RCC kills everyone in Europe

Many thanks for Bill's RC Encyclopedia quotes - here is a snippet. (Try to "guess" when the torture and death practices "started" based on the quote).

The "State religion" was Catholocism - this was not a "runnaway" state out of CAtholic control. Far from it. The RCC itself claims that IT became the dominant power in Euorope to follow Pagan Rome AND that IT controled more territory and controled life to a greater extent than all of the Roman Empire. And they are correct in saying that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

By contrast with Bill's second link (the RC Encyclopedia) his first link seeks to place a nice face on the inquisition. Read the first link carefully - did you catch the part where they defend "exterminating whole people groups"? No?

Would like that quote from an RC source?

And wouldn't we all "like to know" why the first link supposedly dealing WITH these crimes of the RCC does not actually address the RC CURRENT claims to having pursued a course of "extinction" with certain Christian groups.

What a wonderful web they weave!

In Christ,

Bob

 

"lets go ask the RCC to honestly tell us exactly how many people she tortured and murdered during her 1260 year spree - we have no reason to believe she has an incentive NOT to be forthright - right?".

First of all everybody give Bob a big round of applause or is that applesauce for have the guts or being that wacked out about Catholicism to actually put up a defense for those numbers. He truly added to the conversation with his post as we didn't have anyone with his position to date. Bravo Bob.

Um Bob, I gave a Protestant source. If you want to go read him the book is online. As for your truly ridiculous numbers, if you ever had credibility you have proven that you are full of venom. But then we knew that. Support your numbers with more than handwaving and conjecture. If they are true then list all that were killed Bob. I want names and of course some documentation (besides unsubstantiated quotes in various books) along with the person who did the killing so we can verify that they were Cathoic. I will even except a listing of killed per group that adds up to 50 million. I'm waiting....

Blessing

 

Hey Brian,

Ok I found that info from that show/documentary I saw last year:

LaRae
-------------------------------------

Here are some facts seen on a documentary:

During the 350 or so years of the Inquisition only 3 to 5 thousand people were put to death (and scholars indicate 5000 is probably to high). During the same time period 150 thousand people were executed by secular courts, all over Europe, for being witches. Not to mention those put to death later in the US at the hands of the Puritans.

During the reign of Henry VIII 72 thousand were executed, a large number of them being Catholic.

During the reign of "Good Queen Bess" more were executed than during the whole inquisition. During the reign of Mary, Queen of Scots, only 400 to 500 were executed.

More people were executed by secular courts in Europe in the same time period as the Inquisition than those at the hands of the Inquisitioners.

Less than 2 percent of those questioned by the Inquisition were executed.

In England during this time period people could be executed for "disturbing" public shrubbery.
In France during this time you were disembowled for steeling a sheep.

With the advent of the printing press the Reformers found a new weapon that was much more effective for their cause of attacking Spain and the Church (Keep mind that at one time in history Spain was a world power)....the weapon of propaganda.

The "millions" executed idea came from a single document (which a copy was shown on the documentary)....and this document was printed up by a person using an assumed name....then spread and printed into different languages.

The Iron Maiden (for those who don't know it was a type of a standing coffin with iron/metal spikes and it impaled those put in it.....was invented in Germany and not used by the Inquisition.


Every person here who claims to be Christian should want to know the truth and not spread misinformation, even accidently. I would hope that all would seek the truth about this.

 

While we are still anathemetized for believing what the reformers were murdered for believing, the sinners who performed these vicious acts and the popes who were supposedly infallible in doctrine yet allowed or even ordered these horrible crimes to be committed are not.

The Catholic church relies on it's apostolic succession to prove her validity, non-catholic churches do not need to. Therefore, we are not responsible for the sins of those who came before us (though I am not Protestant). The Catholics must explain how an infallible pope did such vile things. They MUST address the actions taken by the very man they say is the Vicar of Christ and those he has placed in authority.

~Lorelei

 

The Catholics have explained sinful actions of past Popes. "Infallible" does not mean in the context of every action and choice, etc, but only when speaking "ex cathedra".

The Apostle Peter denied Christ, had Christ say "Get behind me Satan" to him, and cut of the ear of the servant, and was hypocritical about Jewish custom (and had to be corrected by Paul). These were all wrong actions (from an Apostle!), yet the wrong, fallible actions of men do not disprove apostolic succession, nor the Catholic concept of "infallibility".

But LaRae's main point, which everyone seems to be ignoring, is that people need to be *truthful* about past events, and not exaggerate and lie about past events just because it makes your "opponent" look bad and thus makes you look "better". Yes, the Catholic Church did some nasty stuff. But let's not be untruthful about it, eh?

 

There's that fig leaf of plausible deniablilty again.

"We're a little local autonomous church."

"What that other little local autonomous church, with the same distinctives that we have, does has nothing to do with us."


"We can't say anthing about that other little local church because it's autonomous."

 

[/qb][/QUOTE]While we are still anathemetized for believing what the reformers were murdered for believing, the sinners who performed these vicious acts and the popes who were supposedly infallible in doctrine yet allowed or even ordered these horrible crimes to be committed are not.

The Catholic church relies on it's apostolic succession to prove her validity, non-catholic churches do not need to. Therefore, we are not responsible for the sins of those who came before us (though I am not Protestant). The Catholics must explain how an infallible pope did such vile things. They MUST address the actions taken by the very man they say is the Vicar of Christ and those he has placed in authority.

~Lorelei [/QB][/QUOTE]


Nice dodge Lorelei. No apology for making claims that the Church had not apologized or 'owned up' to what happened?

Please provide documentation (ie proof) that ANY pope ordered the death of anyone. You guys just keep on don't you....it doesn't matter one bit to you if it's truthful or not as long as it 'sounds bad' it must be right. I suppose you can try to pretend that non-Catholic clergy have never done 'vile things'.

There have only been 2 or 3 infallible statments made by ANY pope in the past 2000 or so years.

Also the current pope....what actions has he done that you speak of that we must address?

I am not responsible for the sins of my parents or ANY Catholic currently living or deceased.

And no you can't rely on apostolic sucession to prove validity....your church was started by a man, probably a splinter off of another church and in fact you can more than likely trace it back to the reformers (backtracking the split offs) in that case if you hold you to the same standard you want to hold Catholics then you ARE responsible for any 'vile' action committed against Catholic back several hundred years.


LaRae

 

Lorelei,

"though I am not a protestant"

From MSN Encarta:

member of church rejecting papal authority: a member or adherent of any denomination of the Western Christian church that rejects papal authority and some fundamental Roman Catholic doctrines, and believes in justification by faith. The formulation of Protestants’ beliefs began with the Reformation in the 16th century.

I don't know Lorelei, perhaps you can weasel out of it by denying reality on the last sentence.
The other guys handled your basic post quite well.

 

"The Catholics must explain how an infallible pope did such vile things."

Perhaps you could provide an example of a pope pulling the rope on a guitine for us or dropping the trap door on a scafold.

 

"exterminating whole people groups"?

Once again Bob, who are you quoting? Yourself? No?

I expect that that list of names and who were the henchmen will be on Mike's thread in the morning.

 

It's no lie that historically there were three popes at one time. It's no lie that historically at one time there was a serious problem with popes having children out of wedlock. It's not a lie that a pope tried to reveal the wrongs just in my lifetime. But instead it was covered up again. I even knew about those things when I was a child attending the RCC.

 

Actually there can only be ONE pope at any given time....there may have been other claimants who said they were pope, however they weren't. I can claim to be the Queen of England, doesn't mean I am.

Do you think a member of the Catholic clergy are the only ones to have ever had children out of wedlock? Pray take the beam out of your own eye before you attempt to claim otherwise.

What coverup when you were a child, and by what pope?


LaRae

 

Hi gb93433
It's no lie that historically there were three popes at one time.

Nope, there was a legit pope and claiments. Did you ever stop to think why everybody wanted to be Bishop of Rome? Why was it rare that the Bishop of Constantinople or Athens had multiple claiments? Actually the Anti-popes confirm rather than deny the papacy for if Rome weren't so important to the Church then why would they care?


"It's no lie that historically at one time there was a serious problem with popes having children out of wedlock."

First I would say how serious. Lot of handwaving going on here. NOthing substantiated. I know of 1 instance though there likely were a few others. But even if you find 10 or 20 so what. Peter denied our lord not once, not twice, but three times. After our Lord arose and ascended in to heaven and Peter recieved the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, he catered to the Circucision Christians in Galations, for which Paul rebuked him. Have you ripped Peter's two Epistles out of your Bible yet. The Apostle Paul says "the good that I would do I do not, while the EVIL that I would not I do.". You haven't got much Bible left there my friend. The Jew's sacrificed children and Hophni and Phineas had sex in the doorway of the tent of the meeting as they were guarding it. David had a man killed so he could have his wife. So there goes the Old Testament. In other words your point is moot.

"It's not a lie that a pope tried to reveal the wrongs just in my lifetime. But instead it was covered up again. I even knew about those things when I was a child attending the RCC. "

What things? Are you talking about the priest scandal. I don't want to post articles of fornicating protestant pastors again. You don't here it on the news. www.reformatoin.org is all that I have to say.

God bless though.

 

Did they explain them or mereley ask forgiveness for the "sins of the past?" Have they explained what specifically those sins are and why the church found it reasonable to partake in them at the time? When you go to confession can you say "Father, forgive me for my sins" or do you have to ask forgiveness for specific sins? Should it not be the same for the church itself? I have not heard any specifics in any apoligies I have read. If I have missed the apologies on specific sins, then please show me where I can find those resources.

You have to understand, you believe this because your church through your "infallible" pope tells you it is true. Those outside the church are NOT going to take a man's word for it that he is infallible even though he shows no fruits of the Spirit or commits crimes such as murder. We will never agree on this issue because non-catholics find no biblical support for it. So we will continue to hold you accountable to remind the world that your only proof of infalliblity is that "you say so."

~Lorelei

 

Clarify for me, is the pope the leader of the catholic church or not? If protestors were murdered for not believing what the church taught, and the pope did not order this action or even agree with this action, why didn't he stop it? Is the pope and the catholic church subject to the state or was the state subject to the pope? How can you claim appostolic succession if some of your popes were so impotent during such important events? Did he have NO power? Could he not have made an infallible statement saying that it was WRONG to murder those who disagreed with the church? Has any pope ever made such a bold statement? If not, WHY? Isn't it wrong? Wouldn't he want to discourage such action?

No, to act as if your church leadership is innocent of these crimes is again, more of the same disgrace and contempt your church has for those who were slaughtered for protesting the doctrines of the catholic church. Denying it's leaderships involvement or at the very least responsibility for not doing something about it shows how little your church really cares that these people died simply because they would not deny their beliefs.

Since the Bible doesn't tell us we need to, we do not have to.

~Lorelei

 

Did they explain them or mereley ask forgiveness for the "sins of the past?" Have they explained what specifically those sins are and why the church found it reasonable to partake in them at the time?
</font>[/QUOTE]I don't know. I would suspect so.

You have to understand, you believe this because your church through your "infallible" pope tells you it is true.
</font>[/QUOTE]No, I believe that the Catholic Church means "infallible" only refers to when the Pope is speaking "ex cathedra" because that is how the Catholic Church has defined it. You see, I'm a Baptist, and have been striving to understand their definitions of their terms, instead of telling them what their own terms mean.

No one expects you, as a non-Catholic, to take his word for it. But again "infallible" has nothing to do with his personal actions or statements. We should be striving for truth, and the idea that "infallibility" refers to every aspect of his life is NOT true, yet many non-Catholics keep repeating this falsehood even after being shown they incorrect about this. Why? No one expects you to accept "infallibility", but it is reasonable to at least expect you to understand what the term means in the first place.

You will "continue to hold me accountable"?

 

Lorelei, who's "we"? Are you speaking royally, perchance? Otherwise, count me out

Yours in Christ

Matt