Secret Files of the Inquisition
Based on previously unreleased secret documents from European Archives including the Vatican, Secret Files of the Inquisition unveils the incredible true story of the Catholic Church's 500-year struggle to remain the world's only true Christian religion.
Filmed in High Definition, this 4-hour series spans medieval France in Episode 1, 15th century Spain in Episode 2, Renaissance Italy in Episode 3 and mid-nineteenth century Europe in Episode 4. Historians, experts and Church authorities advise on the handling of this controversial subject matter.
At the dawn of the second millennium Europe was slowly emerging from the blackness and ignorance of the Dark Ages. There were no nations and the people were loyal only to their immediate community and to God. The keeper of God's word was the Catholic Church, the only religion in all of Christendom.
The supreme religious leader, the Pope in Rome, crowned the Kings who became rulers of the Holy Roman Empire stretching from Sicily north to Poland. The Emperor was ruler of the temporal world while the Pope and his Bishops reigned supreme over the Spiritual world.
By the 12th and 13th century, cracks began appearing in this ordered world. Emperors no longer submitted to being crowned by the Pope and across Europe Kings demanded the right to select their own Bishops. But for the Pope the most terrifying threat came from upstart Christian sects who challenged church doctrine and the absolute power of the Roman Pope.
To preserve the purity of the faith and the unquestioned authority of the Pope, the Church began to crack down on all dissenting with a new weapon: the Inquisition. For over half a millennium a system of mass terror reigned. Thousands were subject to secret courts, torture and punishment.
It amazes me how folks watch videos like this and then sit back and draw their conclusions, without actually looking at ALL THE FACTS.
It is propaganda just like we see in politics today as used by the media to smear their political opponents. The same methods and approach are used to smear the catholic church and have been used for 2000 years.
Sure there are sinners in the church. In fact Judas an apostle who walked with Jesus was stealing from their funds and eventually betrayed Jesus and killed himself. Peter who wrote scripture and for us catholics was the first pope and for protestants at least an apostle, betrayed Jesus as well and later even acted the part of a hypocrite.
And yet people making videos such as this one, rely on a double standard: on the one hand they praise Jesus while not condemning him for appointing Judas, who Jesus knew would betray him, but on the other hand they condemn catholics who do not have such ability to know before hand that one of their leaders will betray Christ and His church.
They condemn the catholic church as being from hell because some of its leaders have done sinful things while ignoring the fact that even those that Jesus appointed directly and face to face also did sinful things.
If in Jesus own circles 2 out of 12 betrayed him, how much should we expect this number to increase exponentially over 2000 years.
Double standard.
"The Vatican's treasure of solid gold has been estimated by the United Nations World Magazine to amount to several billion dollars. A large bulk of this is stored in gold ingots with the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, while banks in England and Switzerland hold the rest. But this is just a small portion of the wealth of the Vatican, which in the U.S. alone, is greater than that of the five wealthiest giant corporations of the country. When to that is added all the real estate, property, stocks and shares abroad, then the staggering accumulation of the wealth of the Catholic church becomes so formidable as to defy any rational assessment."
sickness oftentimes
masquarades as righteousness...
even to this day...
Catholic church is innocent ok ? derpy derp
To say that the medieval church was not responsible for the atrocities, inhumane torture , mass killings & burning of innocent people like someone said in the above mentioned video .....is simply a criminal distortion of the historic facts & truths in that regard & a ridiculous tragic-hilarious desperate attempt to "clear " the name of the church .
Terrible .
I wonder how is it still possible to believe in christianity after all that shameful past of the church .
The inquisition is the forrunner of the nazi gestapo , stasi, kgb , CIA ....= religious nazism fascism at its worst = worse than that in fact .
To claim that the Catholic church is Christian or the guardians of Christian teaching is to make a mockery of Christ and the bible. The Catholic church has perverted and distorted the holy scriptures in their pursuit of power and wealth. I really don't know how or why anybody with any sense would give the Catholic church any credibility or respectability in todays world after what they have done. They are guilty of the most heinous crimes against humanity and continue to this day with their sexual abuse of children. Really, can anybody really see Jesus agreeing with their behavior? The reality is, the Catholic church is a cult and they shall receive their judgment in due time. If you read revelations chapter 17 it gives a description of the Roman catholic church "Women on the beast" and her eventually destruction.
Though I do agree inpart of the genocide and torture of the inquisition, I do not agree on their description of the Cathers. The Cathers, Waldenses, Albegenes were bible believing christians that were persecuted for their unwillingness to bow to roman papcy. They believed that the scriptures were the sole authority and not the pope. This is the reason why the inquisators came to northern Italy and southern France. The reality is, there have always been bible believing christians during the time of the false Catholic church. Lastly, the reason the Catholic church didn't want people to read, posses, or translate the bible is because they knew once people read the bible it would expose the false doctrines of the Catholic cult. Does anybody really think that Jesus would sanction or give approval of systematic killing and torture(i.e inquisition)?
That Rev. Joseph A. Di Noia makes me sick. Amongst other folllies he says the notion of freedom of conscience is highly defined in modern times but wasn't as clear in those times. Didn't the clergy have bibles that stated unequivocally that faith was based on individual conscience and that a man's will and actions upon his will determined his entry into the kingdom of God? This is the same type of B.S. smoke screening that allowed an ex hitler youth bishop who failed to act on proven cases of sodomising children and indeed covered up such crimes ( in both church and state law) to become a pope. The Popes and their organisation today are still more focused on their position in authority than in God's will. I suppose Di Noia didn't get to become Vatican Undersecretary by speaking sense as you or I nor indeed the Bible would have it.
Damn him and his ilk. No surprise that the inventors of the Jewish Ghetto were in league with the Nazis up to the bitter end eh?
Just a bit surprised that the USA water boarding came from there.
For instance among a few other infos in there.
They mentioned that historians had access to the vatican archives as late as the 60's! 1,960 years of abuses?
Just to obtain a : -" -"We're so sorry, we deeply regret"?
-Then, business a usual...
Bottom line, there ain't nothing holy in any religion.
Here again, all thse popes and their hired guns had only one thing in mind: -Steal what others have earned.
-Hey! Up to a point where they comitted abductionS in the 20th century.
Not one single religion is for the the good faith human kind.
It's all hoaxes and the catholic confession sure is one ofthe worst pleague human kind ever knew.
That review of religious crimes documentary was complete.
Guilty as charge. Send them to the frying pool tomorow at dawn.
Nothing secret in here, only a downplayed version of the real violence and oppression in the name of 'God'.
is Christianity a violent religion that calls for murder, pillage and destruction of unbelievers, infidels and heathens? if so then why are the muslims asked to denounce the atrocity done in their name? who are the hypocrites?
how different history would have been different if Napoleon or the Italian army had of dismantled the vatican a few centuries ago.
I can clearly see the link now between the catholic church and Nazism.
The crimes of the 'Holy Roman Apostolic and Catholic Church' are legion.
The Church, to date(Wed, May 11, 2011, CE), while recognizing that some of the heinous events actually did take place, has never acknowledged any single one of them as a crime when characterized as specific solely to the Church itself.
This fact says volumes about the 'He' of whom the Catholic Church purportedly is the one and only temporal representative.
This says(according to its very own doctrine) that it, the 'Holy Roman Apostolic and Catholic Church, one and only Temporal Representative of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus, The Christ, at One with The Father and Second Person of The Blessed Trinity', can't even say, I'm sorry.
So much for Jesus.
the catholic church is such a large piece of garbage, they persecuted john wyclf when he started to translate the bible into english, and later claimed he was a heretic after he was dead, and had his bones dug up and burnt, the are bright, aren't they. the catholic church is such a joke, and i laugh at it. and i am a dye in the wool christian
The Jews weren't the only ones to suffer under the Inquisition and the Spanish Monarchy. Muslims followed the same fate. They were tortured, murdered, annihilated, and, finally, expelled. Though, some of them fought until the end. I would've liked to see more of the repression of Muslims at this time when the Ottomans were rising in the Mediterranean.
wow... only a couple of days since the post and more than 130 people commented on this. Obviously the science vs. religion debate is pretty far from being settled...
The catholic church at the time (bit less now) was a very powerful institution, the vatican state was often at war, and inquisition has very little to do with belief and much more with power. Giordano Bruno was burned at stake not only because he believed in an infinite universe (with the earth rotating around the sun - same time as galileo), but because he exhorted people to think and search for the truth by themselves, and the church could not allow that, nor can any institution in power, and that's why they invented propaganda.
This has nothing to do with personal belief.
I choose to be agnostic (verging on atheist) but I have full respect of people who want to believe that there's an unexplained dimension to our lives, as long as they think about it and question their beliefs.
Anyway, interesting docudrama... but well cheesy!
@Ozyxcba1; My comparrison between Dawkins and Bin Laddin was solely on the merrit of his Zealotry as well as his obvious belif that all men should think as he does. Also that those who do not think as he does are lesser than he and deserve scorn and hate. Fact is I agree with Dawkins on some points such as secular schools without religious interference into the carriculum. I also agree that creationism is silly and should disappear back to where it came from. I do not however support Dawkins opinion that all people of faith are idiots and trash, worthy of endles diatribes. The words you use in this post to me shows you are no different either. You come out with insults and baseless angry statements. You seek to verbally assault those who disagree with you rather than address them properly, with well thought comments and supporting facts or theory. You could learn a thing or two from others on here such as Vlatko and Epicurious. Neither of them agree with me, and both are quite decidedly against organized religion. They made arguments here that made sense and showed reason behind their opinions. You have not.
As to how you finnished your comment; I feel about as threatened by you as my "enemy" as I would any person who grows his cyber muscles and attempts to be vauguely threatening in a comment forum, which is to say not at all. Also your assertion that I am somehow inferior in my intellect is cut and paste of the flaw in Dawkins' work. I tested at a 156 IQ level in the seventh grade. I have been a MENSA member for fifteen years, I joined the NY chapter at age eighteen. I have not tested in quite some time but I assure you I am not lacking in inteligence. You have only acted as the second person in this comment section to substatiate my points. You cannot argue that religion is all bad and that religious people are all bad based uppon the premise that they force their beliefs onto others and have agressive mentality, when in fact both of those descriptors fit you to the letter. The way you speak to those who are not of like mind to you is quite simillar to the way any agressive biggot has done throughout the ages.
I hope that you will pardon my some what biting tone in my response. I don't intend personal insult. I only feel, quite honestly, that both you and Achems are quite capable of forming a reasonable debate without all the rhetoric and insult. Your stance against organized religion is noted and I actually agree to an extent. However I feel that you both loose a bit of credibility when you simply blurt out a hatefull comment painting everyone in a large population with broad strokes. In my mind it is no different than someone disparaging an entire race because they were mugged by one person who was part of that race.
@ vlatko you had it coming to you this week you just kicked someones god in the balls 3 times in a row this week Secret Files of the Inquisition, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Derren Brown: Miracles for Sale. lol Keep up the good work your doing souring the bitter sweet taste of religion.
@SaintNarcissus,
"Many of your arguments are not dealing with me and what I am addressing, but rather falling back on broad strokes about why religion is bad."
I can't deal with you. I don't know you. I can't deal with the other 6 billion people. I don't know them. However I can deal with the image that the religion is reflecting on the society and the world as a whole, from my perspective, of course.
"To say that they are not mutually exclusive and incompatible, is not the same as saying they are compatible and mutually inclusive."
Am I misunderstanding something here. So what are they, if science and religion are not mutually exclusive and incompatible?
...the rants and arguments that you, Achems, Dawkins, and others parrot...
Right on. More ad hominems. Just resort to name calling, if that makes you feel better.
"To say "Religion is..." is meaningless. You must address individual traditions, or better yet individual people."
I can, but I certainly must not address individual traditions and people. All religious traditions (if you've studied them) boil down to the same pattern. Set of doctrines, rules, rituals, techniques for reaching enlightenment, prayers, chanting, afterlife, hell, heaven, reincarnation, etc. It's all copy/paste to a certain degree. That's why to say "religion is..." is very meaningful in fact.
However if you want so much I can address certain tradition. In which sect do you belong?
"Religion need not always be dogmatic, so certainly religion is not itself dogma."
Show me one religion which is not dogmatic and why?
"For those on the attack, as you are in this case..." Hmmm... Why I thought you're on the attack?
"I dare say, evidenced by your repetitious arguments which hold a very clear line, that your beliefs are far more dogmatic then mine, and again I assert that it is inacurate (poor logic) and unfair (poor ethics) for
you to assume this means I am somehow a bad Christian."
I don't have any beliefs. I don't believe in any kind of Religion/God. I tend to think rationally. Therefore there is no dogma in my life I can assure you. And I never said you're bad Christian. You're making this up.
"Someone bound by dogma will find it impossible to accept any challenge to their rigid beliefs. This sounds more like your position than mine."
Again I don't have beliefs, therefore that is not my position.
"You may have been better off, in terms of looking at how the world
works, spending time with religious people instead. That would have
taught you far more."
Well... guess what? I did. I've spent almost an year 24/7 working, eating, sleeping, discussing, socializing together with people from around 45 different nations from all the continents, therefore I was living with a large group of people with such a diverse cultural, traditional and religious background (almost all major religions). And believe me, that was the biggest school in my life. The world literally exploded in me.
"I want to discuss why you feel it is intellectually tenable to make
blanket statements about billions of people you have never met, instead
of taking them each as they are, individuals like myself."
I don't make blanket statements about people, but I do make statements about the religion, as an organization.
An Atheist Inquisition is long overdue. Good doc 8/10
I know the pieces fit...
Richard Dawkins wrote that religion is a disease, a sickness, a virus of the mind, says that religious beliefs are mind parasites. I completely agree! And my take, it always strives to be contagious!!
Imagine a beautiful child, say 6 years old, she believes that "Thomas the Tank Engine" really exists. She believes in Father Christmas, and when she grows up her ambition is to be a tooth fairy. This little girl is of an age to believe whatever you tell her. If you tell her about witches changing princes into frogs she will believe you.
If you tell her that bad children roast forever in hell, she will have nightmares. A human child by evolution is shaped by evolution to soak up the culture of her people. A lot of, if not most religious parents will even by default ingrain their religious beliefs on the poor unsuspecting children.
Instill the fear of "HELL" and the fear of "DEATH" at a very early age, an age when that should be the farthest things from their forming minds!!
Is "Dawkins a candidate for "all in the family" too Hmmm?
@SaintNarcissus,
"I would add that neither are they incompatible or mutually exclusive."
When giving such a statements, you should probably explain why do you think science and religion are compatible and mutually inclusive.
"Secondly, you have severely oversimplified religion. To simply equate religion with dogma is inaccurate and misleading."
Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or by extension by some other group or organization. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioner or believers. (Wikipedia).
For you maybe the religion is something else, but in a broader sense religion IS dogma.
"I don't mind being accused of cherry-picking, but what on earth gives you authority to declare it "not ok?"
I don't have that authority, I never said I have. It just looks quite "unprofessional" when religious people cherry-pick.
"I am not going to wade into the theology of God the Father and the old testament unless you are a theology scholar... Unless you know more than a broad overview, and have truly studied, I am going to assume that conversation would be a fruitless one..."
Buy saying this you clearly want to put yourself in a kind of "superimposed" mode. Being a theologian doesn't give you any authority over the interpretation of the Bible. It will be just one more interpretation (yours). There is a saying: "If you want to create an Atheist, just make him read the Bible."
And yes I have read the OT, NT (twice), Dhammapada, Mahabharata, Ramayana, lot's of books on Buddhism, Zen, Jainism, lot's of stuff written by the famous philosophers, new age gurus, etc. Practically I've self studied almost all major religions. And finally I've read lot of scientific books and watched tons of documentaries. So what do you want to discuss about? What is your specialty? I believe I have a broad view on things, since I've skimmed all that. Would you agree?
"Really, do you know what my creed is? Do you really presume you are so wise and learned that you can boil down THE creed of global Christianity (hint there isn't one) and therefore impugn it?"
I don't know what your creed is. And honestly I don't care. And there is no global Christianity, since there are reported to be approximately 38,000 Christian denominations, who would probably "kill each other" on sight. You know why there are so much Christian sects? Because everyone is interpreting the Bible differently, and therefore it's establishing different doctrines (dogma).
"If you were to open yourself enough to someone else's view, you would discover that for some of us we feel it is part of our moral imperative, derived from our spiritual practice and belief, to remove any and all such divisions."
Yes, you might want to remove the divisions, but it want happen since there are 19 major religions in the world, and "God" knows how many of their variations. All that is DIVISION.