Roman Catholicism , cult or not? Part II

Oh, you mean the Orthodox? </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, as I recall, the eastern Churches (who later broke away and became the Orthodox church) helped liberate the Holy See (via eastern empire) during the Dark Ages from the pagan governments of western Europe.

If james is believing coo-coo extremist fantasy there was some secret protestant group during the Dark Ages the Church was persecuting, but all secular history books and records mention nothing about... I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'm willing to sell him cheap.

 

The Catholic Church did not torture jews to convert. This was done by the Spanish government as a means of scaring away the jewish population.

 

No one was ex-communicated or killed for translating bible, much less reading them. If you actually study the histories of these occurances, instead of overhyped blurbs on hate sites, you'll find that many of these people got in trouble for trying to destory the state and publicly preaching heresy. Trying to destroy the state is considered treason. These people often combined their new views on how the state should be run with religion. Just as Marxism combines atheism with itself.

The only other Christians at the time were Coptics, who broke away from the Catholic Church in the 5th Century. These stories about other Christians are simply false and considered laughable by not only all major protestant denominations, but any history department of any university.

 

I'm not sure what your definition of 'persecuting' is, but being against something and calling it wrong is hardly persecution.

 

There are lot of evidences that RC instructed civil government to torture and persecute the heretics. Bulls and decrees are still remaining. Any denial to it is a lie.
Catholics often claim that they were persecuted as well.
Before 5 c AD, we can hardly call the church as RC where many Christians were persecuted.
After RC secured the power, they remained as Persecutors against true Christians.
RC often claim that they were persecuted illustrating Elizabethan (I) era. They can beautify Gun Powder plot, IRA terrorists as their Martyrs too.
What about the Concordat (KONKORDAT) made between Vatican and Devout Catholic Hitler and his henchmen?

 

I'm not sure what your definition of 'persecuting' is, but being against something and calling it wrong is hardly persecution. </font>[/QUOTE]Out of the Council of Trent came persecution of Lutherans and many other protestants and believers. There came a wave of persecution. Persecution is nothing new for the Catholic Church. Dave Hunt writes in his book, "A Woman Rides the Beast:

There has been no greater mass murderer throughout history than the Catholic Church.
DHK

 

No, associating a bull or decree as instruction to persecute, despite such an instruction being in direct contradiction to the teachings of the Church is a lie.

The Catholics were the true Christians and ONLY Christians until the 5th Century when the Coptics in North Africa broke away, then the Orthodox in the 11th and protestants in the 16th.

I really don't understand the appeal of the fairytales about secret 'true christian' groups during the Dark Ages. There is no record of them and you won't find any mention of them in any real history book. You would think that with all the millions of people these stories often claim were killed, there would be some real record.

It's just a bunch of hate propaganda and a way for protestants to try and say they aren't protestant (protesting the Catholic Church). They would rather preach a lie than accept what they actually are, Christians separated from the Catholic Church, founded by the apostles.

For the differences between protestants and Catholics, you can categories the beliefs and trace them all back to men over the last 500 years.

 

That sound like the title of a great unbiased source. The fact that what you quoted makes no distinction between civil authority and the Church makes it clear it's a bunch of propaganda anyone serious about the subject would trash.

 

Ah yes, like any good Catholic would do: Trash the source before checking the facts. If you check the portion from Hunt that I quoted, Hunt says almost nothing. He quotes from other sources, mostly Catholic sources. But Catholics don't care. Their goal is to revise history, deny facts and try to gloss over the facts to soothe everyone's consciences's as if nothing ever happened. The facts are there in black and white. Instead of making slurs against the author of the book, demonstrate that what he said is not true. Everything he said is documented. He went back to firsthand sourcsed. Do you?

Who is confused abuot civil authority and religious authority. The civil authority could do nothing without the permission of the pope. If he did he was condemned to hell. They were in collussion with each other, and the ultimate power always resided with the pope. Thus the responsibility for those that were murdered were the responsibility of the pope. He was the one that ordered the killings.
DHK

 

Has there been a death in the last couple of days that nobody has heard about?

Concerning the previous Pope who just passed on, everything in me wants him to be in heaven of course, but from so much that is public knowledge of John Paul II, I have grave doubts that he is in heaven.

Mike

 

stray bullet,

Any book by Dave Hunt regarding Catholicism I would reccomend to anyone with the utmost confidence. He is exceedingly thorough and concientious regarding his research, accuracy and use of footnotes from reputable sources.

A Woman Rides the Beast is an excellant book.

Mike

 

The Whore of Babylon is still on her throne. She still has the blood of the saints glaring on her from the pages of history. Her day of divine retribution is coming. One can make a similar analogy to her daughters.

One does not need to be a right reverend doctor to see that there is another group of believers over the past two thousands. They had nothing to do with Rome, Constantinople, Wittenburg,or Canterbury. Forgive me, John Wesley, your origin has slipped my depraved mind.

This is not about a name--it is a faith and practice. See Jude 3. These believers were persecuted to the death for not baptizing their infants and for baptizing converts even though they had been baptized?? as infants. Were it not for a semblance of religious liberty, they would still be persecuted. This is not the claims of men; it is the fulfillment of scripture: Mt. 16:18, ...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her." This is referring to the New Testament Church, many of which have sprung up over the past 1900 years. They have never had an earthly head nor vicar and have in fact regarded such things as abominations. Yep, they still regard the papacy as the source for the Anti-Christ.

Now what?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Except there is no evidence of any such non-paedo-baptists prior to the Anabaptists of the 1520s (the Waldenses excepted perhaps)

Now what?

 

straybullet.

Oh my.

They've got you "hook, line, and sinker" my friend.

Mike

 

What Concordat? Which devout Catholic? This would be the same 'devout Catholic' who ordered his Gauleiteren such as Adolf Wagner to seize property belonging to the Catholic Church and monastic property in particular and remove crucifexes from schools in Catholic Bavaria? The same Church which issued a Pastoral Letter via its German Bishops on 7th July 1941 criticising euthanasia and indeed all killing* and who counted among their number the Catholic Bishop of Westfalen, Clemens Graf von Galen who denounced euthanasia and criticised the Nazi regime in a sermon on 3rd August 1941? Are you talking about the Munich Catholics who said "Lieber Wilhelm von Gottes Gnaden als den Depp von Berchtesgaden" ("Better Wilhelm by the grace of God than the idiot of Berchtesgaden" ie Hitler)?**

*See Klee, Euthanasie and Kershaw Hitler - Nemesispp 424-429

** See Heinrich Huber, Dokumente einer christlichen Widerstandsbewegung.Gegen die Entfernung der Kruzifixe aus der Schulen 1941 and Kershaw Popular Opinion 340-57 and op.citpp 424-9

 

Oh my.

They've got you "hook, line, and sinker" my friend.

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, for goodness sake - they're not some kind of brainwashing cult; you're behaving like they're the Moonies or something

 

All of this complaining about the persecution wrought by the RCC, yet nothing about the persecution perpetrated on Roman Catholics by protestants. If I am recalling my English history correctly the fighting between Roman Catholics and Protestants was rather bloody with what ever group in charge at the time "officially" sanctioning actions taken against the other. Everybody seems to forget that for a while in the colonies being RCC was against the law with the exception of Maryland. Let us also not forget the various groups that in the name of Christ terrorized Catholics.

And as Matt writes there is no proof of the existence protestant theology groups prior to 1520.

Besides has anybody given thought to the fact God allowed the RCC to destroy these groups because they were tainted with dreadful heresies and that He already had plans for a Reformer of the Church, who would bring purity back to the teachings of the church correcting the abuses and mistakes of the RCC. I always thought it was quite remarkable how different factors came together in order to allow Luther to work and make an impact within the church. Could it be that just as a remnant of faithful existed within Israel until the unfaithful were cut off due to their rejection of the Gospel, the same happened to the RCC when a messenger was sent to bring the Church back to the Gospel. I think this is an intriguing possiblity as the RCC as we know it did not exist in a canonized form until the Council of Trent.

 

I can never understand why, when a person starts a thread on Catholicism such as this one (RC: cult or not) someone must bring in red herrings such as persecution by Protestants, slavery, the KKK, etc., etc., If one wants to discuss the atrocities of the IRA or any other group in the world at any other time in history why not start a thread on it. This thread is explicitly on the RCC, and reasons why or why not it should fall in the category of a cult. What does slavery or the persecution by Protestants have to do with that?
If there "were various groups that terrorized Catholic" then start a thread on it. This is not what this thread is about. This thread is about the Catholics and what they have done, the reasons why they have done it, their theology, and why they would fit in the category of a cult. Let's steer away from the red herrings.

Obviously. By strict definition the term Protestant comes out of the Reformation where the Reformers "proteseted" against the RCC. Thus there were none before that time. But the doctrines existed since the time of Christ. Sola Scriptura did not come from Luther it comes from the Bible. Baptism by immersion comes from the Bible. Justification by faith comes from the Bible. What about "protestantism" are you specifically talking about. Baptists existed before the reformation. In fact there have always existed groups of believer outside the Catholic Church that have been true to Christ.

Jesus taught to love your enemies. Pray for them that despitefully use you. Bless them that curse you. He taught to turn the other cheek. He told Peter to put up his sword.
The Catholic Church held a crusade against the Albigenses, a peace-loving, Bible-believing sect of Christians that were minding their own business and harming no one. Their only crime was preaching the gospel. For that they were exterminated by the Catholics, who then went on to slay the Muslims. If that is the way God acts, then why doesn't the Pope act that way today? Why doesnt' the Pope order the one billion strong Catholics from all over the world to rise up and exterminate all the Muslims of the world today? If it was God's will back then why isn't it God's method today?

Luther was excommunicated from the "church." It was never brought back to the gospel. It has always remained in the darkness of following a false gospel of works to this day. Luther's mistake was trying to reform the church from within. But the RCC would not change. It still won't. It is not a Christian Church.
DHK

 

I can never understand why, when a person starts a thread on Catholicism such as this one (RC: cult or not) someone must bring in red herrings such as persecution by Protestants, slavery, the KKK, etc., etc., If one wants to discuss the atrocities of the IRA or any other group in the world at any other time in history why not start a thread on it. This thread is explicitly on the RCC, and reasons why or why not it should fall in the category of a cult. What does slavery or the persecution by Protestants have to do with that?
If there "were various groups that terrorized Catholic" then start a thread on it. This is not what this thread is about. This thread is about the Catholics and what they have done, the reasons why they have done it, their theology, and why they would fit in the category of a cult. Let's steer away from the red herrings.</font>[/QUOTE]I respectfully disagree. Rather than "red herrings," I think that mentioning the kinds of things other groups have done in the name of Christ brings a sort of "rality-check" to what I see as Catholic-bashing.

Yes, the Catholic Church has a checkered history. I can tell you, though, that not a few Protestant denominations have skeletons in their closets as well.

Obviously. By strict definition the term Protestant comes out of the Reformation where the Reformers "proteseted" against the RCC. Thus there were none before that time. But the doctrines existed since the time of Christ. Sola Scriptura did not come from Luther it comes from the Bible. Baptism by immersion comes from the Bible. Justification by faith comes from the Bible. What about "protestantism" are you specifically talking about. Baptists existed before the reformation. In fact there have always existed groups of believer outside the Catholic Church that have been true to Christ. </font>[/QUOTE]Not to put too fine a point on it, but "Sola Scriptura" (a doctrine I adhere to) implies a "scriptura" to begin with... and there wasn't a complete Bible until the fourth century.

Jesus taught to love your enemies. Pray for them that despitefully use you. Bless them that curse you. He taught to turn the other cheek. He told Peter to put up his sword.
The Catholic Church held a crusade against the Albigenses, a peace-loving, Bible-believing sect of Christians that were minding their own business and harming no one. Their only crime was preaching the gospel. For that they were exterminated by the Catholics, who then went on to slay the Muslims. If that is the way God acts, then why doesn't the Pope act that way today? Why doesnt' the Pope order the one billion strong Catholics from all over the world to rise up and exterminate all the Muslims of the world today? If it was God's will back then why isn't it God's method today?</font>[/QUOTE]I recall a few churches in Birmingham in the 1960's that both harbored and tacitly encouraged dynamite bombing of African American homes and churches. To be certain, most (if not all) of these churches today embrace their African American brothers and sisters, but there is that history...

Yes, Christ taught a nonviolent Gospel, and that is the reason the Pope, nor any serious Protestant Christian leader, advocates genocide upon Muslims. We learn as we grow, and perhaps the Catholic Church has had a period of learning.

Luther was excommunicated from the "church." It was never brought back to the gospel. It has always remained in the darkness of following a false gospel of works to this day. Luther's mistake was trying to reform the church from within. But the RCC would not change. It still won't. It is not a Christian Church.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]I disagree. I believe that there are as many Catholic Christians as there are Presbyterian or Baptist or Methodist Christians, and using the same criteria.

 

What is good for the gander is good for the goose. You cannot harp on atrocities perpetrated by one group while ignoring atrocities perpetrated by another. Just because protestant persecution of Roman Catholics is inconvenient for the persecution argument used to prove idea of the RCC as a cult doesn't make it a red herring. This particularly true in that the persecution of Roman Catholics occured in the name of religious purity.

I also have trouble calling Manichean dualists such as Albigenses bible believing Christians.

You missed the point completely. The RCC was cut off from the vine when it rejected the call to return to the Gospel in ratifying the Council of Trent. Besides the RCC never quit preaching the Gospel only buried it under mounds of garbage, so it would be possible for a remnant of faithful to exist with in its confines.