Posted on 04/23/2015 9:38:18 AM PDT by SweetAkitoRose
I said nothing about a Coptic pope. I said the Inquisition was ordered by the Bishop of Rome, who calls himself the pope. Your reply was nonsensical blather about a Coptic pope calling the Inquisition. Nope. He didn't. It was called by the [putative] head of your Church, not some obscure prelate.
The Inquisition did exist in England; Henry VIII and later More were its chief prosecutors. Pretending there was no Inquisition doesn't make it true. The Romanists tortured, imprisoned, and murdered Christians. That makes it an Inquisition, whether your agree to call it that or not.
Peter Ackroyd, sympathetic biographer of More:
After the execution, More expressed his satisfaction: “[He] burned as there was neuer wretche I wene better worthy.” More cherished the image of Tewkesbury burning not just on earth, but in hell, “an hote fyrebronde burnynge at hys bakke, that all the water in the worlde wyll neuer be able to quenche.”
Yes, gloating over a man's disgusting murder makes you a sadomasochistic pervert. Fantasizing about having a red hot poker shoved up his rectum in hell, burning forever, seals the deal for all time. More was a monster. So are his defenders, and certainly his beatifiers.
Richard Marius:
and while [More] was in office he did everything in his power to bring that extermination [of Protestants] to pass. That he did not succeed in becoming England’s Torquemada was a consequence of the king’s quarrel with the pope and not a result of any quality of mercy that stirred through More’s own heart.
James Wood:
With the help of John Stokesley, the Bishop of London, More personally broke into the houses of suspected heretics, arresting them on the spot and sometimes interrogating them in his own home. He imprisoned one man in the porter’s lodge of his house, and had him put in the stocks.
That's torture.
Wood, again:
Six rebellious Oxford students were kept for months in a fish cellar; three of them died in prison.
That's torture to the point of death.
Wood, again:
Six protesters were burned under More’s chancellorship, and perhaps forty were imprisoned.
That's torture, and murder. And note that during the previous Chancellorship -- under a cleric of the Roman Church -- no one was burned.
Jasper Ridley:
“a particularly nasty sadomasochistic pervert.”
Thomas Audley, who succeeded More as Lord Chancellor and pronounced the death sentence on him:
“We spare you the methods that you used on others.”
Never refuted.
Moynahan [and Foxe, via Moynahan]:
Tewkesbury was held in the porter's lodge at More's Chelsea house, so Foxe wrote, pinioned `hand, foot, and head in the stocks', for six days without release.
Yes, that's torture.
Foxe claimed that More , had Tewkesbury whipped at 'Jesu's tree' in his garden, `and also twisted his brows with small ropes, so that the blood started out of his eyes'.
Yes, that's torture.
This was, of course, the torture also described by Segar; Nicholson. Tewkesbury was then sent to the Tower and racked until he was nearly lame.
Yes, that's torture.
In all, at least three separate contemporaries testified to More torturing "heretics" in his home. His own daughter told her husband of More's perverted masochism. His beloved Meg, according to Roper, washed More's own blood from his shirts after his self-flagellations.
Your response no doubt will be:
"1) It wasn't so bad. 2) The Magisterium, didn't call the interrogation, torture, and murder of Christian martyrs in an England an Inquisition. Therefore, it was not an Inquisition. It just involved forced interrogation, torture and murder. and 3) More didn't really torture anybody, despite three witnesses, his own daughter's description of his sicko 'alternative lifestyle' and his own self-professed and thoroughly vile relish at the torture and murder of prisoners in his care."
And don't worry. I've saved a copy, so by all means alert the mods again, and I'll be glad to post it until the Romanist book burners give up.
“More’s own words betray him a disgusting sicko.”
Actually, no.
“I said nothing about a Coptic pope.”
Exactly. You said only one group claimed to have a pope. Actually the Coptics and Catholics both claim to have a pope.
“I said the Inquisition was ordered by the Bishop of Rome, who calls himself the pope. Your reply was nonsensical blather about a Coptic pope calling the Inquisition. Nope.”
That’s false. I never once said that a Coptic pope called an inquisition. You’re making up something that NO ONE HERE CLAIMED.
“He didn’t. It was called by the [putative] head of your Church, not some obscure prelate.”
The point is that you were wrong, and you are.
“The Inquisition did exist in England; Henry VIII and later More were its chief prosecutors.”
Nope.
“Pretending there was no Inquisition doesn’t make it true.”
Except I am not pretending and there was no “papal” inquisition or any inquisition for heresy in England. That is just a fact.
“The Romanists tortured, imprisoned, and murdered Christians.”
No. There were no “Romanists” - that is a term invented by Protestant controversialists and is completely anachonistic. And no one was murdered.
“That makes it an Inquisition, whether your agree to call it that or not.”
No. An inquisition makes it an inquisition. And it would have to be an inquisition of the sort established for heresy and along the lines like those in European inquisitions. No such thing unfolded in England. Look at your comment. You’re essentially saying you can make up whatever you like and as long as it fits some made up phony criteria you’ve established out of thin air.
“Yes, gloating over a man’s disgusting murder makes you a sadomasochistic pervert.”
No. There was no murder. If someone gloats over a criminal buying the farm that doesn’t mean he is a “sadomasochistic pervert.” If that were the case, then almost every FR would be that.
“Fantasizing about having a red hot poker shoved up his rectum in hell, burning forever, seals the deal for all time. More was a monster. So are his defenders, and certainly his beatifiers.”
Nope. More was simply more honest than those behind a computer in 2015 who might attack him.
Your quote from Marius is useless because it is mere speculation.
“That’s torture.”
It was not viewed as such at the time and is not much worse than putting a man in shackles.
“That’s torture to the point of death.”
No torture is even mentioned. How can it be torture when no torture is mentioned? No torture at all.
“That’s torture, and murder.”
Nope. Execution. Is killing a criminal in a gas chamber torture? Some say it is. Some say it is not. What can’t be denied is that it is execution. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/12/oklahoma-gas-chamber_n_6657120.html
“And note that during the previous Chancellorship — under a cleric of the Roman Church — no one was burned.”
The previous chancellor (Richard Wingfield) was only chancellor for one or two years. Did you even know that? Did you even know that nine Lollard heretics were executed in Conventry alone between 1515 and 1522? 72 were arrested in that area in the same time period and not executed or otherwise punished. That was when Henry Marney was chancellor. Did you know ANY OF THIS?
“Jasper Ridley: “a particularly nasty sadomasochistic pervert.””
And Ridley, the conscientious objector and leftwinger would have no agenda there, right? Your true colors are showing through as you embrace the leftists in apparent desperation.
“Thomas Audley, who succeeded More as Lord Chancellor and pronounced the death sentence on him:“We spare you the methods that you used on others.””
No, gee, he was just beheaded after being tried on perjured testimony for sticking to the only faith that almost anyone in England had ever known for almost 1,000 years.
“Never refuted.”
Doesn’t have to be. It doesn’t prove anything.
“Moynahan [and Foxe, via Moynahan]: Tewkesbury was held in the porter’s lodge at More’s Chelsea house, so Foxe wrote, pinioned `hand, foot, and head in the stocks’, for six days without release.”
Again, that doesn’t prove anything. Stocks were used even in America. In Arkansas they almost showed up again in 1989: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2519&dat=19890813&id=EC5iAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MncNAAAAIBAJ&pg=2502,3040453&hl=en
“Yes, that’s torture.”
You must be crying then over this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAhHUDXiGGw
“Foxe claimed that More , had Tewkesbury whipped at ‘Jesu’s tree’ in his garden, `and also twisted his brows with small ropes, so that the blood started out of his eyes’. Yes, that’s torture.”
Standard for the say and practiced in the state of Delaware until 1910. Still on the books in Delaware in 1964: http://www.nytimes.com/1964/02/02/public-flogging-seems-near-an-end-in-delaware.html?_r=0 Still on the books in Maryland until 1953.
“This was, of course, the torture also described by Segar; Nicholson. Tewkesbury was then sent to the Tower and racked until he was nearly lame. Yes, that’s torture.”
Torture was sometimes practiced - especially in search of information about conspiracies - just as we did with water boarding. More did nothing that was considered wrong for his age. Just as many people find no fault with water boarding suspected jihadists.
“In all, at least three separate contemporaries testified to More torturing “heretics” in his home.”
which proves nothing of your original claim. Remember, I already proved that it was not uncommon to imprison men in private homes (even in North America during the American Revolution). I also proved that what we consider torture now they did not consider then to be torture or they considered it to be proper if necessary for information or punishment. Hence, public flogging was still legal - if no longer used - in Delaware in the mid 1960s. You either know none of this or perhaps you do not see that it completely vitiates your claims.
“His own daughter told her husband of More’s perverted masochism. His beloved Meg, according to Roper, washed More’s own blood from his shirts after his self-flagellations.”
Self-flagellation is not masochism. No mortification in itself is.
“Your response no doubt will be:”
My response is absolutely correct.
“1) It wasn’t so bad.”
I am sure it was awful for those receiving it. But would you oppose water boarding of jihadists or are you a hypocrite?
“2) The Magisterium, didn’t call the interrogation, torture, and murder of Christian martyrs in an England an Inquisition.”
No, there simply was no inquisition in England. It didn’t exist.
“Therefore, it was not an Inquisition. It just involved forced interrogation, torture and murder.”
No, there simply wasn’t an inquisition because there wasn’t an inquisition. Forced interrogation - which you are now separating torture) was extremely rare - more rare than water boarding of jihadists. And there was no murder.
“and 3) More didn’t really torture anybody, despite three witnesses, his own daughter’s description of his sicko ‘alternative lifestyle’ and his own self-professed and thoroughly vile relish at the torture and murder of prisoners in his care.””
He relished no murder for no murder was committed. Torture was used in his day - and what you are calling torture was legal in the United States until our lifetime in state law in Delaware and was practiced just a decade ago by the Bush administration. Are you okay with that too?
“And don’t worry. I’ve saved a copy, so by all means alert the mods again, and I’ll be glad to post it until the Romanist book burners give up.”
I never alerted them in the first place about your last post - and I already told you that. But if it makes you feel better to believe in yet another thing that isn’t true for whatever reason, be my guest. Most likely another posted alerted the Mod. If you look at your posts dispassionately, it is obvious why.
As with More, I am content to have your own words condemn you, and for anyone reading your myriad excuses for perverted sadomasochism, Inquisition, oppression, torture, and murder to make their own determination as to the nature of you, your “church” and its “saints.”
“As with More, I am content to have your own words condemn you,”
Since I have been right on every point - and you’ve been wrong repeatedly - there is nothing that condemns me.
“and for anyone reading your myriad excuses for perverted sadomasochism, Inquisition, oppression, torture, and murder to make their own determination as to the nature of you, your “church” and its “saints.””
I make no excuses. The 16th century was different from our own. It takes intelligence and common sense to know that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.