The Real Inqueistion! Raz read, Hans approved.

[alfred russel]

The historical record seems to disagree with that conclusion.  Before there was a separation between church and state (ie before the Church became embroiled with these jurisdictional battles with local kingdoms) there was a high degree of tolerance for folk religious practices and what the Inquisition would later consider to be heresy.  It is only after the Church gets into the business of taking over the jurisdiction of determining what practices should be considered heretical that the blood starts to flow.  As I said, it is smoke and mirrors to make the argument that the Inquisition didn't actually kill anyone.

There wasn't a separation of Church and State during the period of the inquisition.

The point I was making was that religion was used as a tool in power struggles, creating us vs. them religious teams. Before the central / western european world became generally christianized, the us vs. them was obvious: christians vs. non believers (pagans or muslims). Once it became generally christianized, it was bound to begin fragmenting and fighting itself.

Something like this was noticed at the time, and was part of the motivation of the crusades (giving christian warriors someone to fight lest they start fighting themselves).

During the period, there wasn't a clean distinction between the church and state--the two institutions were intertwined and mutually supporting. I don't think you can exclusively blame or credit either side for the inquisition deaths. What I think can be said is that in the medieval world, it was inevitable that people would be killing each other over having the wrong religious beliefs.

[The Minsky Moment]

During the period, there wasn't a clean distinction between the church and state--the two institutions were intertwined and mutually supporting. I don't think you can exclusively blame or credit either side for the inquisition deaths. What I think can be said is that in the medieval world, it was inevitable that people would be killing each other over having the wrong religious beliefs.

Agreed.
And that's another reason to question the premise of the OP source, that the inquisition really was about a protective function for accused heretics.  I do think some inquisitors may have wanted to get things "right" and the average inquisitor may have been a bit more squeamish about torture than the average bailiff or whatever.  But at the end of the day the function of the inquisition was to identify heretics, "correct" them if possible, and otherwise turn them over the secular power for (nasty) punishment.  Hard to spin that positively.

[PDH]

...and otherwise turn them over the secular power for (nasty) punishment.  Hard to spin that positively.

I always liked how this was called "relaxing" the unrepentant to the secular authorities.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, the opening OP.  An lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean evidence of lack. 

Yeah.  But.  Lack of evidence isn't itself evidence either.  It's still lack.

And for the Carolingian period there is evidence of a heresy - what Alcuin and other Carolingians called "Adoptionism".  Since we only have one side of the story the exact nature of what was at issue isn't certain, but it did involve accusations and proceedings against Spanish prelates.  And ultimately it led to the conviction and imprisonment of the Bishop of Urgell.  BUT NOT EXECUTION.  The punishment was exile and house arrest, interesting of itself. 

I would tentatively advance two related hypotheses about the Carolingian period:
1) The secular and religious powers of the period - Emperors, Popes, Bishops - were not enormously concerned about regional folk beliefs.  I don't think there is any questions that there were folk beliefs out there not consistent with orthodox doctrines such as they were  - the fact that the numerous sources don't discuss organized efforts to combat this is evidence of a sort.

2) The Adoptionist controversy suggests some concern about doctrinal disagreements among the elite. But the Urgell incident also suggests that was not so much a life-and-death struggle for souls and purification but probably had something to do with the Carolingian and their allied churchmen asserting control over the new marches of Catalonia.

I'm afraid I'm not well read enough on the Dark Ages to continue further.

[crazy canuck]

The historical record seems to disagree with that conclusion.  Before there was a separation between church and state (ie before the Church became embroiled with these jurisdictional battles with local kingdoms) there was a high degree of tolerance for folk religious practices and what the Inquisition would later consider to be heresy.  It is only after the Church gets into the business of taking over the jurisdiction of determining what practices should be considered heretical that the blood starts to flow.  As I said, it is smoke and mirrors to make the argument that the Inquisition didn't actually kill anyone.

There wasn't a separation of Church and State during the period of the inquisition.

Lets use different terms because I think you are confusing what I said with the modern day conception.  So instead lets put it in terms of the separation of canon law from all the various forms of secular law.  Before the inquisition the church did not try to interfere with the jurisdiction of local rulers.  The inquisition was one of the mechanisms the Church used to gain jurisidiction over a variety of decisions local rulers had long considered theirs to make.  And of course it is only after the Inquistion gets going that people start dying in large numbers.

[alfred russel]

Lets use different terms because I think you are confusing what I said with the modern day conception.  So instead lets put it in terms of the separation of canon law from all the various forms of secular law. 

I don't understand...canon law long predates the inquisition. By its nature it is distinct from secular law.

Before the inquisition the church did not try to interfere with the jurisdiction of local rulers. he inquisition was one of the mechanisms the Church used to gain jurisidiction over a variety of decisions local rulers had long considered theirs to make.

I really don't understand. Among other things the investiture controversy long predated the inquisition. Church vs. state conflicts go back to the Roman Empire.

[crazy canuck]

Lets use different terms because I think you are confusing what I said with the modern day conception.  So instead lets put it in terms of the separation of canon law from all the various forms of secular law. 

I don't understand...canon law long predates the inquisition. By its nature it is distinct from secular law.

Before the inquisition the church did not try to interfere with the jurisdiction of local rulers. he inquisition was one of the mechanisms the Church used to gain jurisidiction over a variety of decisions local rulers had long considered theirs to make.

I really don't understand. Among other things the investiture controversy long predated the inquisition. Church vs. state conflicts go back to the Roman Empire.

There was no conflict between Church and State during the Roman Empire.  The Emperor and his delegates dictated Church doctrine.  There are many examples of this. If you need some go google it.

It is true that Canon law predated the Inquisition but the point is that the Church did not try to impose Canon law on the subjects of local rulers and indeed local rulers made many decisions which the Church sought to bring under its own jurisdiction. The investiture controversy is a good example of the conflict.  While it is true that the beginning of the controversy occurred prior to the inquisition the power struggle that the actions of Pope Gregory started was by no means resolved. It is no coincidence that the Inquisition was first established as another means of the Church taking more control it over matters it viewed as being within its own jurisdiction. 

[Sheilbh]

I don't know if it's entirely true that conflict between church and state didn't exist in the Roman Empire. Arianism has an element of that and you can start to see hints of the direction the Roman church would go in in Ambrose's relations with the Empire.

[The Minsky Moment]

Arianism wasn't a Church-State conflict; it was a doctrinal conflict over which direction the Church-State complex should go.

[Sheilbh]

Arianism wasn't a Church-State conflict; it was a doctrinal conflict over which direction the Church-State complex should go.

Sure, but there was also senior Churchmen standing against the compromises of the Church-State complex in the name of orthodoxy, Popes Liberius and Damasus for example.

[Valmy]

There was no conflict between Church and State during the Roman Empire.  The Emperor and his delegates dictated Church doctrine.  There are many examples of this. If you need some go google it.

This is obviously untrue.  Constantine did not dictate doctrine he simply demanded they get it sorted out.  Afterwards several of the Emperors were Arians but never were able to dictate that as the new Orthodoxy.  And then there was Julian, he had a few conflicts with the Church.

As far as conflicts well there are plenty but St. Ambrose in particular very publicly kicked Emperor Theodosius around.  That was a big moment in Church-State relations.

Certainly after the West fell the Emperors were unable time and time and time and time (and time and time and time) and again to dictate compromise doctrines to the Church.

[Valmy]

Arianism wasn't a Church-State conflict; it was a doctrinal conflict over which direction the Church-State complex should go.

So when the Emperor and the Church stood on the different sides of the doctrinal conflict it was a Church-State conflict wasn't it?

[crazy canuck]

I don't know if it's entirely true that conflict between church and state didn't exist in the Roman Empire. Arianism has an element of that and you can start to see hints of the direction the Roman church would go in in Ambrose's relations with the Empire.

The manner in which the Church dealt with the issue of Arianism is a perfect example of the control the Emperor had over the Church and of the Emperor dictating the doctrine of the Church.  The Emperor was directly involved in first attempting to resolve the dispute by attempting to reconcile the two sides and then when that failed the Emperor called the First Council of Nicea to resolve the matter. The Emperor himself attended.  We all know that resulted in the Nicean Creed which rejected Arianism. 

What most people don't realize is that under Constantius II new Council's were held which, under the Emperor's influence (including banishing some proponents of the Nicean Creed), rejected the Nicean creed and adopted a new Creed which was closer to that of Arianism.  Shortly after many of all the proponents of the Nicean creed were preplaced.  If not for the disruption caused by Julian the Apostate coming to power the new creed would have become the orthodox creed.

Ambrose's relation with the Empire is of course complex and occurs at a time when there were again multiple Emperors.  He was very able in taking advantage of differing theological views of the Emperors.  But the point is, it was the view of the Emperors and Ambrose's ability to influence those views that won the day.

[crazy canuck]

Arianism wasn't a Church-State conflict; it was a doctrinal conflict over which direction the Church-State complex should go.

Sure, but there was also senior Churchmen standing against the compromises of the Church-State complex in the name of orthodoxy, Popes Liberius and Damasus for example.

And the object lesson is how far did that get them?  They couldn't determine the doctrine of the Church.  There are at least two reasons for this:

1) As already stated the opinion of the emperor(s) is what really counted;
2) The Pope didn't have the power or influence they had later into the middle and especially high middle ages.  Arguably the Bishops of Alexandria and Milan were more powerful and influential.

[Sheilbh]

What most people don't realize is that under Constantius II new Council's were held which, under the Emperor's influence (including banishing some proponents of the Nicean Creed), rejected the Nicean creed and adopted a new Creed which was closer to that of Arianism.  Shortly after many of all the proponents of the Nicean creed were preplaced.  If not for the disruption caused by Julian the Apostate coming to power the new creed would have become the orthodox creed.

This is part of Rome's claim to precedence: that they never embraced heresy even when it was, falsely, orthodoxy (which isn't strictly true). The Roman Church was far less affected by the move to Arianism. A large part of that is that they were less theologically sophisticated and the Western Empire was collapsing, and you're right had it continued they may well have ended up as the heretics in this case.

But I think at this point the Roman church begins to break from the church-state complex.