times seventy times…”
        “… all have sinned and fallen short of the Grace of God.”
        While I’m no Master of scripture, I believe all (true) Christians try to do their best to live by these Words, and the rest of the Word(s) given us by our Lord, Savior and King.
        It’s 2014… there are only two billion Christians… we have enough enemies without hurling grudges, accusations and angry judgement at each other, which, I’m given to understand, is the way we’ll be judged when our “time” comes.
        Pax vobiscum.

        • You are correct. I’m not opposed to “Protestant” fiction, after all RH *can* write what he likes, it’s a free country after all. Still, I can also point out themes that I don’t like. No hatred intended or directed at RH himself.

      • I do not bear you ill-will, brother, but I in turn do not believe your claims that Christ’s church teaches heresy. In fact, I believe that to be impossible, for “the gates of Hell will not prevail against it” (Mat 16:18), and I find it hard to see how Christ founding a church, then having it fall into apostasy for 15 centuries would fail to constitute the prevailing of the gates of Hell. Of course, I am well aware that you do not believe the “Roman” Catholic Church (I use the name now for convenience, since I understand that it would be question-begging to just *assume* that the Church I adhere to is the Church Universal) is the Church founded by Christ Himself, but I think that requires a rather strained reading of Matthew 16, as well as a strained reading of the Church Fathers. And of course, the question then becomes whether or not the “Roman” Church is Christ’s Church, because if it is, then nobody is justified in seperating from it, no matter how corrupt some or even all of its leaders might be, and if it isn’t, then nobody is justified in remaining in it, no matter how holy and pious said Church might be.

        If you’d like to deal with this question in more detail, well, I’ll get back to you as soon as I can. Peace in Christ,

        Eoin Moloney

        • I don’t care what you believe, I go by what I know the bible says. Where the bible says there is only ONE mediator between man and God, Christ Jesus, you placed a Pope– and gave him authority to rewrite scripture and doctrine as suited him. Where the bible placed Jesus, you have replaced Him with his mortal mother Mary. Where Jesus placed salvation by grace and eternal adoption, you have placed works, and rites, and ceremonies, and prayers to dead saints. And your church imprisoned and hung and burned anyone who dared distribute the written Word of God– the Word that quite clearly contradicts the proclamations of your Popes and Priests– to the people, for the quite rightful fear that reading it for themselves would undermine the Pope’s secular power and influence. You have a semblance of religion— but you do not have Jesus.

  2. I cannot let this stand alone, so hold on to your hats boys and girls, ive got my history pants on.

    Burning at the stake… is an interesting punishment.

    It was never actually done by the catholic church, though it was done in its name.

    I assume you are thinking of the numerous medieval catholic inquisitions, of which the Spanish was the most famous. Inquisitors were actually highly regulated, and there were a number of things they had to do, and that they werent allowed to do. (Obviously rules bending occured, such was the times…)

    There were numerous inqisitions, and they were mostly in response to apostate heresies, primarily, Catherism, and the Waldensians (also Lollards but they are their own story). These heretics were not called so because of how they practiced, but because they challenged the authority of the Catholic Church. That is what defined the heresies more then anything (except for Luther, of course).

    Inquisitors had to ask the accused if there was anyone who had a mortal hatred against them, and if the accusers name was listed, they were free to go.

    They were only allowed to be tortured for confession once (The second session was considered part of the first)

    The torture could not result in death, birth (in the case of the pregnant), mutilation, or draw blood. An interesting note, torture during the Inquisitions were not used until later in the 14th century, made famous by the Templars of course.

    The most common punishments for heresy during the inquisition included…

    Prayer, pilgrimage, banishment, public recanting, and occasionally long term imprisonment.

    Villages where heresy was suspect, those who were guilty were given the opportunity to turn themselves in for easy punishment, provided they informed on other heretics.

    If they were unrepentent, they could be ‘relaxed’ to secular authorities. IT was only then, that the possibility of execution existed. The church itself did not actually kill anyone. Only the Crown was allowed to carry out executions.

    Inquisitors preferred not to hand the accused over to secular authorities, if they could help it. There are numerous reasons for this, not all of them altruistic. Such were the times…

    Bernard Gui is noted to have executed only 42 people out of 900 guilty convictions of heresy. To execute a heretic, was to admit defeat, that the soul could not be saved.

    I wouldnt be surprised if Inquisitors got down on their knees and begged unrepentant heretics to recant.

    To touch on the Spanish Inquisition, it was not organized by the church but by the Spanish Crown using local clergy. The pope attempted to force an appeals process on the Spanish Inquisition, to try to rein it in, but the Crown decreed that anyone who appealed without their permission, was to be put to death.

Leave a Reply