Were the Popes right to call fellow Popes "Antichrist"?

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
So the three Papal lines were anathamatizing their own armies - but the civil government was going ahead with it anyway?

Is this what you were thinking as a Baptist about these historic events - prior to choosing to be Catholic? Do you realize how far that goes against the historic record - even of the RCC itself on that history??

Well, you are being rather reactionary aren't you? I expressed what happened during the Papal Schism. It was political maneuvering all the way. If you took a deep breath and read what I wrote you would have noticed several things. 1) I said Pope Urban was arrogant. 2) That the Cardinals whom had allegiances tied to political interest from their country of origin like the French. 3) You would have also noted that I said certain popes had become the puppets of certain governments especially that of the King of France.
Every thing I have said is true. Also let me tell you something about Bokenkotter. Those liberal priest I spoke about that don't properly adhere to Church teaching, well he's one of them. He has an agenda to promote his heretical views and make the church accept them so, I don't trust his historical analysis.

1. Is it your claim that history cannot be told "or known" by anyone but a Catholic that believes as you do - such that even other Catholic historians cannot be trusted if they do not hold to certain Catholic doctrines the way you do?

2. Ok - fine -then how could you ever have come to this conclusion as a Baptist - thinking about looking into joining the Catholic Church?? Were you really saying to yourself "not only do I reject all Baptist historians as neutral objective sources - as I contemplate moving to the RCC - I also reject all CATHOLIC historians if they mention unfavorable events in history about the RCC or hold to any point of doctrine not approved of by the Pope - for such historians cannot possibly be neutral and unbiased in their report of history?"

That is pretty hard to believe that a Baptist would be going that far as he/she contemplates the possibility of joining the Catholic Church and takes the first step by looking into history for the facts.

You are losing me on this one. How did you do it??

The fact is when I was Baptist I wanted to find out the truth about things I read history books and researched historical documents just to verify them. I came across a lot of historical summaries and perspectives that certainly were biased.

Indeed - but you are saying you rejected the Baptist historians AND the Catholic historians if they did not hide certain facts in history unfavorable to the Catholic church --- "as a Baptist"???

Note the book you read this history from doesn't have an imprimatur on it.

Which would certainly be a problem for a cradle-catholic. But normally Baptists don't insist on an "imprimatur" as as the sign and seal of neutrality and objectivity.

Have you ever met a baptist that insisted that historians he/she accepts must first get Papal Imprimatur to be deemed truly neutral, objective and unbiased?

I mean ---... ever??

Therefore this priest wanted to published without having his book properly reviewed or scrutinized for accuracy.

Again the claim that a Baptist would insist on a Papal Imprimatur before accepting an account of Catholic history... ?? Really?

This exceeds my ability to imagine such a thing - quite frankly.

So you can see a clear connection between civil groups, men who wanted power, and governments all trying to get their "Pope" to support their goals into office.

What I see is both Catholic and non-Catholic historians describing the Papacy as 'in its golden age" in the dark ages - running the whole of Europe to a much greater extent than the Roman Caesars. What I see is that in the Year 2000 the RCC itself claimed it had to drop the facade of pretending the the civil powers were the true actors and masterminds in the dark ages - and fully admit that it was the Papacy pure and simple.

You are coming from the very wrong idea that the Pope was supreme in all things in Europe.

Which is how Catholic historians and analysts portray it -- and it is how protestant historians describe it and it is how the conference held by the Vatican in the year 2000 described it.

How much objectivity would need to be tossed out to ignore the broad spectrum of agreement on this point?

And certain Popes wanted Power for themselves as well which is why each pope excommunicated the followers of the other Popes. And Urban did do these horrible things. But Nothing I've said suggests otherwise. There were bad popes and there were good popes.

Certainly the Catholic church does admit to what it calls "wicked popes". And there is apparently a long list of them.

Let us say for the sake of argument that all three papal lines fully active - with their own armies at war with each other - and plenary indulgences promised to all that should die in battle - is the norm for that time.

The question is about their calling each other by the term "antichrist'.

Wouldn't you agree that instead of having loyal devoted catholics killing each other across the whole of Europe - as Bokenkotter points out - it would have been better to simply say to each other 'well my brother we apparently do not see eye to eye on all points - so go your way in peace and may God be with you and your followers"??

Or was every Pope and every council of Cardinals in error in that they chose the path of "hey all you other Popes - are antichrist" and also war?

But then what can I expect from an author who doesn't have an imprimatur on his book?

Again - not a surprising bias for a cradle catholic - I just find it hard to be believe that a Baptist would have insisted on Papal imprimatures before accepting the report of Catholic historians. It is one stretch to claim that a Baptist would start by rejecting Baptist historians - but it is a far bigger stretch to argue that a Baptist would insist on reject Catholic historians of they lacked Papal imprimatur declaring acceptance by the Pope.

However, this "Catholic" isn't really a reliable "Catholic" source as I have already explained. He falls into the category of Hans Kung and other dissenting Catholics lay and clergy. But that doesn't mean everything he says is false.

Indeed it is hard to believe that the litmus test for a historian must be "do you agree with the Pope on doctrine - if not that you are not allowed or trusted in reporting historic events that might not be approved of by the Pope".

I think you can see how this is pretty difficult to swallow given that we are having this discussion on a Baptist board.

By every measure Bokenkotter is pro-Catholic, is practicing Catholic - is not a Baptist. He begins his book with the self-criticism that he is burying much of the cruelty and brutality and complicity in the history he is reporting in service to his bias in favor of the Catholic Church.

Not something a Baptist historian would be tempted to do.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

1. Is it your claim that history cannot be told "or known" by anyone but a Catholic that believes as you do - such that even other Catholic historians cannot be trusted if they do not hold to certain Catholic doctrines the way you do?

What I'm saying is that the time period which is under discussion was a lot more complicated than any one simplistic outlook. Generally Protestants and interestingly enough many media secular groups hold that Papal authority was the supreme authority in Europe. That just wasn't the case. It depends on what you are talking about. And by the way not all Protestants in Academia have this simplistic outlook. I was commenting on them.

2. Ok - fine -then how could you ever have come to this conclusion as a Baptist - thinking about looking into joining the Catholic Church?? Were you really saying to yourself "not only do I reject all Baptist historians as neutral objective sources - as I contemplate moving to the RCC - I also reject all CATHOLIC historians if they mention unfavorable events in history about the RCC or hold to any point of doctrine not approved of by the Pope - for such historians cannot possibly be neutral and unbiased in their report of history?"

Totally different subject. How I turned from being Baptist to Catholic didn't happen overnight and my discussion wasn't about how I became Catholic. If you want me to share fine. But it is a separate discussion than what we are having about the Papal Schism.

That is pretty hard to believe that a Baptist would be going that far as he/she contemplates the possibility of joining the Catholic Church and takes the first step by looking into history for the facts

Like I said it didn't happen over night it was a process which I don't mind sharing but you seem to be confusing the two.

You are losing me on this one. How did you do it??

This is two different topics. It seems you are perplexed by how I left Baptist to become Catholic. Well, as I said it didn't happen overnight and to be honest I didn't want to become Catholic. But the evidence swayed me. The reason I didn't want to become Catholic is because I was raised a Catholic by parents who were no more Catholic than Hitchens. Because like many people have expressed on this web site they were your typical non faithful Catholics. Went to Church because it was the family thing to do. Saying prayers by remote control and saying confession to free you up to sin some more. It was a miserable immoral life. But let me tell you I heard things like Jesus died for my sins and that he rose from the dead but in all honesty, it went right over my head. I was Catholic because my family was Catholic not because I had faith. That Lady I told you about exposed me to SDA services but quite honestly I was bored in them as well. It wasn't until my father was assigned to East Africa and I went to a non denominational boarding School that I really was presented the Gospel in a two fold manner. 1) by the way the staff witnessed Christ in their lives and 2) by evangelical preaching of the Gospel. During spiritual emphasis week a missionary message touched my heart and I wanted to give my life to Jesus Christ. Which I did. I went up for the alter call and the whole 9 yards. My life changed. I started to read the bible and every day was beautiful. I used to wake up praising the Lord in song before my housemates woke up (boarding School). When I went home to Mass I had the same response most people had here. Somehow I ignored the scripture reading but when listening to the homily (Catholic for Sermon) all I heard was some social justice nonsense. Might as well go to a communist convention for all I cared. I wanted the word! So I told my father that I could no longer be Catholic and I left the Church. It started a 25 year war with him. I mean we even argued at my sisters wedding he called me a stupid protestant and I said he was ignorant of the gospel. Also there was an unforeseen side effect now as I look back. Going to a non denominational school left me a little rudderless. On the upside I was exposed to several denominations. I always liked the Baptist the best because of the emphasis on the bible. But on the other hand I was opened to the Pentecostals because of the excitement and seeming consistency with scriptural events. Also I for a short time fellowshipped with some messianic Jews and I learned a lot about Judaism and Christianity from that stand point. Messianic Jews are charismatic btw and I wondered why couldn't people still speak in tongues? I even went to a Pentecostal university to learn more of their beliefs and fortunately it cured me of my by overly opened to Pentecostals and the Pentecostal movement. Over the 25 years of my life every Church I attended had to have this one prerequisite: It had to be bible based. Over the same years I came to the quick conclusion that this prerequisite wasn't enough as many people had differing interpretations of the Scriptures. Ah but I could over look some of that as long as they held to the basics of Salvation right? Well, among Academic Protestant there are some differences there as well. I ended up going to a Baptist University for Grad school and it was there I began to question some things about what I generally accepted. It didn't end there but another incident happened. Dan Brown came out with his best seller the Da'Vinci Code. I was going to a southern Baptist Church at this time and my Pastor asked me to use Lee Stroble's book to help teach an adult Sunday School class why Dan Brown wasn't correct in some of his assertions. In order to answer questions for the Class I determined to study history. And at first I only used Protestant sources which were very generalized like Rose Publications. That class went pretty well and because of the subject matter it grew I ended up doing two classes. But questions about history and scriptures came up that I had to actually go and do more research on which I did. I was surprised how many adults only had a cursory knowledge of the scriptures so I approached the Pastor and said why didn't we offer a class that went over the entire scripture thoroughly? He said sure and "why don't you teach it. I'll give you any resource you need." I spent the next year going over the scriptures and its application in the past in the culture in which it was written but as I was asked questions I also asked question which required more study. Some answers couldn't easily be found so I contacted some professors I stayed in contact with. I had my pastor get in touch with professors he knew at Gordon Conwell and in short order I developed quite the Christian library. Everything from Textual Critism by Metzger, works by Norman Geisler, to Dr. Archer's Encylopedia of bible difficulties, to FF Bruce, to Karen Jobes and Moises Silva, Robert Wilken, and you may be surprised to note I even have a copy of Hislop's the two Babylons and Paul Schrotenboer "Roman Catholicism a Contemporary Evanglical Perspective. And many more books besides, I've always been a bit of a bibliophile. But a long story short as if it isn't long enough. I felt like a detective discovering what really happened historically and discovered that 1) I had been wrong about what Catholics believed because a lot of source data that come from protestants site catholic sources and not only in an antagonistic way but as supportive documentation. But that 2) as I learned more about the bible its develoment down to the current day and history I also began to note that though I though I had known what Catholics believed, I really didn't know. And as Henry Newman once stated to steeped into history is to be Catholic. I discovered that on many thngs many of these academic protestants agreed with Catholics about certian things though not all. Finally when you consider what agreement there is regarding history you find that the Catholic history of the Church is accurate. I even have the writings of the Church Fathers. My questioning and subsequent study lead me to study more about Catholicism. And I went into it confident that I could quiet my father once and for all by disproving it and ended up coming back to it. When I started leaning Catholic I discussed this with my pastor and suggested that I stop teaching sunday school though I had grown the class significantly and discussed with him some of my delemmas about certain subjects. He wasn't as helpful as I would have liked and couldn't give me good answers. One of the reasons I joined this board. But I thought I would loose my family and friends as I became more convinced of Catholic teaching. What in the end sent me over the Roman side was the Eucharist. Fortunately my wife came with me and I'm still friends with people at my old baptist church.

 

[saturneptune]

You all can babble all the Catholic history you want. The bottom line is the RCC was a tool of the devil at its founding, and is a tool of the devil today. Jesus Christ does not use such organizations to preserve His church.

 

[BobRyan]

So the three Papal lines were anathamatizing their own armies - but the civil government was going ahead with it anyway?

Is this what you were thinking as a Baptist about these historic events - prior to choosing to be Catholic? Do you realize how far that goes against the historic record - even of the RCC itself on that history??

Bokenkotter goes on to describe - Popes AND their "warships" in the book "A Concise History of the Catholic Church".

ibid pg 167. Pope Urban VI "turned more violent and savage. Suspecting his OWN Cardinals of plotting against him, he put them to torture and five of them died shortly afterward, probably thrown overboard from the Pope's warship!"

The inhumanity torture of the inquisition, the papal warships, the papal armies, the respective papal indulgences promised to each of the followers of each of the Papal lines that died in battle for their respective pope -- is it possible that you simply turned from this history - when studying the history of the church to decide whether or not to not remain as a Baptist??


Bokenkotter p. 166-168

Whether the cardinals were really overpowered by fear and hence unfree when they elected Prignano - as they later charged - will, it seems, remain forever one of the tantalizing but insoluble questions of RC history...


The schism began when the cardinals - whose original misgivings were greatly exacerbated by Urban's behavior - decided they had had enough. Abandoning Rome, they took refuge at Fondi, and then elaborated an encyclical in which they declared Prignano's election invalid and denounced him has antichrist, demon, apostate, and tyrant...on September 20 1378 they unanimously elected a new Pope, Rober of Geneva, who took the name Clement VII.

..both Popes received support from civil governments - splitting western Christendom into two camps. The holy Roman emperor, England, the Netherlands, Castille, Hungary, Poland and Portugal stood behind Urban, while France rallied to Clement VII, who returned to Avignon in 1379 and was soon joined by Scottland, Luxembourg and Austria...(Italy itself was too confused for either side to count on)...

Urban proclaimed a crusade against clement and hired the sanguinary Charles of Durazzo to oust the renegade queen Joan from Naples. The English invaded France in order to break it's allegiance with Clement
.
Both Popes found military operations to be expensive, and the papal tax collectors where forced to use ever harsher methods to squeeze every penny out of the constituents...Urban turned more violent and savage. Suspecting his own cardinals of plotting against him, he put them to torture, and five of them died shortly thereafter, probably thrown overboard from the Pope's warship … Urban returned to Rome where he died in 1389. His fourteen cardinals immediately elected a successor..Boniface ix...
[FONT=&quot]
This rupture of the church's unity was a terrible trial for believing Catholics."

[/FONT] Originally Posted by Thinkingstuff
Well, you are being rather reactionary aren't you? I expressed what happened during the Papal Schism. It was political maneuvering all the way. If you took a deep breath and read what I wrote you would have noticed several things. 1) I said Pope Urban was arrogant. 2) That the Cardinals whom had allegiances tied to political interest from their country of origin like the French. 3) You would have also noted that I said certain popes had become the puppets of certain governments especially that of the King of France.
Every thing I have said is true. Also let me tell you something about Bokenkotter. Those liberal priest I spoke about that don't properly adhere to Church teaching, well he's one of them. He has an agenda to promote his heretical views and make the church accept them so, I don't trust his historical analysis.

========================================
QUOTE=BobRyan;1984255
1. Is it your claim that history cannot be told "or known" by anyone but a Catholic that believes as you do - such that even other Catholic historians cannot be trusted if they do not hold to certain Catholic doctrines the way you do?

2. Ok - fine -then how could you ever have come to this conclusion as a Baptist - thinking about looking into joining the Catholic Church?? Were you really saying to yourself "not only do I reject all Baptist historians as neutral objective sources - as I contemplate moving to the RCC - I also reject all CATHOLIC historians if they mention unfavorable events in history about the RCC or hold to any point of doctrine not approved of by the Pope - for such historians cannot possibly be neutral and unbiased in their report of history?"

That is pretty hard to believe that a Baptist would be going that far as he/she contemplates the possibility of joining the Catholic Church and takes the first step by looking into history for the facts.

You are losing me on this one. How did you do it??

=====================

What I'm saying is that the time period which is under discussion was a lot more complicated than any one simplistic outlook. Generally Protestants and interestingly enough many media secular groups hold that Papal authority was the supreme authority in Europe. That just wasn't the case. It depends on what you are talking about. And by the way not all Protestants in Academia have this simplistic outlook. I was commenting on them.


Totally different subject. How I turned from being Baptist to Catholic didn't happen overnight and my discussion wasn't about how I became Catholic. If you want me to share fine. But it is a separate discussion than what we are having about the Papal Schism.

.

1. I raise the question because we are having this discussion on a Baptist board - not a Catholic board. So an answer from a former Baptist should have some sort of link or common-ground with an existing Baptist - rather than a totally disconnected cradle-catholic view where nothing but the Papal imprimatur is to be accepted as objective, unbiased and accurate.

Cradle catholics might frequently resort to such biased solutions - but a former baptist might be expected to use a bit more objectivity in that regard.

Not saying you have to do it - just leaving the door open for that.

2. you say - "Generally Protestants and interestingly enough many media secular groups hold that Papal authority was the supreme authority in Europe. That just wasn't the case."

That "Catholic Papacy in charge" view of the dark ages IS THE view of Catholic historians themselves - such as Bokenkotter tells us.

It IS THE view of Catholic authors and insider whistle blowers like Malachi Martin.

It is THE view of the Vatican's own study group formed in 1998 to look into this not-so-subtle detail for the year 2000 festivities and apologize to the world.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

[FONT=&quot]Other councils, such as Vienna, issued anti-Semitic decrees that ordered the persecution of Jews. The persecution of other groups, such as the Waldensians, was also ordered by the RCC. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For example, Pope Innocent VIII issued a bull in 1487 ordering that people "rise up in arms against" and "tread under foot" the Waldensians. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Roman Catholic and former Jesuit Peter de Rosa writes in Vicars of Christ (Crown Publishers, 1988), [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Catholic historian Peter de Rosa writes in Vicars of Christ (Crown Publishers, 1988), [/FONT][FONT=&quot]"Of eighty popes in a line from the thirteenth century on not one of them disapproved of the theology and apparatus of the Inquisition. On the contrary, one after another added his own cruel touches to the workings of this deadly machine[/FONT][FONT=&quot]."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]================================================================[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Catholic historian von Dollinger writes in The Pope and the Council, [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"From 1200 to 1500 the long series of Papal ordinances on the Inquisition, ever increasing in severity and cruelty, and their whole policy towards
heresy, runs on without a break. It is a rigidly consistent system of legislation; every Pope confirms and improves upon the devices of his predecessor....It was only the absolute dictation of the Popes, and the notion of their infallibility in all questions of Evangelical morality, that made the Christian world...[accept] the Inquisition, which contradicted the simplest principles of Christian justice and love to our neighbor, and would have been
rejected with universal horror in the ancient Church[/FONT][FONT=&quot]." [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45674[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

I'm also encouraged by Benedict XVI, who seems to have inherited John Paul II's humility as well as his loyalty to foundational doctrines. On Jan. 22, 1998, when he was still a cardinal and the grand Inquisitor (yes!) of the Roman Catholic Church, he declared that their archives (4,500 large volumes) indicate a [/FONT][FONT=&quot]death toll of 25 million killed by the Catholic Church for being "heretics[/FONT][FONT=&quot]." [/FONT][FONT=&quot]And likely two-thirds of the original volumes are lost[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]That kind of honesty will help relations (though there is no basis for uniting the RCC with Bible-believing Protestant churches).
On the downside, Catholics still persecute Protestants worldwide much more than vice versa, [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]=============================================================================[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]High level catholic sources quoted in the public press -[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Vatican Hosts Inquisition Symposium[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]By CANDICE HUGHES[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot].c The Associated Press [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]VATICAN CITY (AP) – [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Vatican assembled a blue-ribbon panel of scholars[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Thursday to examine the Inquisition and declared its readiness to submit the church's darkest institution to the judgment of history. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The three-day symposium is part of the Roman Catholic Church's countdown to 2000. Pope John Paul II wants the church to [/FONT][FONT=&quot]begin the new millennium with a clear conscience, which means facing up to past sins[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]For many people, the Inquisition is one of the church's worst transgressions. For centuries, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ecclesiastical ``thought police'' tried, tortured and burned people at the stake[/FONT][FONT=&quot] for heresy and other crimes. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]``The church cannot cross the threshold of the new millennium without pressing its children to purify themselves in repentance for their errors, infidelity, incoherence,'' Cardinal Roger Etchegaray said, opening the conference. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The [/FONT][FONT=&quot]inquisitors went after Protestants, Jews, Muslims and presumed heretics[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. They persecuted scientists like Galileo. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]They banned the Bible in anything but Latin[/FONT][FONT=&quot], which few ordinary people could read. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Inquisition began in the 13th century and lasted into the 19th. An index of banned books endured even longer, until 1966. And it was 1992 before the church rehabilitated Galileo, condemned for saying the Earth wasn't the center of the universe. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The symposium, which gathers experts from inside and outside the church, is the Vatican's first critical look at the church's record of repression. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Among other things, it will give scholars a chance to compare notes on what [/FONT][FONT=&quot]they've found in the secret Vatican archives on the Inquisition[/FONT][FONT=&quot], which the Holy See only recently opened. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]``The church is not afraid to submit its past to the judgment of history,'' said Etchegaray, a Frenchman who leads the Vatican's Commission on the Grand Jubilee. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Closed to the public and press, the symposium is not expected to produce any definitive statement from the Vatican on the Inquisition. That is expected in 2000 as part of the grand ``mea culpa'' at the start of Christianity's third millennium. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The great question is whether the pontiff will ask forgiveness for the sins of the church's members, as it did with the Holocaust, or for the sins of the church itself. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Unlike the Holocaust, the Inquisition was a church initiative authorized by the popes themselves[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Etchegaray on Thursday [/FONT][FONT=&quot]swept aside the idea that it can be seen a series of local campaigns whose excesses might be blamed on secular authorities[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT][FONT=&quot] There was only one Inquisition, he said, and it was [/FONT][FONT=&quot]undeniably an ecclesiastical institution[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The pontiff may give a hint as to his thinking on Saturday, when he meets with participants in the conference. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]About 50 scholars from Europe, the United States and Latin America are taking part.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]AP-NY-10-29-98 1403EST [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]============================================================[/FONT]

 

[BobRyan]

Debunking the claim that civil authorities being to blame for what happened under the iron fisted rule of the RCC

Catholic Church says must own up for Inquisition

By Alessandra Galloni

VATICAN CITY, Oct 29, 1998 (Reuters) - The Vatican on Thursday said it had to take responsibility for one of the darkest eras in Roman Catholic church history and not lay blame for the Inquisition on civil prosecutors.

Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, head of the Vatican's main committee for the year 2000, opened a three-day symposium on the Inquisition saying it was time to re-examine the work of the special court the church set up in 1233 to curb heresy.

Etchegaray said some scholars claimed there were several inquisitions: one in Rome, which worked directly under the Holy See's control, and others in Spain and in Portugal which were often aided by the local civil courts.

``We cannot ignore the fact that this (attempt to distinguish between inquisitions) has allowed some to make apologetic arguments and lay responsibility for what Iberian tribunals did onto civil authorities,'' he said.

``The fact that the Spanish and Portuguese crowns...had powers of intervention...on inquisitory tribunals does not change the ecclesiastical character of the institution,'' he said.

Pope Gregory IX created the Inquisition to help curb heresy, but church officials soon began to count on civil authorities to fine, imprison and even torture heretics.

One of the Inquisition's best known victims was the astronomer Galileo, condemned for claiming the earth revolved around the sun.

The Inquisition reached its height in the 16th century to counter the Reformation. The department later became the Holy Office and its successor now is called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which controls the orthodoxy of Catholic teaching.

Some of the conclusions of the international symposium, which ends on Saturday, could be included in a major document in which the church is expected to ask forgiveness for its past errors as part of celebrations for the year 2000.

The church ``cannot pass into the new millennium without urging its sons to purify themselves, through penitence, of its errors, its infidelities and its incoherences...,'' Father Georges Cottier, a top Vatican theologian and head of the theological commission for the year 2000, told the symposium.

Etchegaray said the conference could also draw on examples that scholars had been able to examine since January, when the Vatican opened secret files.

The archives also opened the infamous Index of Forbidden Books which Roman Catholics were not allowed to read or possess on pain of excommunication. Even the bible was on the blacklist.


Pope John Paul has said in several documents and speeches that the Church needs to assume responsibility for the Inquisition, which was responsible for the forced conversion of Jews as well as the torture and killing of heretics.

While there may have been mitigating historical factors for the behaviour of some Catholics, the Pope has said this did not prevent the church from expressing regret for the wrongs of its members in some periods of history.

He initiated the procedure that led to the rehabilitation of Galileo, completed in 1992.

19:01 10-29-98

[FONT=&quot]=========================================================[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thomas Bokenkotter is a Catholic and a historian of the Catholic church. His book "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" reveals some non-flattering details of history for which many Catholics choose to attack their own historian for daring to admit to certain details of history.

In his own preface he says that if he is guilty of anything - it is in not admitting to enough non-flattering details to fit the actual history of the church.

"In spite of all my efforts I realize the book has its share of shortcomings and omissions which are perhaps inevitable in a book of this scope. Some critics, for instance, have noted, with a certain amount of justice perhaps, a tendency to glide over the negative and dark aspects of the Church's history... Bokenkotter p.IX[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In Bokenkotter's book "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" we find this candid remark concerning the inquisition in the "Historical Catholic Church" - p117[/FONT]

"[FONT=&quot]One instrument of PAPAL CONTROL over society that ORIGINATED at this time and that was viewed with much REPUGNANCE in LATER times was the INQUISITION. And it is one of Innocent's (Pope Innocent) less glorious titles to fame that he was the first Pope to apply force on a considerable scale to suppress religious opinions. The New Testament certainly contains NO basis for a theory of persecution, but after the conversion of Constantine, the Roman Emperors began the policy of using force against heretics..."[/FONT]

 

[BobRyan]

It seems you are perplexed by how I left Baptist to become Catholic. Well, as I said it didn't happen overnight and to be honest I didn't want to become Catholic. But the evidence swayed me.

This is why I keep pointing to "the evidence" and why I do not limit the evidence to "only that which a cradle catholic would accept" but rather point to things that a Baptist might find helpful.

We are on a Baptist discussion board after all - so it seems logical for you and others in your position to discuss the sort of sources and evidence that Baptists would find helpful and which surely you found helpful.

Circling back to "nothing but the papal imprimatur is helpful" is the sort of thing we might expect on a Catholic board of cradle catholics - "We are right because we all agree - and we always say we are right" sort of logic.

But given that your own model is one of looking at the evidence as a Baptist - well then - objectivity is the reward.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

... works by Norman Geisler, to Dr. Archer's Encylopedia of bible difficulties, to FF Bruce, to Karen Jobes and Moises Silva, Robert Wilken, and you may be surprised to note I even have a copy of Hislop's the two Babylons and Paul Schrotenboer "Roman Catholicism a Contemporary Evanglical Perspective. And many more books besides, I've always been a bit of a bibliophile. But a long story short as if it isn't long enough. I felt like a detective discovering what really happened historically

Which is A. Why I present Baptist sources on a Baptist board

and B - why I expect that Catholic historians, and insiders showing agreement with those Baptist sources on various points of history - will play well in a Baptist context such as we have here. It is entirely suited to a Baptist such as the one you describe above.

At no point could you have gone to your Pastor or to your class members and said "no historian can be trusted unless he has the Papal imprimatur on his book because as we all know - that is the sign and seal of least bias and most objectivity". They would have laughed you out of the pulpit and if truth were to be told - you could not have said it to them with a straight face then or possibly even now.

I think we both know that.

and discovered that 1) I had been wrong about what Catholics believed because a lot of source data that come from protestants site catholic sources and not only in an antagonistic way but as supportive documentation.

Some data in history is so blatantly obvious that BOTH protestant AND Catholic sources can be found in agreement on certain things.

Hence my list of sources.

I am not saying that cradle catholics will always agree with those common-ground areas - but then on this Baptist board - not all baptists will agree with the Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 (as we have seen here demonstrated a zillion times by now).

But that 2) as I learned more about the bible its develoment down to the current day and history I also began to note that though I though I had known what Catholics believed, I really didn't know. And as Henry Newman once stated to steeped into history is to be Catholic. I discovered that on many thngs many of these academic protestants agreed with Catholics about certian things though not all.

Sometimes good and sometimes bad. When both are in agreement about the acts of history - we are getting closer to accuracy.

But when they show some forms of agreement they are showing less objectivity and more the epidemiology of their thought coming out of the errors of the dark ages from the same source - and having to reform and rediscover the truths of the first century again.

Finally when you consider what agreement there is regarding history you find that the Catholic history of the Church is accurate.

Catholic historians themselves admit to a few of the atrocities - and so that is helpful. But more interestingly - the Bible predicts that period - quite well.

And what is really interesting is that with the admitted crimes against humanity, the RCCs own admitted list of what it calls "Wicked popes" and its own statements on 3 papal LINES all functioning at once and all forced to end by the Emperor --- all hope of tracing something back to Peter - ends. And with that kind of bloodshed and error filling in their past - it would be a "huge red flag" if they were to then claim that those calls for "extermination" were in fact "infallible" still to this day.

I fail to see how a Baptist could possibly miss the point.

I even have the writings of the Church Fathers. My questioning and subsequent study lead me to study more about Catholicism. And I went into it confident that I could quiet my father once and for all by disproving it and ended up coming back to it. When I started leaning Catholic I discussed this with my pastor and suggested that I stop teaching sunday school though I had grown the class significantly and discussed with him some of my delemmas about certain subjects. He wasn't as helpful

I think that if you were to review that point objectively - you would find that the evidence, the subject, the material you were using at that time would be most interesting to a Baptist today.

Far more interesting than "don't believe anything a historian says if they do not have the Papal imprimatur".

I am hoping for a return to that former level of objectivity in your discourse on this board - since this is after all a "Baptist board".

You and I are both outsiders to the Baptist board - notice how seldom ever - do I quote an SDA source NOR do I insist that those who debate me resort to SDA sources.

What in the end sent me over the Roman side was the Eucharist. Fortunately my wife came with me and I'm still friends with people at my old baptist church.

Then maybe that is the strongest subject - in common agreement for discussion here since as a Baptist you say you found that subject was the most compelling.

Let's do a thread.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So the three Papal lines were anathamatizing their own armies - but the civil government was going ahead with it anyway?

Is this what you were thinking as a Baptist about these historic events - prior to choosing to be Catholic? Do you realize how far that goes against the historic record - even of the RCC itself on that history??

Bokenkotter goes on to describe - Popes AND their "warships" in the book "A Concise History of the Catholic Church".

ibid pg 167. Pope Urban VI "turned more violent and savage. Suspecting his OWN Cardinals of plotting against him, he put them to torture and five of them died shortly afterward, probably thrown overboard from the Pope's warship!"

The inhumanity torture of the inquisition, the papal warships, the papal armies, the respective papal indulgences promised to each of the followers of each of the Papal lines that died in battle for their respective pope -- is it possible that you simply turned from this history - when studying the history of the church to decide whether or not to not remain as a Baptist??


Bokenkotter p. 166-168

Whether the cardinals were really overpowered by fear and hence unfree when they elected Prignano - as they later charged - will, it seems, remain forever one of the tantalizing but insoluble questions of RC history...


The schism began when the cardinals - whose original misgivings were greatly exacerbated by Urban's behavior - decided they had had enough. Abandoning Rome, they took refuge at Fondi, and then elaborated an encyclical in which they declared Prignano's election invalid and denounced him has antichrist, demon, apostate, and tyrant...on September 20 1378 they unanimously elected a new Pope, Rober of Geneva, who took the name Clement VII.

..both Popes received support from civil governments - splitting western Christendom into two camps. The holy Roman emperor, England, the Netherlands, Castille, Hungary, Poland and Portugal stood behind Urban, while France rallied to Clement VII, who returned to Avignon in 1379 and was soon joined by Scottland, Luxembourg and Austria...(Italy itself was too confused for either side to count on)...

Urban proclaimed a crusade against clement and hired the sanguinary Charles of Durazzo to oust the renegade queen Joan from Naples. The English invaded France in order to break it's allegiance with Clement
.
Both Popes found military operations to be expensive, and the papal tax collectors where forced to use ever harsher methods to squeeze every penny out of the constituents...Urban turned more violent and savage. Suspecting his own cardinals of plotting against him, he put them to torture, and five of them died shortly thereafter, probably thrown overboard from the Pope's warship … Urban returned to Rome where he died in 1389. His fourteen cardinals immediately elected a successor..Boniface ix...
[FONT=&quot]
This rupture of the church's unity was a terrible trial for believing Catholics."

[/I]


========================================
QUOTE=BobRyan;1984255
1. Is it your claim that history cannot be told "or known" by anyone but a Catholic that believes as you do - such that even other Catholic historians cannot be trusted if they do not hold to certain Catholic doctrines the way you do?

2. Ok - fine -then how could you ever have come to this conclusion as a Baptist - thinking about looking into joining the Catholic Church?? Were you really saying to yourself "not only do I reject all Baptist historians as neutral objective sources - as I contemplate moving to the RCC - I also reject all CATHOLIC historians if they mention unfavorable events in history about the RCC or hold to any point of doctrine not approved of by the Pope - for such historians cannot possibly be neutral and unbiased in their report of history?"

That is pretty hard to believe that a Baptist would be going that far as he/she contemplates the possibility of joining the Catholic Church and takes the first step by looking into history for the facts.

You are losing me on this one. How did you do it??

=====================




1. I raise the question because we are having this discussion on a Baptist board - not a Catholic board. So an answer from a former Baptist should have some sort of link or common-ground with an existing Baptist - rather than a totally disconnected cradle-catholic view where nothing but the Papal imprimatur is to be accepted as objective, unbiased and accurate.

Cradle catholics might frequently resort to such biased solutions - but a former baptist might be expected to use a bit more objectivity in that regard.

Not saying you have to do it - just leaving the door open for that.

2. you say - "Generally Protestants and interestingly enough many media secular groups hold that Papal authority was the supreme authority in Europe. That just wasn't the case."

That "Catholic Papacy in charge" view of the dark ages IS THE view of Catholic historians themselves - such as Bokenkotter tells us.

It IS THE view of Catholic authors and insider whistle blowers like Malachi Martin.

It is THE view of the Vatican's own study group formed in 1998 to look into this not-so-subtle detail for the year 2000 festivities and apologize to the world.

in Christ,

Bob

Now you are just repeating yourself. I don't know what the point of repeating the exact same thing is. But I don't find it any more effective in making your point. If your point is to say Catholics had a hard time due to leadership issues. I would have to agree but that isn't singular to Catholics. And the Church being made of people we tend to see these things. Even during the Apostles there was leadership in fighting. Not so much between the Apostles but the leadership they appointed and a few who wanted that leadership without appointment. I'm certain it wasn't easy for those Churches either. Which is why next to the NT writings we have one of the earliest writings having Clement dress down a church for disruption of leadership.

As far as taking the Catholic Position I think it is generally known that I am Catholic and I defend the Catholic Position. What is wrong with that? I don't go into Baptist only rooms and stay only in the other Christian section. However, I find it curious you would have a problem with that as you support the SDA position. If you are suggesting I'm a Jesuit spy then you spend too much time reading Jack Chick.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

[FONT=&quot]Other councils, such as Vienna, issued anti-Semitic decrees that ordered the persecution of Jews. The persecution of other groups, such as the Waldensians, was also ordered by the RCC. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For example, Pope Innocent VIII issued a bull in 1487 ordering that people "rise up in arms against" and "tread under foot" the Waldensians. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Roman Catholic and former Jesuit Peter de Rosa writes in Vicars of Christ (Crown Publishers, 1988), [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Catholic historian Peter de Rosa writes in Vicars of Christ (Crown Publishers, 1988), [/FONT][FONT=&quot]"Of eighty popes in a line from the thirteenth century on not one of them disapproved of the theology and apparatus of the Inquisition. On the contrary, one after another added his own cruel touches to the workings of this deadly machine[/FONT][FONT=&quot]."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]================================================================[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Catholic historian von Dollinger writes in The Pope and the Council, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]




[FONT=&quot]=============================================================================[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]High level catholic sources quoted in the public press -[/FONT]





[FONT=&quot]============================================================[/FONT]

You are jumping all over the place. Its a common anti Catholic attack. Throw multiple charges and no one can fully deal with one then say Aha! Its no better than a cheap shot. However, Waldaseans were heretics the culture in Europe at the time was to protect Christendom and for the most par the illiterate populace from falling into error. People Just didn't have American Sensibilities of that day regarding "freedom of religion". Each Government felt it was its responsibility to protect its citizens against corrupting forces which is why there was murder on both sides of the Reformation. Fortunately, we live in an era of freedom to share ideas. During the time period under discussion that sensibility just wasn't even considered. But understanding the History of the world its easy to see why.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Debunking the claim that civil authorities being to blame for what happened under the iron fisted rule of the RCC
[FONT=&quot]=========================================================[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thomas Bokenkotter is a Catholic and a historian of the Catholic church. His book "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" reveals some non-flattering details of history for which many Catholics choose to attack their own historian for daring to admit to certain details of history.

In his own preface he says that if he is guilty of anything - it is in not admitting to enough non-flattering details to fit the actual history of the church.

"In spite of all my efforts I realize the book has its share of shortcomings and omissions which are perhaps inevitable in a book of this scope. Some critics, for instance, have noted, with a certain amount of justice perhaps, a tendency to glide over the negative and dark aspects of the Church's history... Bokenkotter p.IX[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In Bokenkotter's book "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" we find this candid remark concerning the inquisition in the "Historical Catholic Church" - p117[/FONT]

"[FONT=&quot]One instrument of PAPAL CONTROL over society that ORIGINATED at this time and that was viewed with much REPUGNANCE in LATER times was the INQUISITION. And it is one of Innocent's (Pope Innocent) less glorious titles to fame that he was the first Pope to apply force on a considerable scale to suppress religious opinions. The New Testament certainly contains NO basis for a theory of persecution, but after the conversion of Constantine, the Roman Emperors began the policy of using force against heretics..."[/FONT]

You really need to spend some more time in history because you tend to be on sided which the events of the day just weren't that way. For instance Joan of Arc. It was Catholic Bishops that Condemned her as a heretic. Yet by other Catholic Bishops she was heralded as a champion of the Faith. And in later years the Catholic Church unanimously declared her a "saint". The fact is there were bishops in league with civil authorities that supported the political agenda of the governments they were under. But these weren't universal with all the Bishops. And for the actions of the Bishops that abused their positions certainly the Church should apologize. Just like it should apologize for the pedophile priest that abused people. However, it would be a mistake to lay that at the feet of every Bishop or Pope. And certainly the Handling of the problem was poor. However, this also isn't singular to Catholics in Christianity.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You all can babble all the Catholic history you want. The bottom line is the RCC was a tool of the devil at its founding, and is a tool of the devil today. Jesus Christ does not use such organizations to preserve His church.

You are welcome to your opinion.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This is why I keep pointing to "the evidence" and why I do not limit the evidence to "only that which a cradle catholic would accept" but rather point to things that a Baptist might find helpful.

We are on a Baptist discussion board after all - so it seems logical for you and others in your position to discuss the sort of sources and evidence that Baptists would find helpful and which surely you
Bob

The fact is you keep using the same sources and repeatedly just quote them over and over again because you believe they support your assumptions.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

We are on a Baptist discussion board after all - so it seems logical for you and others in your position to discuss the sort of sources and evidence that Baptists would find helpful and which surely you found helpful.

Circling back to "nothing but the papal imprimatur is helpful" is the sort of thing we might expect on a Catholic board of cradle catholics - "We are right because we all agree - and we always say we are right" sort of logic.

But given that your own model is one of looking at the evidence as a Baptist - well then - objectivity is the reward.

in Christ,

Bob

Would you like me to quote non Catholic Sources? I would be glad to do that for you.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Which is A. Why I present Baptist sources on a Baptist board

and B - why I expect that Catholic historians, and insiders showing agreement with those Baptist sources on various points of history - will play well in a Baptist context such as we have here. It is entirely suited to a Baptist such as the one you describe above.

At no point could you have gone to your Pastor or to your class members and said "no historian can be trusted unless he has the Papal imprimatur on his book because as we all know - that is the sign and seal of least bias and most objectivity". They would have laughed you out of the pulpit and if truth were to be told - you could not have said it to them with a straight face then or possibly even now.

I think we both know that.




Some data in history is so blatantly obvious that BOTH protestant AND Catholic sources can be found in agreement on certain things.

Hence my list of sources.

I am not saying that cradle catholics will always agree with those common-ground areas - but then on this Baptist board - not all baptists will agree with the Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 (as we have seen here demonstrated a zillion times by now).





Sometimes good and sometimes bad. When both are in agreement about the acts of history - we are getting closer to accuracy.

But when they show some forms of agreement they are showing less objectivity and more the epidemiology of their thought coming out of the errors of the dark ages from the same source - and having to reform and rediscover the truths of the first century again.



Catholic historians themselves admit to a few of the atrocities - and so that is helpful. But more interestingly - the Bible predicts that period - quite well.

And what is really interesting is that with the admitted crimes against humanity, the RCCs own admitted list of what it calls "Wicked popes" and its own statements on 3 papal LINES all functioning at once and all forced to end by the Emperor --- all hope of tracing something back to Peter - ends. And with that kind of bloodshed and error filling in their past - it would be a "huge red flag" if they were to then claim that those calls for "extermination" were in fact "infallible" still to this day.

I fail to see how a Baptist could possibly miss the point.




I think that if you were to review that point objectively - you would find that the evidence, the subject, the material you were using at that time would be most interesting to a Baptist today.

Far more interesting than "don't believe anything a historian says if they do not have the Papal imprimatur".

I am hoping for a return to that former level of objectivity in your discourse on this board - since this is after all a "Baptist board".

You and I are both outsiders to the Baptist board - notice how seldom ever - do I quote an SDA source NOR do I insist that those who debate me resort to SDA sources.



Then maybe that is the strongest subject - in common agreement for discussion here since as a Baptist you say you found that subject was the most compelling.

Let's do a thread.

in Christ,

Bob

Let me deal with the Imprimatur because this is a sore point with you and why I bring it up. There is a lot of work out there that disguises itself as "Catholic" but really isn't. So to ensure accurate Catholic beliefs or as one would say getting it from the horses mouth directly I think its important to use valid sources rather than invalid. But I've used non Catholic Sources before and I would be glad to use them again. However, as I've stated there are biases on both sides of the academic world. People on this board have no problem using them. So don't you think its fair to present the other side?

Let me be clear with the Eucharist. I will be glad to discuss biblical evidence for the Eucharist. Which I think is just obvious. But my study of history already had me leaning Catholic. The reason the Eucharist tip my hand was because it presented and either or scenario. Which due to that very nature requires decisiveness. The Eucharist is true or it is not. IF it is then holding to any other view would be wrong. At that point a decision must be made. But you are right it must be done on a different thread.
However, the most compelling argument was this. What did the early Church believe? And fortunately for us we have tons of documents to show their beliefs which are more Catholic than Baptist.

 

[BobRyan]

Let me deal with the Imprimatur because this is a sore point with you and why I bring it up. There is a lot of work out there that disguises itself as "Catholic" but really isn't.

From a Baptist POV - which you claim to have had when you were considering the Catholic church as a option - you would not only have accepted Baptist historians - but also Catholic historians if they were accurate - regardless of their papal imprimatur - so long as they themselves were either members of the Baptist church or members of a Catholic church and in favor of Baptists - in favor of fellow Catholics. Regardless of how liberal or conservative the doctrine of the historian - the question would have been - do they report history accurately.

After - even atheists have the ability to report history, report the news etc.

When talking about history we are not talking about "beliefs about history" we are talking about mathematics. An event either happened or it did not. The Lateran IV document either provides penalties against Civil authorities that fail to carry out the extermination order - or it does not. A simple quote will do.

What one "thinks" of it - is up to the reader.

So to ensure accurate Catholic beliefs or as one would say getting it from the horses mouth directly I think its important to use valid sources rather than invalid.

here again you treat history and mathematics as if it is a function of doctrine and thus without pure doctrine, without the imprimatur no accurate mathematics, no accurate history.

This is a foreign concept.

What we are looking for is "bias" by one who is in favor of the Baptists and one who is favor of the Catholic church - but hopefully objective enough NOT to let the bias color their reporting of history.

You seem to insist that if they do not yield their objectivity they cannot be trusted.

Most Baptist would argue the opposite.

Let me be clear with the Eucharist. I will be glad to discuss biblical evidence for the Eucharist. Which I think is just obvious. But my study of history already had me leaning Catholic. The reason the Eucharist tip my hand was because it presented and either or scenario. Which due to that very nature requires decisiveness. The Eucharist is true or it is not. IF it is then holding to any other view would be wrong. At that point a decision must be made. But you are right it must be done on a different thread.
However, the most compelling argument was this. What did the early Church believe? And fortunately for us we have tons of documents to show their beliefs which are more Catholic than Baptist.

I have started that thread and defined the "size" of the subject I think. You are certainly right that it is huge and it is either-or. It cannot be both ways.

But I have only started that topic - not provided any evidence yet that the doctrine is right or wrong. Just showing what it is on that new thread.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thomas Helwys]

You are jumping all over the place. Its a common anti Catholic attack. Throw multiple charges and no one can fully deal with one then say Aha! Its no better than a cheap shot. However, Waldaseans were heretics the culture in Europe at the time was to protect Christendom and for the most par the illiterate populace from falling into error. People Just didn't have American Sensibilities of that day regarding "freedom of religion". Each Government felt it was its responsibility to protect its citizens against corrupting forces which is why there was murder on both sides of the Reformation. Fortunately, we live in an era of freedom to share ideas. During the time period under discussion that sensibility just wasn't even considered. But understanding the History of the world its easy to see why.

Funny how the Baptists, Mennonites, Quakers, and other free churches lived in the same times but could see that it was going against the teachings of the founder of the faith to kill others in His name. Wonder why they could see this but their Catholic and Magisterial Protestant contemporaries could not.