The Inquisition Never Died.

[@marcusmagnificus1984]

"St. Pope John Paul II made many apologies. During his long reign as Pope, he apologized to Jews, women, people convicted by the Inquisition, Muslims killed by the Crusaders and almost everyone who had suffered at the hands of the Catholic Church over the years. Even before he became the Pope, he was a prominent editor and supporter of initiatives like the Letter of Reconciliation of the Polish Bishops to the German Bishops from 1965. As Pope, he officially made public apologies for over 100 of these wrongdoings."

[@aleccrull4114]

In my opinion, this was a regrettable mistake and not warranted how can one man apologize for another sin?

[@danieldefonce]

⁠@@aleccrull4114 there is biblical and historical precedent for repenting on behalf of another person or people, especially one’s own people: Job effectively intercedes for his self-righteous friends (Job 42:10-17); Stephen the Protomartyr, inspired by the Holy Spirit, repented for his murderers (Acts 7:55-60), echoing the vicarious words of Jesus Himself on the Cross (Luke 23:34) - “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.” Like a father apologizes for his wayward son, or a son makes restitution on behalf of his unjust parents, so St. JPII, as the Holy Father and Vicar of Christ, had the spiritual authority and moral responsibility to apologize/repent for the sins of previous generations.

[@csongorarpad4670]

@@aleccrull4114 Because he was the successor of St. Peter, the Vicar of Christ AKA the visible head of the Church.

[@Armuandist]

This is why the Roman Catholic Chruch is never ever the One True Church by JESUS. She killed millions of people. She committed mistakes thus she doens not represent the TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST. The True Church of Christ are the Christians no matter what denomination youa re as long as you believe Jesus as Lord and Savior.

[@hr1meg]

In 2024 I feel no need to apologize for anything.

[@ElizabethDMadison]

Correction about the Brown scapular devotion, the lay form of it dates to the 16th c; during the Middle Ages the laypeople associated with the Carmelites actually wore the Carmelites' white mantle (not the brown scapular) as the sign of their Carmelite identity. The transition to the scapular being the most symbolic feature of the habit dates to after the Order's legislation ruled that the scapular had to be worn at Mass but the mantle did not (no private revelation about it was referred to or seemed to have been known of at that time). The very first Carmelites who actually lived on Mount Carmel in Israel during the Crusades wore a pilgrim cloak with distinctive broad black and white horizontal stripes. When the area was overrun by Islamic forces they were forced to go to Europe where they chose to become a mendicant order and modeled their habit on the Dominican one, just in different colors. The special importance of the brown scapular, let alone secular people wearing it, actually dates to after St Simon Stock's time and its active and official promotion dates to around the lifetime of St Teresa of Avila.

[@papuciowy1465]

The Holy Inquisition is a wonderful work of mercy.

[@extract8058]

"Holy Inquisition" is an oxymoron

[@papuciowy1465]

@@extract8058 Do You mean You do not believe in Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit guides the Church, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is part of the Church. The Church cannot be evil or wrong because it was founded by Christ Jesus and is guided by the Holy Spirit. Hence, some statements of the Pope are infallible, even if he were a great sinner. He would still be a Holy Father because the papacy itself is holy, comes directly from God. To claim that something is wrong because someone abused it would have to lead to the absurd claim that knives are wrong in themselves because some people used them to harm and murder other people. Even if half of Catholics were murderers, the Catholic Church would still be Holy.

[@extract8058]

@@papuciowy1465 No.

[@papuciowy1465]

@@extract8058 Do you acknowledge the obvious fact of God's existence?

[@karelglasner2673]

The Satanic Vatican 😂 have you been in the mouth of the Serpent in the Serpent chapel?

[@iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 *🏰 The Context of the Crusades* - The Church's rationale for the Crusades was multifaceted: to liberate Christians in the Holy Land, redirect warriors towards God's service, and offer atonement for sins through pilgrimage. - Despite acknowledging atrocities like the sack of Constantinople, proponents argue the Crusades contributed positively to Church history by fostering religious devotions and heroic institutions. 03:04 *🔍 Evaluating Motives: The Inquisition* - Understanding historical enterprises like the Inquisition requires a deep dive into motives and intentions. - The Church's rationale for establishing and operating the Inquisition was to combat heresy and protect the spiritual well-being of Christendom. 06:32 *📚 Evolution of Inquisitions* - The term "inquisition" should be viewed in plural, reflecting various historical inquisitions including the medieval, Spanish, and Roman. - Modern iterations, like the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, continue the tradition of theological inquiry in the Church.

[@Chispaluz]

It just hit me that I have never seen Chris Check before 😂 how did I never question what he looked like.

[@EricN571]

Great info 👌🏻

[@Kefa...]

Let's gooooooo

[@jvlp2046]

In reality, the Roman Catholic INQUISITION was not abolished totally, ONLY the METHODOLOGY (System Method) was changed... Amen.

[@glad4030]

How about the Spanish Inquisition ?

[@R.C.425]

That wasn't the church that was the leaders of Spain

[@vinnyv949]

What about the inquisition? It was wholly justified and saved Spain from brutal civil war that occurred elsewhere. The church also didnt put anyone to death. They investigated heresy and handed their findings over to the civil authorities for punishment. People still had every opportunity to recant their heretical beliefs too.

[@IesuDulcisMemoria]

As a Spaniard I hear a lot of times about the Spanish inquisition because of the black legend, but it is merely a myth, at least what the tell about it. The idea of this court was NOT conceived during the time of the Catholic Monarchs in Castile. Both the time and the place are wrong. This institution was created in medieval France against the gnostic catars. Isabel and Fernando implemented the Inquisition to control the religion in Spain, there were a lot of Jews and Granada had been recently reconquered, so there were many Muslims too. Also the protestant reformation took place some years later, so there was a need to maintain catholicism in Spain. Inquisition did exist, but, it served the interests of the kings, not the church. According to data from experts such as Behringer or Henningsen, in Spain 300 women accused of witchcraft would have been executed, in the German states 25,000 would have succumbed, in France around 4,000 and in the kingdoms of Eastern Europe like Poland/Lithuania 10,000. The Inquisition was directed to unify the territory, the Church didn't believe in the superstition of the existance of witches, that continue to be persecuted in Latin American countries, in India, in Indonesia, or in sub-Saharan Africa. In these places, where magical thinking still survives, more people have been murdered in the last century than in early modern Europe and Spain. I hope this comment helped clarifying things, feel free to debunk my arguments.

[@commonsensetrading4103]

@@vinnyv949 Killing people for not agreeing with Catholic church's teaching is justified?

[@vinnyv949]

@@commonsensetrading4103 the Catholic church’s teaching is the only truth in the world. Almost everything else is evil and leads people to lose their souls forever. It also leads to unbelievable immorality and iniquity in the temporal realm. As we currently see in modern secular, liberal democracies. We kill 500,000 to one million unborn human beings every single year. Not to mention all the other sin modern secular countries promote. Heresy was considered fomenting disorder and sedition to the public welfare and unity of a country. It also was considered treasonous and dangerous to the monarch. Again people had opportunities to repudiate and repent their heresy. If they didn’t and stayed obstinate they justifiably could be executed. You do not have the right to believe error and promulgate it to the detriment of your fellow humans.

[@margueritelangton6362]

1) Difficult exercises are NOT required for the forgiveness of sins. The sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, His love and His blood, suffice in the presence of true penitence. 2) An evil action may NOT be used to obtain a good end/outcome.

[@vinnyv949]

1) Penance is absolutely required to address the imbalance created by sin. There are two types of punishment due to sin. Temporal and eternal. Forgiveness of sins through sacramental confession is enough to placate eternal punishment but not temporal. Difficult exercises in the name of God is one way to alleviate temporal punishment. Temporal punishment occurs on earth and also in the after life of purgatory. 2) There was nothing evil in calling for the crusades or the inquisition. It doesn’t mean evil deeds didn’t occur during them which the men who committed them would have to receive forgiveness and atone for.

[@johnm.speight7983]

6362 - - Christ understood that there was a need to forgive sins even After His crucifixion as the first thing He said was ( John 20 -21 ) - - Peace, receive The Holy Spirit, - whose sins You forgive are forgiven and whose sins You retain are retained. Also, Would You agree,. . . . that Sins against the Holy Spirit are retained or Not forgiven .... (these comments are just for your consideration) - - - Would You consider the United States involvement in WW 2 as an evil action ?

[@AlexanderLayko]

It still exists but the difference is they go after traditionalists now instead of heretics.

[@in_defense_of_the_church]

Or when some who consider themselves traditionalists attack the Holy Father like the protestants do.

[@extract8058]

@@in_defense_of_the_church "the Holy Father" apparently you don't mean God the Father, you mean your earthly pope who is just a guy elevated to a position of power, no different from any high ranking politician. To think otherwise is blasphemy.

[@in_defense_of_the_church]

@@extract8058 I said what I meant and I meant what I said. The Holy Father as in the Vicar of Christ. The Pontiff. The Bishop of Rome. Yes, inasmuch as the Holy Apostles who were also just earthly men who were elevated to positions of power by the Lord Jesus Himself. And yet very different from just any high ranking politician as you paint it. To deny the Body of Christ, His Church, is to already have separated yourself from Christ so if you are here to speak about blasphemy I urge you to start with yourself.

[@R.C.425]

​@@in_defense_of_the_churchPope Francis no longer uses the Vicar of Christ. And only a fool ignores the FACT that the Pope and his p3do Cardinals are attacking tradition.

[@IrishEagIe]

​@@extract8058Are you a protestant?

[@AandM8]

Oh god. I’m only 30 seconds in and this guy is already immediately saying the same bs that the leaders of the Church can be evil but it doesn’t make the Church evil 😑 where’s that Holy Spirit guidance y’all are always talking about?

[@patrickbarry7474]

That truth you mention, couldn’t someone use that to like justify the nazis or communists. Saying it was the individuals? I am genuinely asking.

[@MrPeach1]

what was the just goal of the nazi or communist movements?

[@yourboieb4477]

No, because the Nazi and Communists overall goal was evil. Very different from the goals of the Crusaders and Inquisitions, which were defense of the homeland and of protecting the common good

[@Eye_of_a_Texan]

The Nazis goal was about German dominance and racial purity. That was the purported goal. They invaded places to gain control of wealth and to cleanse the gene pool by force. Hard to imagine a more evil intention outside of straight devil worship. The Allies were basically just fighting for survival initially. The 1st Crusade was similar. The Muslims had conquered more than half of Christendom including Byzantium, which it still controls, Spain, Portugal, France, most of Italy, north Africa including formerly Christian countries like Ethiopia, etc. They had no intention to ever stop. They seized property, enslaved whoever they wanted, etc. Again, hard to imagine a more exploitative and malicious enemy. The Crusader initially fought to simply continue existing.

[@extract8058]

Are you two joking? To defend the goal of the Crusades as righteous as your justification is no different whatsoever from outright saying that the ends justifies the means. Your sense of morality is beyond twisted, just like that of any leftist.

[@extract8058]

@@MrPeach1 So if they had a "just goal" it would justify their atrocities, ok got it. - Your Crusader rationale in a nutshell.

[@jimo-tx6385]

I nominate Pope Francis for inquiry.

[@extract8058]

Apparently the job of the Catholic apologist is to defend endlessly crimes against humanity done in the name of the pope than the more respectable action which would be to admit wrongdoing. Truly sad.

[@thescoobymike]

You’re right on the money. It’s a very disgusting practice.

[@anomalousviewer3164]

Which endless crimes, seems your brainwashing is strong, you come across with loaded presumptions based on old proporganda and revisionist history. An injustice is an injustice regardless of who committed the injustice, but been nieve and believe every claim made, isn't based on historical truth.

[@SuperSaiyanScandinavian]

you're either uneducated or just straight up brainwashed

[@SuperSaiyanScandinavian]

@@thescoobymike 🐦🧠

[@extract8058]

This is such a terrible argument. So because a few things that you as a Catholic consider good (which are by no means objectively good) happened as a result, that means according to you that the Crusades are justified, is no different from saying abortion is good because ultimately it taught someone a lesson in morality through their feelings of regret.

[@Janxiv91]

No it's not.

[@Eye_of_a_Texan]

You both misunderstood the argument and how Catholics feel about it. Maybe if you let go of your presuppositions and actually listen without prejudice you might learn something. Assuming you even care to learn anything and didn't come here with the explicit purpose to bash Catholics you've never even met.

[@extract8058]

@@Janxiv91 wow what a convincing argument! 😂

[@extract8058]

@@Eye_of_a_Texan you assuming I came here with "the explicit purpose to bash Catholics" is nothing but a completely baseless triggered response. The reason I clicked on this video was because I found it's title intriguing. I am actually shocked to see this guy defending the Crusades. I was NOT expecting that AT ALL.

[@Eye_of_a_Texan]

@@extract8058 Yet you don't understand his argument, which means you probably didnt listen. I'm always prepared to be wrong, because I often am. Let me ask you this: The allied forces in WW2 committed their share of war crimes, but should allied command have surrendered to Hitler once they learned what some of their troops did?

[@TimothyPrice-2024]

Propaganda lies