• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

RCC kills everyone in Europe

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
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).

RC Encyclopedia quoted above -

However, the successors of Constantine were ever persuaded that the first concern of imperial authority (Theodosius II, "Novellae", tit. III, A.D. 438) was the protection of religion and so, with terrible regularity, issued many penal edicts against heretics. In the space of fifty seven years sixty-eight enactments were thus promulgated. All manner of heretics were affected by this legislation, and in various ways, by exile, confiscation of property, or death. A law of 407, aimed at the traitorous Donatists, asserts for the first time that these heretics ought to be put on the same plane as transgressors against the sacred majesty of the emperor, a concept to which was reserved in later times a very momentous role. The death penalty however, was only imposed for certain kinds of heresy; in their persecution of heretics the Christian emperors fell far short of the severity of Diocletian, who in 287 sentenced to the stake the leaders of the Manichaeans, and inflicted on their followers partly the death penalty by beheading, and partly forced labor in the government mines.

So far we have been dealing with the legislation of the Christianized State. In the attitude of the representatives of the Church towards this legislation some uncertainty is already noticeable. At the close of the forth century, and during the fifth, Manichaeism, Donatism, and Priscillianism were the heresies most in view. Expelled from Rome and Milan, the Manichaeism sought refuge in Africa. Though they were found guilty of abominable teachings and misdeeds (St. Augustine, De haeresibus", no. 46), the Church refused to invoke the civil power against them; indeed, the great Bishop of Hippo explicitly rejected the use force. He sought their return only through public and private acts of submission, and his efforts seem to have met with success. Indeed, we learn from him that the Donatists themselves were the first to appeal to the civil power for protection against the Church. However, they fared like Daniels accusers: the lions turned upon them. State intervention not answering to their wishes, and the violent excesses of the Circumcellions being condignly punished, the Donatists complained bitterly of administrative cruelty. St. Optatus of Mileve defended the civil authority (De Schismate Donntistarum, III, cc. 6-7) as follows:

. . . as though it were not permitted to come forward as avengers of God, and to pronounce sentence of death! . . . But, say you, the State cannot punish in the name of God. Yet was it not in the name of God that Moses and Phineas consigned to death the worshippers of the Golden calf and those who despised the true religion?

This was the first time that a Catholic bishop championed a decisive cooperation of the State in religious questions, and its right to inflict DEATH on heretics. For the first time, also, the Old Testament was appealed to, though such appeals had been previously rejected by Christian teachers.
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
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
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
 

thessalonian

New Member
Originally posted by BobRyan:
But as this thread shows - it is often more "convenient" to ignore the unpleasant fact of the RCC practice of torture and death during the dark ages and just "pretend" that the 1/2 Billion alive during the 1500's and the 1 Billion alive during the late 1700's and the quater billion alive during the 1200's were "just too few" for the RCC to chalk up 50 million dead and tortured over a 1000 year period of rule in the dark ages.

Yep - wayyyy too few people indeed.

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
 

MikeS

New Member
Originally posted by thessalonian:
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
Not just Catholic, Thess (that would cover every killing in Europe for 1000 years, for whatever reason!). No, not just Catholic, but "the RCC"

It may not be eloquent, but all I can think of right now with respect to Bob Ryan's posts here is the song from "South Pacific":

"You've got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You've got to be taught
From year to year,
It's got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught!
 
L

LaRae

Guest
Originally posted by Briguy:
Hi Thess. and others, Wow, I see I took a little heat for my post. My thought when I posted was just to let Mike and LaRae know that what they thought was making the CC look better made it look worse in a way. I was thinking at a depth where i was thinking I needed to slam the original 50 million number.

In Christ,
Brian
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.
 

Lorelei

<img src ="http://www.amacominc.com/~lorelei/mgsm.
Originally posted by LaRae:
Excuse me but I don't think you are up on the facts. The Catholic Church has formaly/publically apologized (and I have posted that here before, the document) for any part it had during this time.....I have yet to hear of ANY non-Catholic Church that had part in the murder of Catholics apologize.
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
 

BrianT

New Member
Originally posted by Lorelei:
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.
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?
 
Originally posted by Lorelei:
Therefore, we are not responsible for the sins of those who came before us (though I am not Protestant).
There's that fig leaf of plausible deniablilty again. :rolleyes:

"We're a little local autonomous church."
saint.gif


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



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

LaRae

Guest
[/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
 

thessalonian

New Member
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.
 

thessalonian

New Member
"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.
 

thessalonian

New Member
"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.
type.gif
 

gb93433

Active Member
Site Supporter
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.
 
L

LaRae

Guest
Originally posted by gb93433:
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
 

MikeS

New Member
Originally posted by LaRae:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
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. </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly. Once a pope is chosen he is pope until he dies (or, very rarely, resigns). If some other Cardinals, or even the very same Cardinals, then get together again and choose somebody else, they have no authority to do so because there is a sitting pope, and they have not really chosen a real pope. So it is simply impossible to have more than one pope at a time. Many pretenders, possibly, but only one pope.

I have no idea what you're referring to about the brave pope who tried to tell the truth but it was covered up again. It will be interesting to refute that one too!
 

thessalonian

New Member
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.
 

Lorelei

<img src ="http://www.amacominc.com/~lorelei/mgsm.
Originally posted by BrianT:
The Catholics have explained sinful actions of past Popes.


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.

Originally posted by BrianT:
"Infallible" does not mean in the context of every action and choice, etc, but only when speaking "ex cathedra".


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
 

Lorelei

<img src ="http://www.amacominc.com/~lorelei/mgsm.
Originally posted by LaRae:
Please provide documentation (ie proof) that ANY pope ordered the death of anyone.


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.


Originally posted by LaRae:
And no you can't rely on apostolic sucession to prove validity....


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

~Lorelei
 

BrianT

New Member
Originally posted by Lorelei:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BrianT:
The Catholics have explained sinful actions of past Popes.
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.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BrianT:
"Infallible" does not mean in the context of every action and choice, etc, but only when speaking "ex cathedra".
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.

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.
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.

So we will continue to hold you accountable to remind the world that your only proof of infalliblity is that "you say so."
You will "continue to hold me accountable"? :rolleyes:
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Lorelei, who's "we"? Are you speaking royally, perchance? Otherwise, count me out

Yours in Christ

Matt
 
Top