Alito

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by mioque:
Billy Graham.
The closest thing to Billy in say the 13th century were probably certain traveling preachers belonging to the Waldenses. Now the Waldenses were viciously persecuted.
Easy answer would be, so would Graham.

Yeah those silly RC historians what do "they know"!

The RC's own historians point to the "counter reformatin" as efforts to address the very issues of soteriology that Luther and Graham and the Waldenses were addressing.

IT may also be true that in a church state system - charging the state with doctrinal error had political consequences - but it is "instructive" to note that the RC sources quoted in the vatican city accounts ALSO take credit for those and deny the attempts to move that away from the RC domain since the RC had absolute control of the state.

Basically - the RC historians, Vatican City sources and EWTN sources have "greater incentive" to find ways out of this problem than do non-Catholics just guessing around wouldn't you agree?

It is significant therefore that those sources are the ones claiming Billy Graham WOULD have been burned at the stake "For preaching then what he has preached in the 20th century".

I don't see any way to get around that.

A hierarchy consisting mostly of guys who saw themselves more as noblemen than as churchleaders. They were persecuting a threat to their standard of living, as much as a competing form of Christianity.

Their "standard of living" was reduced to hiding in the hills and leaving the major cities. It can hardly be argued that this was an economic benefit that they sought to retain.

To simply recast this as politics is to miss the less of the Dark Ages. The "politics" of the region was the slave of the church. When the church leadership was challenged doctrinally it fell (as in lost its complete dominion of Europe). Without that doctrinal basis it could not call for he "extermination of heretics" and it could not raise "armies to kill rival Catholic armies" promising eternal life and forgiveness of all sins to those who died in battle.

The chain of control had at its root - doctrinal errors. Errors that are addressed in Graham's views of soteriology. Fox's book of Martyrs gives example after example of doctrinal errors leading people to the stake.

So to claim that these saints - the giants of faith that gave their lives in defense of truth were merely "rogue politicians" is to miss the point entirely.

Graham's preaching would have been far less threatening in the eyes of those bishops who saw themselves as barons.

Would Bill still have been persecuted back then? Distinctly possible, but it's not quite so certain as it appears at first sight.

One has to ignore the Catholic historians, the Vatican City sources quoted earlier, the non-Catholic accounts like Fox's book to walk out on that lonely limb.

I just can't turn my back on so much good objective - triple sourced confirmation in favor of speculation for the RCC when it is not remotely justified by the documented independent sources we have available today.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It is at first tolerated; then approved; next obeyed! But now come the dread realities of the system, taxation, passive submission, excommunications, interdicts, crusades, the inquisition, destruction. Yes, Popery has well nigh destroyed every country in which it has been predominant. The liberties and national prosperity of a people cannot coexist with such a system.

Let then, Americans — Americans, who have never witnessed a Court of Inquisition, or an Auto-da-fe, on their virgin soil; Americans, whose
national liberties are still fragrant with the blood of revolutionary forefathers; Americans, whose proud eminence in the civilized world, gives them more to lose than other nations; let Americans especially examine this subject well

Ahh yes - but that is a non-Catholic source? Can you trust non-Catholics to be as forgiving and passive about the actions of the RCC in the dark ages as you can trust one of the RCC's own historians?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Kamoroso]

Here is the title of another article that can be found on the Catholic Culture internet site.


The Importance of the Hierarchy in the Church


It’s contents also contradict what Mioque is trying to pass off concerning the Church of Rome. It is about the fact, that those who call themselves Catholics, are certainly subject to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. This of course would include all Catholic politicians. It reiterates the Church of Rome’s claim to authority, being founded by Jesus Christ handing all authority over to the Apostle Peter, the first Pope, and his successors. It also reasserts it’s claim, that the intercession of it’s priests, through the holy sacraments, is necessary to salvation.


I will supply only one quote from the article, which bears more testimony concerning my previous post regarding infallibility. Those who are interested, in knowing for themselves, the true intentions of the Church of Rome, should pay more attention to what she is teaching, not only to her own, but to anyone who is willing to listen.

This does not mean that Catholics must never question or criticize decisions made by members of the hierarchy. While Church teachings on faith and morals must always be accepted as infallible, it has been made all too clear many times in history that bishops and even popes are not immune from prudential mistakes and even sins. In some cases, it may be appropriate to question them and perhaps even address certain actions and decisions with respectful criticism. However, it should be remembered that, regardless of their personal failings, members of the hierarchy hold a necessary office. We often hear in relation to civil government officials about the necessity of respecting the office, even if one does not respect the man. In practice, we know that all purely natural offices can in fact lose respect if the person who holds the office is bad enough. However, the offices of those in the hierarchy have a role in a supernatural reality, regardless of the personal dignity of those who hold the offices. As such, the hierarchy itself must always be respected, and every Catholic should be consciously subject to its authority.

The Church of Rome has not changed. She intends to be the number one source of authority on this earth, believing that she has received this power from God. The United States is the most powerful nation on this earth. In order for the Church of Rome to realize her goal, she must have control of this nation. This country has three branches of government, in order to maintain a balance of power. It is for this reason, that the Church of Rome seeks to set up a majority within these three branches. The election of Judge Alito to the supreme court will give them the majority in our congress. There are already more RC’s in our house of representatives than any other religious denomination. The same goes for our Senate. This is not rocket science. The Church of Rome intends to have the majority in all three branches of our government, and then she will have control of this country.

Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

 

[mioque]

Keith
"Doing so, in the light of your recent assertion, that the Catholic Church no longer believes in infallibility."
"
You've got it the wrong way round.
I asserted the RCC made up papal infallibility in 1870, claimed that while it was never noticed before it had been there since the beginning and actually 'used' a grand total of 1 time. That 1 occurance happened in 1950.

 

[BobRyan]

The point is that since the RCC makes the claim - and those who follow it must see "at a minimum" that the key doctrinal initiatives in the 1800's (The sinless nature of Mary and the infallability of the Papacy) are obligatory for all practicing Catholics. A challenge to either one is not accepted as "valid" by the RCC of today.

So assuming they still claim to be Catholic - and assuming they hold to the core teachings of the RCC - one must wander about the "judgment" of someone claiming infallability for a system that presides over the dark ages.

But beyond that - is the question of how they would handle a church-state compromised policy coming from Congress. The SCJs are in fact our "safety net" for such an erroneous situation. IF they are already conflicted on those clear historic issues - how much more future ones.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[mioque]

Bob
"and those who follow it must see "at a
minimum" that the key doctrinal initiatives in the 1800's"
"
I understand that it ought to be that way according to you and presumably according to the pope as well.

You are both out of luck I fear. Him more than you I guess.

 

[mioque]

Keith
"It is about the fact, that those who call themselves Catholics, are certainly subject to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church."
"
What's the last time a woman got arrested by the Inquisition for using birth control medication?

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by mioque:
Bob
"and those who follow it must see "at a
minimum" that the key doctrinal initiatives in the 1800's"
"
I understand that it ought to be that way according to you and presumably according to the pope as well.

You are both out of luck I fear. Him more than you I guess.

The point remains. It is foundational to Catholic thought today such that we do not "Assume" that the default for Catholics is "they do not believe in the sinlessless of Mary or in infallability".

In fact in almost every single case - those Catholics that have posted here - post in favor of both of those central doctrines for Catholicism.

If there is some Vatican survey showing that Catholics generally do not accept the sinless nature of Mary or the infallability of the papacy in the dark ages -- please point to the link.

The problem with "assuming" that Catholics are not actually Catholic but are all much more like Protestants, is the same problem that you saw during the Cold War where people in the west would claim that Communists were not really communists they were much more like the West and it was our poor concept of communism that thought of communists as actually believing communism. When the wall fell and we got a good look at the inside we saw how faulty that reasoning was.

Islam really teaches what they claim to teach. Communism genuinely thought of the outside world as evil even as it walled its own citizens "in" and Catholics really are Catholic!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Kamoroso]

I understand mioque, that you acknowledge that the Church of Rome declared infallibility, in 1870. Your assertion though, is that no one pays that any attention. My point is that there are many RC’s that do, thus the articles I produced, supporting the same.


You ask how long it’s been since any woman has been arrested for using birth control, as proof that the Popes infallibility has no realistic bearing on modern life. You are correct. No one has been arrested for anything the RC church disapproves of, in a long time. The RC church has not had that kind of power in this world for a long time. In fact, they have not had that kind of power since they lost the power of the state to back them up. This is exactly what I am trying to warn all of you about. That is, that the Church of Rome is politically positioning herself to once again have that power, which she believes is rightfully hers.


At the same time that her members are gaining serious political ground in this country, and the entire world, she is striving to re-establish the hierarchy of the church. That is, subject those Catholic politicians to her authority. This is not just what I think, but what is literally transpiring, as can be seen by anyone who will pay attention to the facts.


Back now, to the issue of Papal infallibility. Just because, the RC Church reiterated what she already believed in 1870, doesn’t mean she didn’t believe and practice it prior to that date. The actions of the Church itself testify to the fact that it believed, and practiced the same long before this date. As well as documented history concerning the claims of previous Popes. Any institution that will kill people who will not subject themselves to their authority, obviously believes their authority to be infallible. There is no question that the Church of Rome is guilty of the same throughout many centuries. As well as fining, imprisoning, torturing, and God only knows what else, those who would not subject themselves to her authority. The following are just a few of her audacious claims found in her history.


Bower’s “Lives of the Popes,” Gregory 7, par. 64. As translated and summarized by De Cormenin, Gregory’s “Maxims” stand thus:”God is a Spirit. He rules matter. Thus the spiritual is above the temporal power. The pope is the representative of God on earth; he should then govern the world. To him alone pertain infallibility and universality. All men are submitted to his laws, and he can only be judged by God. He ought to wear imperial ornaments. People and kings should kiss his feet. Christians are irrevocably submitted to his orders. They should murder their princes, fathers, and children if he commands it. No council can be declared universal without the orders of the pope. No book can be received as canonical without his authority. Finally, no good nor evil exists but in what he has condemned or approved.”


Innocent III, JAN. 8, 1198, TO JULY 16, 1216,


“Ye see what manner of servant that is whom the Lord hath set over His people: no other than the vicegerent of Christ, the successor of Peter. He stands in the midst between God and man: below God, above men; less than God, more than man. He judges all, is judged by none, for it is written: ‘I will judge.’ But he whom the pre-eminence of dignity exalts is lowered by his office of a servant, that so humility may be exalted, and pride abased; for God is against the high-minded, and to the lowly He shows mercy; and he who exalteth himself shall be abased. Every valley shall be lifted up, every hill and mountain laid low.” “History of Latin Christianity,” Vol. 4, book 9, chap. 1, par. 8.


Innocent IV, JUNE 24, 1243, TO DEC. 7, 1254,


“When the sick man who has scorned milder remedies is subjected to the knife and the cautery, he complains of the cruelty of the physician: when the evil-doer, who has despised all warning is at length punished, he arraigns his judge. But the physician only looks to the welfare of the sick man, the judge regards the crime, not the person of the criminal. The emperor doubts and denies that all things and all men are subject to the see of Rome. As if we who are to judge angels are not to give sentence on all earthly things. In the Old Testament priests dethroned unworthy kings; how much more is the vicar of Christ justified in proceeding against him who, expelled from the Church as a heretic, is already the portion of hell! Ignorant persons aver that Constantine first gave temporal power to the see of Rome; it was already bestowed by Christ himself, the true king and priest, as inalienable from its nature and absolutely unconditional. Christ founded not only a pontifical but a royal sovereignty, and committed to Peter the rule both of an earthly and a heavenly kingdom, as is indicated and visibly proved by the plurality of the keys. ‘The power of the sword is in the Church and derived from the Church;’ she gives it to the emperor at his coronation, that he may use it lawfully and in her defense; she has the right to say, ‘Put up thy sword into its sheath.’ He strives to awaken the jealousy of other temporal kings, as if the relation of their kingdoms to the pope were the same as those of the electoral kingdom of Germany and the kingdom of Naples. The latter is a papal fief; the former inseparable from the empire, which the pope transferred as a fief from the East to the West. To the pope belongs the coronation of the emperor, who is thereby bound by the consent of ancient and modern times to allegiance and subjection.” Milman’s “History of Latin Christianity,” Vol. 5. book 10, chap. 5 par. 21.


Boniface VIII, DEC. 24, 1294, TCT. 11, 1303.

“As Gregory VII appears the most usurping of mankind till we read the history of Innocent III, so Innocent III is thrown into the shade by the superior audacity of Boniface VIII.” — Hallam. “Middle Ages,” or chap. 7, par 27 from end.


“There is no other Caesar, nor king, nor emperor, than I, the sovereign pontiff and successor of the apostles.”

“I recognize the empire to have been transferred by the holy see from the Greeks to the Germans, in the person of Charlemagne; that the right of choosing the king of the Romans has been delegated by the pope to certain ecclesiastical or secular princes; and, finally, that the sovereigns receive from the chiefs of the Church the power of the material sword.” De Cormenin’s “History of the Popes,” Boniface 8.


“There are two swords, the spiritual and the temporal: our Lord said not of these two swords, ‘It is too much,’ but, ‘it is enough.’ Both are in the power of the Church: the one the spiritual, to be used by the Church, the other the material, for the Church: the former that of priests, the latter that of kings and soldiers, to be wielded at the command and by the sufferance of the priest. One sword must be under the other, the temporal under the spiritual... The spiritual instituted the temporal power, and judges whether that power is well exercised. It has been set over the nations and over the kingdoms to root up and pull down. If the temporal power errs, it is judged by the spiritual. To deny this, is to assert, with the heretical Manicheans, two coequal principles. We therefore assert, define, and pronounce that it is NECESSARY TO SALVATION to believe that every human being is subject to the pontiff of Rome.” Milman’s “History of Latin Christianity,” Vol. 6, book 11, chap. 9, par. 27.


“Another bull pronounces all persons of whatever rank obliged to appear when personally cited before the audience or apostolical tribunal at Rome; ‘since such is our pleasure, who, by divine permission, rule the world.’” Milman’s “History of Latin Christianity,” Vol. 6, book 11, chap. 9,
par. 24 from end.


ROMANISM AND THE REFORMATION by H. Grattan Guiness

In A.D. 1294 Boniface VIII became pope, and by his superior audacity he threw into the shade even Innocent III. He deserves to be designated the most usurping of mankind, as witness his celebrated bull Unam Sanctam. In this document the full claims of the Papacy come out. We have noted several ever-increasing stages of Papal assumption already, but now we reach the climax —the claim which, if it were a true one, would abundantly justify all the rest; we reach the towering pinnacle and topmost peak of human self-exaltation. What was the claim of Boniface VIII? It was that

THE POPE REPRESENTS GOD ON EARTH.

As this claim is the most extraordinary and audacious ever made by mortal man, I will state it, not in my own words, but in the words of the highest Papal authority. In the summary of things concerning the dignity, authority, and infallibility of the pope, set forth by Boniface VIII, are these words: “The pope is of so great dignity and excellence, that he is not merely man, but as if God, and the vicar of God (non simplex homo, sed quasi Deus, et Dei vicarius). The pope alone is called most holy...Divine monarch, and supreme emperor, and king of kings..The pope is of so great dignity and power, that he constitutes one and the same tribunal with Christ (faciat unum et idem tribunal cum Christo), so that whatsoever the pope does seems to proceed from the mouth of God (ab ore Deo)..The pope is as God on earth (papa est QUASI DEUS IN TERRA).”


“In the Bull ‘Ad exstirpanda’-(1252) Innocent IV says: ‘When those adjudged guilty of heresy have been given up to the civil power by the bishop or his representative, or the Inquisition, the podesta or chief magistrate of the city shall take them at once, and shall, within five days at the most, execute the laws made against them.’... Nor could any doubt remain as to what civil regulations were meant, for the passages which ordered the burning of impenitent heretics were inserted in the papal decretals from the imperial constitutions ‘Commissis nobis’ and ‘Inconsutibilem tunicam.’ The aforesaid Bull ‘Ad exstirpanda’ remained thenceforth a fundamental document of the Inquisition, renewed or reinforced by several popes, Alexander IV (1254-61), Clement IV (1265-68), Nicolas IV (1288-92), Boniface VIII (1294-1303), and others. The civil authorities, therefore, were enjoined by the popes, under pain of excommunication to execute the legal sentences that condemned impenitent heretics to the stake. It is to be noted that excommunication itself was no trifle, for, if the person excommunicated did not free himself from excommunication within a year, he was held by the legislation of that period to be a heretic, and incurred all the penalties that affected heresy”-Vol. VIII, p. 34.


Pope Gregory IX (1227-1241) made the following decree for the destruction of all heretics, which is binding on civil rulers:

“Temporal princes shall be reminded and exhorted, and if needs be, compelled by spiritual censures, to discharge every one of their functions: and that, as they desire to be reckoned and held faithful, so, for the defence of the faith, let them publicly make oath that they will endeavor, bona fide with all their might, to extirpate from their territories all heretics marked by the Church; so that when anyone is about to assume any authority, whether spiritual or temporal, he shall be held bound to confirm his title by this oath. And if a temporal prince, being required and admonished by the Church, shall neglect to purge his kingdom from this heretical pravity, the metropolitan and other provincial bishops shall bind him in fetters of excommunication; and if he obstinately refuse to make satisfaction this shall be notified within a year to the Supreme Pontiff, that then he may declare his subjects absolved from their allegiance, and leave their lands to be occupied by Catholics, who, the heretics being exterminated, may possess them unchallenged, and preserve them in the purity of the faith”-”Decretalium Gregorii Papae Noni Conpilatio,” Liber V, Titulus VII, Capitulum XIII, (A Collection of the Decretals of Gregory IX, Book 5, Title 7, Chapter 13), dated April 20, 1619.


The sainted Catholic doctor, Thomas Aquinas, says:

“If counterfeiters of money or other criminals are justly delivered over to death forthwith by the secular authorities, much more can heretics, after they are convicted of heresy, be not only forthwith excommunicated, but as surely put to death.”-’’ Summa Theologica,” 2a, 2ac, qu. xi, art. iii.


Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

[ November 26, 2005, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: Kamoroso ]

 

[mioque]

Bob
"In fact in almost every single case - those Catholics that have posted here - post in favor of both of those central doctrines for Catholicism."
"
Sure, and every time those same Catholics claimed they believed in Salvation by Grace or claimed that they and their fellow parishioners read the Bible daily, they were told they were not typical members of the RCC. Can't have it both ways.

 

[mioque]

Keith
"I understand mioque, that you acknowledge that the Church of Rome declared infallibility, in 1870. Your assertion though, is that no one pays that any attention."
"
No, I assert that a huge number pretty much ignores that. In a church with 1 billion members that still means that the number who takes it very serious indeed numbers in the many millions.
Ofcourse in practice that usually only means that they believe Mary ascended physically into Heaven. One has to reach truly contortionist levels of sofistry to get mileage out of that when making a decision in a court case.

"Just because, the RC Church reiterated what she already believed in 1870, doesn’t mean she didn’t believe and practice it prior to that date."
"
Shortly after 1870 a number of groups left the RCC and started their own new denominations especially because Papal Infallibility was something completely new to them. Their number included several bishops.

 

[BobRyan]

No, I assert that a huge number pretty much ignores that. In a church with 1 billion members that still means that the number who takes it very serious indeed numbers in the many millions.

So do you think it is the majority that are in fact "catholic" in their acceptance of the sinlessness of Mary and infallability of the Papacy or the minority? (And what do you base that on)

If you think it is the minority - to what do you attribute the fact that the RC posters that have posted here historically have almost all endorsed those doctrines made up in the 1800's and then projected back to the time of Christ?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[mioque]

Bob
"So do you think it is the majority that are in fact "catholic" in their acceptance of the sinlessness of Mary and infallability of the Papacy or the minority? (And what do you base that on)"
"
Minority on both, in which thesinlessness of Mary has more adherents than papal infallibility.
Based on 2 things.
The huge number of 'cultural/cafetaria Catholics', the ones that are only part of it because they were baptized as infants and only set foot in church for funerals, weddings, first communions and the Christmasnight churchservice.
Than there is the material that is actually being taught during Catechism class as opposed to what is inside the Catechism.


"If you think it is the minority - to what do you attribute the fact that the RC posters that have posted here historically have almost all endorsed those doctrines made up in the 1800's and then projected back to the time of Christ?"
"]
For anybody to even want to spend time around here, (s)he needs to have a strong interest in Christianity. A product of this interest is having more knowledge than average about the subject.
For a Catholic to actually want to remain around here (where all there is to to look forward to is a mad barrage of attacks on the Catholic faith, both deserved and undeserved) (s)he would have to be an apologist.