Catholic accounting of its plunder...

[jimraboin]

Originally posted by JustAsIAm:
I'm new on this board and have spent most of my time reading rather than posting, but I need to put my 2 cents in here.

It saddens me beyond words that "Christians" are attacking one another so frequently here. I don't think anyone who was unsaved would come into a discussion like this and want to be a Baptist or a Catholic.

Isn't it the Great Commission to go out and make disciples of all nations? Maybe if we were more concerned about only that, rather than ripping apart one another's church, we'd create converts rather than create ridicule towards all Christians. Didn't Christ say that people would know we are Christians by our love of one another?

Don't be saddened. We are called to love one another...not our denominational affiliations. We are called to love the truth...not denominational dogma.

We need to be able to correct, instruct, rebuke and encourage anybody who holds to denominational error. And do it with all wisdom, in love.

Jim

 

[jimraboin]

Catholic claim 5- that she can define Doctrines and Dogmas

Catholic support of that claim is:

- Acts 15 (Council of Jerusalem)

Council of Jerusalem, if Catholicism truly was built upon the faith they had, then it would have allowed what that Council clearly did...allowing believing Jews to celebrate Israel's Sabbaths and feasts.

Explain this contradiction for "a house divided will not stand". God is not in conflict with himself. So who has introduced the conflict?

Rome's Catholicism.

Jim

 

[Charles33]

Jimmy,

You sound like a reasonable man. But if you were a Sadducee in Jesus' day you would hear exactly this tone and intensity from him. Your contention #5 is not what it says it is. If you want me to move to your viewpoint, push me over there with hard, sound and logical rebuttals.

Eusebieus and Constantine did not invent that the See of Rome had preminence. Prove this.

BTW You lost count. You have two #5 Catholic Claims, you are actually on #6.

 

[GraceSaves]

Wow! A monologue! Thanks, Jim. That's neat.

*pats Jim on back*

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by LaRae:
Please study better history. Hitler wasn't any more Catholic than Ghandi was. He was baptized Catholic as a child and spent his early years as a Catholic but past that....he left the Church.

I will let history speak for itself. These photos do not seem to portray a man that was anathema to the Catholic church. If He was, maybe they should have told someone. These church leaders didn't seem to quite get it.

Originally posted by LaRae:
There weren't just Catholics supporting the Nazi party....you seem to overlook this.

There is a difference, there wasn't one crime Hitler commited that had not already been commited by the Catholic Church at one time. As I already showed you, he most likely got a lot of his policy ideas from the Counsil Of Basel, a policy of the Roman Catholic Church, not something they objected to at the time.

Originally posted by LaRae:
Perhaps we should now condem all Baptists because the guy who started the KKK was Baptist and so were many of his followers.

Maybe you should study better, Martin Luther King Jr. was a baptist, are you calling him a racist too?

It is Catholics who claim their history proves who they are, I am just pointing out that they are indeed right. Their history speaks well of the truth, if you are allowed to discuss ALL of it. For some reason, it seems you only like to discuss the events that are favorable to you. I think it's only fair to show the ENTIRE picture.

~Lorelei

 

[GraceSaves]

Do you have dates for those photos? I'm betting you don't. And if you don't understand the reason for my question, that too will speak volumes.

 

[LaRae]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LaRae:
Please study better history. Hitler wasn't any more Catholic than Ghandi was. He was baptized Catholic as a child and spent his early years as a Catholic but past that....he left the Church.

I will let history speak for itself. These photos do not seem to portray a man that was anathema to the Catholic church. If He was, maybe they should have told someone. These church leaders didn't seem to quite get it.

Originally posted by LaRae:
There weren't just Catholics supporting the Nazi party....you seem to overlook this.

There is a difference, there wasn't one crime Hitler commited that had not already been commited by the Catholic Church at one time. As I already showed you, he most likely got a lot of his policy ideas from the Counsil Of Basel, a policy of the Roman Catholic Church, not something they objected to at the time.

Originally posted by LaRae:
Perhaps we should now condem all Baptists because the guy who started the KKK was Baptist and so were many of his followers.

Maybe you should study better, Martin Luther King Jr. was a baptist, are you calling him a racist too?

It is Catholics who claim their history proves who they are, I am just pointing out that they are indeed right. Their history speaks well of the truth, if you are allowed to discuss ALL of it. For some reason, it seems you only like to discuss the events that are favorable to you. I think it's only fair to show the ENTIRE picture.

~Lorelei </font>[/QUOTE]What a hypocrisy!! Discuss the entire picture...yes indeedy lets do. I have never seen you post anything on this forum that points out the crimes of other Churches. Why don't we discuss the 'crimes' of the Baptist Church when it comes to people of color?

If you use the rationale that because Martin Luther King was Baptist therefore Baptists can't be racist you really need to rethink that one. Just how many 'white Baptist' Churches was he allowed in???

I'm originally from the deep south so don't try and sugar coat the seperation that has exsisted until this very day, within the Baptist Church when it comes to race....I know better.


I'd like to see some dates and context on those pics.


LaRae

 

[Kathryn]

Lorelei, you say:

Maybe you should study better, Martin Luther King Jr. was a baptist, are you calling him a racist too?

I don’t think the white Baptists can really take credit for Martin Luther King Jr’s non-racist views. According to him with only small exception, it was these very people that he was was disgusted with. The southern White churches were racist and did not help the cause of racial desegregation. Here is a portion of a letter from the Birmingham Jail addressed to his dear fellow clergymen.

http://www.almaz.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html

…Let me take note of my other major disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership. Of course, there are some notable exceptions. I am not unmindful of the fact that each of you has taken some significant stands on this issue. I commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your Christian stand on this past Sunday, in welcoming Negroes to your worship service on a non segregated basis. I commend the Catholic leaders of this state for integrating Spring Hill College several years ago.
But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who 'has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of Rio shall lengthen.

When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leader era; an too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows.
In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed.

I have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers declare: "Follow this decree because integration is morally right and because the Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: "Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern." And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, on Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.

have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South's beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious-education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: "What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Walleye gave a clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?"

Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? l am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great-grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists…..

God Bless

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
I will let history speak for itself. These photos do not seem to portray a man that was anathema to the Catholic church. If He was, maybe they should have told someone. These church leaders didn't seem to quite get it.

Who are these Church leaders? What is their rank and influence? Do you know that they were in good standing with the Church (no, because you don't know who they are). When were the photos taken? Was Hitler in power at this time? Did Church leaders know his plans or had he acted on any of them that we know because we have hindsight?

Answer these lest you be left with assumptions and nothing more.

Originally posted by Lorelei:
There is a difference, there wasn't one crime Hitler commited that had not already been commited by the Catholic Church at one time. As I already showed you, he most likely got a lot of his policy ideas from the Counsil Of Basel, a policy of the Roman Catholic Church, not something they objected to at the time.

Provide documentation that explicitly approves of the crimes that Hitler committed. Otherwise, more assumptions. There is no doubt that men committed heinous crimes who were Catholic and did so in the name of the Church. That does not mean they had the commission or approval to commit them in the way they did.

Further, you cannot compare a man to an institution.

Originally posted by Lorelei:
Maybe you should study better, Martin Luther King Jr. was a baptist, are you calling him a racist too?

What a terrible answer. This was your question:

Perhaps we should now condem all Baptists because the guy who started the KKK was Baptist and so were many of his followers.

Based on your response, the following answer rebuttal is equally valid:

I am a Catholic; are you calling me a Hitler supporter?

You missed the entire point. You are condemning an institution based on the actions of individuals. Without dogmatic approval, there is no official Church approval, and thus you have no case.

Originally posted by Lorelei:
It is Catholics who claim their history proves who they are,

Since when do Catholics say "My Church is right because of our behavior?" I love it how you never back up comments like this. We tell you time and again that the Church is full of sinners; if we were not sinners, we'd have no need of our Savior. And not everyone who bears the name "Catholic" is in fact a Catholic in fact. You would not deem every "Baptist" to be truly saved, but you demand that of Catholics, even when Catholics don't say that such is the case.

Originally posted by Lorelei:
Their history speaks well of the truth, if you are allowed to discuss ALL of it.

I wasn't aware that you were disallowed to that.

Originally posted by Lorelei:
For some reason, it seems you only like to discuss the events that are favorable to you. I think it's only fair to show the ENTIRE picture.

This coming from the person, who when faced with the KKK, pulls Martin Luther King, Jr. out of her left hand and says "LOOKIE HERE!" Please.

 

[GraceSaves]

And just one more thing on the matter:

History tells us that Peter was crucified upsidedown in Rome.

And yet there is scarcely a Baptist who will agree with that. You'll call it tainted Catholic history.

But pick up "Hitler's Pope" or Foxe's book of martyrs, and it's the Gospel truth; no reason to not trust these folks.

And to say that there is not evidence to the contrary would be a lie, because there are plenty of books and publications that counter both of the afforementioned topics.

 

[mioque]

Lorelei
"Maybe you should study better, Martin Luther King Jr. was a baptist, are you calling him a racist too?"
I could tell you a thing or 2 about King that would make your skin crawl, but let's not soil the reputation of one of the greatest icons in the struggle against racism. Especially since King's deeds&reputation helped me a lot during my university years. He's a lot more popular in Catholic circles (including the hierarchy) than baptists often realize. Members of groups like Opus Dei that are normally somewhat hostile towards Calvinists, Lutherans, non-denominational Christians and Evangelicals opened up considerably if I said I was a baptist just like Martin Luther King.

 

[Justified Saint]

Lorelei seems to have backed herself in a corner and hurling these pictures out appear to be a last defense to her sham historicity.

Surely it must be scandalizing to many how the Pope and the Catholic Church, in the words of the New York Times, were alone crying out against the crimes of Naziism while the rest of the world sat in its silence.

Surely there was no person in the world who hated the Catholic Church more than Hitler, Catholics were right alongside the Jews in the concentration camps.

Surely Martin Luther's anti-semitism was more of an inspiration to Hitler than anything else.

 

[mioque]

"Surely Martin Luther's anti-semitism was more of an inspiration to Hitler than anything else."
Actually I would say that 19th century secular and faux neo-pagan German anti-semitism is the root inspiration of Hitler's Jewhatred.
This German anti-semitism was in turn rooted in Luther's ideas, those ideas were a product of his bitterness towards the Jews because they did not flock en masse to the Protestant banner he raised to combat Roman Catholic corruption.
Hitler himself was RC on paper, but it is certain that he was basically an atheist.
It is worth remembring that prior to the end of WWII, movements within the prior 19 and a half centuries of Christianity that were not anti-semetic can literally be counted on the fingers of one hand (4).

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by jimraboin:

Exactly my point! All denominations have as their foundation Catholicism. And all therefore do what it does...stray from the truth.

Division comes from our loyalties to our religious groups. We were never commanded to have this. No. Rather, we were commanded to love one another no matter where we come from.

Jim

I would disagree some. Some denominations are from Satan. But the Christian ones have as their foundation Jesus Christ. Any time a denomination strays you will have those who will stay and try to correct things and others who will leave. Even in the midst of communism there were those who scattered and those who stayed.

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LaRae:
Please study better history. Hitler wasn't any more Catholic than Ghandi was. He was baptized Catholic as a child and spent his early years as a Catholic but past that....he left the Church.

I will let history speak for itself. </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for sharing from your extensive collection of Churchmen-hobnobbing-with-Nazis photos, Lorelei.

Speaking of letting history speak for itself, I'm sure you've read this many times:
MIT BRENNENDER SORGE

 

[mioque]

"Surely there was no person in the world who hated the Catholic Church more than Hitler, Catholics were right alongside the Jews in the concentration camps."
So were Jehovah's witnesses, Communists and some homosexuals.
But yes, there is plenty evidence that Hitler and his cronies despised the Catholic Church establishment, because it both championed values that the Nazi's saw as weak and tried to frustrate the persecution of the Jews.The Nazi's could not move directly against the Catholic Church as long as it kept a low profile, because that would have led to huge unrest in the German ranks.
The 3 Christian factions present in Germany that did most to oppose Hitler? In random order, The bekennende Kirche, the Jehova's Witnesses and the RCC.
The 2 Christian factions present in Germany that did most to suck up to Hitler?
The nationalreligöse Bewegung Deutsche Christen (DC) and the Seven Day Adventists.

 

[mioque]

"History tells us that Peter was crucified upsidedown in Rome."
You'll find more churchhistorians that are willing to bet that that is true, than folks of that profession willing to bet that Paul wrote all the letters attributed to him.
I won't speculate on the question: "Is this a good thing?"

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by mioque:
The bekennende Kirche...
The nationalreligöse Bewegung Deutsche Christen...

Can you explain what these two are? I'm guessing the 2nd is the "official" German Lutheran church, but it's only a guess.

Thanks!

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by jimraboin:
Catholic claim 4... that she has Authority?

Catholic support of that claim is:
3rd claim - Mt. 28:18-20; Mt 16:18-19; Mt 18:18-20; Jn 20:22-23

These verses say:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Matthew 28
18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Matthew 16
18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

John 20
22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Matthew 18
18"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
19"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

None of these verses tells me that Rome's ideas about itself are true.</font>[/QUOTE]And please tell me, sir, to which church it applies to for the last 1500 years before the so called "Protestant Reformation"?

Please find for me, that mysterious church that existed among the only church who can trace her history back to Christ Himself.

Again, Catholicism is reading the material that it stole but has not shown how Catholicism is what it claims to be.

What material did it steal, sir? Substantiate your charge, as I explain to you that the very bible New Testament you hold in your hot little hands came from that wascally ole' Catholic Church you so dispise!

At least not with these Scriptures. Paul also warned that ravenous wolves would follow him and not spare the sheep. Guess what? That exactly describes how Rome perged all things Jewish from the faith.

And you believe this lock, stock and barrel for the only church around for the first 1500 years, wallowing in error you think, and the failed promise of Christ that "...the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Show me why I must accept Catholic understanding of these verses.

Why should I, if your eyes will not see the the truth, and your soul wallows in utter bigotry?!!!

You posted this nonsense in CARM and got called down for it by a moderator!

Shame on you, jimraiboin

Let's see if the moderator is as tolorant!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Lord, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things that I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
Living one day at a time,
enjoying one moment at a time;
accepting hardship as a pathway to peace;
taking, as Jesus did, this sinful world as it is,
not as I would have it;
trusting that you will make all things right
if I surrender to Your will;
so that I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with You forever in the next.
Amen.

 

[Singer]

Hi there Pacman,

Long time no see!

You said "Please find for me, that mysterious church that existed among the only church who can trace her history back to Christ Himself."

I ask:

How about that church mentioned in Acts 7:38 and Deut 18:15...? It existed in Moses' time and precedes the Catholic Church by a few thousand years...!

Don't loose sleep over this, Pacman cuz our choice of denomination doesn't make squat with the Lord anyhow..............