RCC kills everyone in Europe

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
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.

If you know anything about history you know that the term protestant was formed because of the "protestors" of the catholic church. Though encarta and others today like to call any christian non-catholic a protestant does not mean that we identify ourselves as such. Unless of course you want to say that Encarta is infallible too.

There were always those outside the catholic church, it is a shame that encarta failed to mention that fact. If no one objected before the reformations, why were all the councils necessary. Why clarify what EVERYONE believed? Surely you do not suggest that no one claiming christianity ever objected to it's teachings before that time?


~Lorelei

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by BrianT:
I don't know.

I would suspect so.

You may be willing to "suspect" so, but from what I have read, I have not heard any specific statement, and I have read the official documents off of www.vatican.va . I have been searching, but found nothing specific. I am not so willing to believe what I am told without finding proof to back it up.

Catholics sure like to demand proof for my statements, so I would like to see their proof of the pope apologizing for something "specific."

Originally posted by BrianT:
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.

Yes, that is how they define it, and I have not said they define it otherwise. What I have said is that they can not prove it. The fact that popes, the Vicar of Christ, does such immoral things leaves a lot of room for doubt for those not willing to merely believe their "definition" based off of no scripture or any other reasoning whatsoever.

Originally posted by BrianT:
You will "continue to hold me accountable"?

I apologize for thinking that you were catholic. Just remember, this church that you are so willing to "understand" is the same church that the reformers so adamantly disagreed with that they were willing to die for it. They were killed because they didn't agree with the catholic church and the catholic church has not changed it's doctrine since that time. They are same church that was willing to once kill for what they believed in, while those who didn't agree were willing to die for their beliefs.


~Lorelei

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
There were always those outside the catholic church, it is a shame that encarta failed to mention that fact. If no one objected before the reformations, why were all the councils necessary. Why clarify what EVERYONE believed? Surely you do not suggest that no one claiming christianity ever objected to it's teachings before that time?
~Lorelei

Well, Lorelei, what things did the councils clarify?

If you wish to identify with small groups outside of the Catholic Church prior to the Reformation, that certainly is your right.

Are you choosing to identify with those who denied the divinety of Jesus or those who denied the humanity of Jesus?

Perhaps you identify with those who believed that all created matter was evil?

Look at the issues that the Church Councils were addressing and tell me exactly which group or groups of heretics you want to call yours.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
You may be willing to "suspect" so, but from what I have read, I have not heard any specific statement, and I have read the official documents off of www.vatican.va . I have been searching, but found nothing specific.

The Vatican's website and online document collection is *huge*. You've "read the official documents"? I believe you've probably read a few, but get back to me in 40 years after you finish what's currently there.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BrianT:
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.

Yes, that is how they define it, and I have not said they define it otherwise.
</font>[/QUOTE]You know that's how they define it? No, it appears you didn't know that. You were connecting personal actions with the concept of "infallibility". You said "The Catholics must explain how an infallible pope did such vile things" which only shows you *didn't* know that's how they define it.

The fact that popes, the Vicar of Christ, does such immoral things leaves a lot of room for doubt for those not willing to merely believe their "definition"...

And apparently you still do not understand the definition. And again, no one expects you to "merely believe" it, but to at least understand it before condemning it. Attacking something you don't even understand in the first place is actually detrimental to an argument.

Just remember, this church that you are so willing to "understand" is the same church that the reformers so adamantly disagreed with that they were willing to die for it. They were killed because they didn't agree with the catholic church and the catholic church has not changed it's doctrine since that time. They are same church that was willing to once kill for what they believed in, while those who didn't agree were willing to die for their beliefs.

I don't mean to be too blunt, but "so what?". A few thoughts:

1. Overzealousness in defending doctrine does not necessarily mean the doctrine itself is in error, only that people err in how to defend/promote it. Even the Apostles overzealously attacked, with a sword, because of their beliefs (John 18:10). Should we therefore reject the apostles and what they taught?

2. Willing to die does not make a doctrine correct either. Even the JWs and Mormons, even Muslims and Bhuddists, have martyrs. Should we therefore accept these groups?

3. Protestant groups have also persecuted and killed those that disagreed with their doctrine.

4. Catholics definitely have their fair share of martyrs as well, they have been willing to die for their beliefs.

Basically, you can't judge the truthfulness or untruthfulness of a group's doctrine by the zealous, wrong actions of some from that group, or by that group's willingness to die for their beliefs.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
There were always those outside the catholic church, it is a shame that encarta failed to mention that fact. If no one objected before the reformations, why were all the councils necessary. Why clarify what EVERYONE believed? Surely you do not suggest that no one claiming christianity ever objected to it's teachings before that time?
~Lorelei

Usually, prior to the Reformation, those objecting to the Church's teachings, and the reasons for councils, we because of heretics.

Lorelei, which specific group "outside the Catholic Church" prior to the Reformation would you have associated with?

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
Just remember, this church that you are so willing to "understand" is the same church that the reformers so adamantly disagreed with that they were willing to die for it. They were killed because they didn't agree with the catholic church and the catholic church has not changed it's doctrine since that time. They are same church that was willing to once kill for what they believed in, while those who didn't agree were willing to die for their beliefs.


~Lorelei

Lorelie, considering the large number of Catholics that died at the hands of the Protestants...

Just remember, this church that you are so willing to "understand" is the same church that the reformers so adamantly disagreed with that they were willing to kill them for it. They killed because they didn't agree with the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church has not changed it's doctrine since that time. They are same Church that was willing to die for what they believed in, while those who didn't agree were willing to kill for their beliefs.

 

[LaRae]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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 </font>[/QUOTE]You are creating strawmen to attack and it does nothing for your credibility.

You conveniently ignore the many Catholics murdered by Protestants and dodge my question about where is the apology for their deaths? By the way here is a Vatican document for you to read, you must of overlooked it:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html

The Pope doesn't just go around making infallible statments, there have been ONLY 2 or 3 in the past 2000 years! You keep confusing infallibility with impeccability. I would like for you to hold the apostles to the same standard as the Pope....and when will your conversion to Judiasm be?

If you are not willing to be more logical and use actual facts (and stop dodging questions) then I don't see that we can possible have any sort of meaningful discussion.


LaRae


Here's another link re: inquisition

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2INQUI.HTM

 

[thessalonian]

I hate to make this point because I know that it will be misunderstood but in truth Lorelei is affirming one of our doctrines that she does not believe in when you blames us today for sins of past Popes and demands apologies by the current Pope for wrongs Catholics committed in the past centuries. That of the commuion of the saints.

If she were correct that there is no link between generations of Christians who do wrong as she operates with regard to her own Baptist faith (i.e. those involved with the KKK have nothing to do with me) then you would think she would apply this "truth" to the Catholic Church. But of course it doesn't suit her purposes so she is willing to go against what she believes to attempt to make a point against the Catholic Church. We do suffer as Catholics today because of the sins of past Catholics and so she is right that we are joined to them. What she doesn't realize is that in affirming our doctrine in the negative sense she also implictly affirms it for us in the positive sense. Thus we can also rejoice in the great good that has been done by countless Catholics in the past also. We can draw upon the great understanding and knowledge of Augustine and Aquinas and Gregory the Great or St. Catherine of Sienna. We can draw upon the great charity of Mother Teresa and St. John Vienny and St. Francis Xavier or St. John Bosco and the spiritulity of St. Teresa of Avilla. Wheras Protestant Christianity is today and history is only distorted to ones advantage. To shallow in history is to be Protestant. To become deep in history is to cease to become Protestant.

Blessings

 

[trying2understand]

Thess, most excellent!

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
I hate to make this point because I know that it will be misunderstood but in truth Lorelei is affirming one of our doctrines that she does not believe in when you blames us today for sins of past Popes and demands apologies by the current Pope for wrongs Catholics committed in the past centuries. That of the commuion of the saints.

If she were correct that there is no link between generations of Christians who do wrong as she operates with regard to her own Baptist faith (i.e. those involved with the KKK have nothing to do with me) then you would think she would apply this "truth" to the Catholic Church. But of course it doesn't suit her purposes so she is willing to go against what she believes to attempt to make a point against the Catholic Church. We do suffer as Catholics today because of the sins of past Catholics and so she is right that we are joined to them. What she doesn't realize is that in affirming our doctrine in the negative sense she also implictly affirms it for us in the positive sense. Thus we can also rejoice in the great good that has been done by countless Catholics in the past also. We can draw upon the great understanding and knowledge of Augustine and Aquinas and Gregory the Great or St. Catherine of Sienna. We can draw upon the great charity of Mother Teresa and St. John Vienny and St. Francis Xavier or St. John Bosco and the spiritulity of St. Teresa of Avilla. Wheras Protestant Christianity is today and history is only distorted to ones advantage. To shallow in history is to be Protestant. To become deep in history is to cease to become Protestant.

Blessings

Good job, Thess!

To make the same point in a slightly different way, for every greatly sinning priest, bishop or pope, there are untold numbers of good and holy men and women who fill up the pages of canonized saints for that last 2000 years!

And for those who go unaccounted for, the "Feast of all Saints" is just around the corner.

One further point: Someone above seems to think that infalliblity also means impeccability. Even a sinful pope can declare infallibly, a doctrine that effects faith and morals. What historians cannot do is find an infallible decree that is fallible, either from a holy pope or otherwise...

Again, good work, Thess. I kinda forgot this thread, having been busy in two new forums I may be kicked out of soon!

God bless,

PAX

Rome has spoken, case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.

 

[BobRyan]

I love the head-in-sand RCC response to the mass murders committed by the RCC in the dark ages.

"yes - but -- probably few, probably fewer, probably less than you think".

Fantastic!!

But of course you have to "already BE Catholic" to adopt that approach.


In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

If she were correct that there is no link between generations of Christians who do wrong as she operates with regard to her own Baptist faith (i.e. those involved with the KKK have nothing to do with me) then you would think she would apply this "truth" to the Catholic Church.

Classic equivocation "as IF" some Baptist "Pope" had "proclaimed" the inquisition as the blessed form of evangelizing dissenters.

In Bokenkotter's book "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" we find this candid remark concerning the inquisition in the "Historical Catholic Church" - p117

"One instrument of PAPAL CONTROL over society that ORIGINATED at this time and that was viewed with much REPUGNANCE in LATER times was the INQUISITION. And it is one of Innocent's (Pope Innocent) less glorious titles to fame that he was the first Pope to apply force on a considerable scale to suppress religious opinions. The New Testament certainly contains NO basis for a theory of persecution, but after the conversion of Constantine, the Roman Emperors began the policy of using force against heretics..."

How popular did this free-handed style of torture become among the spiritually elite?
ibid pg 167. Pope Urban VI "turned more violent and savage. Suspecting his OWN Cardinals of plotting against him, he put them to torture and five of them died shortly afterward, probably thrown overboard from the Pope's warship!"

Equivocation - try to find that level of "support" for the KKK among Baptist "popes".

Worse - try to find an RCC "apology" for their acts of extermination.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
If she were correct that there is no link between generations of Christians who do wrong as she operates with regard to her own Baptist faith (i.e. those involved with the KKK have nothing to do with me) then you would think she would apply this "truth" to the Catholic Church.

Classic equivocation "as IF" some Baptist "Pope" had "proclaimed" the inquisition as the blessed form of evangelizing dissenters.

In Bokenkotter's book "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" we find this candid remark concerning the inquisition in the "Historical Catholic Church" - p117

"One instrument of PAPAL CONTROL over society that ORIGINATED at this time and that was viewed with much REPUGNANCE in LATER times was the INQUISITION. And it is one of Innocent's (Pope Innocent) less glorious titles to fame that he was the first Pope to apply force on a considerable scale to suppress religious opinions. The New Testament certainly contains NO basis for a theory of persecution, but after the conversion of Constantine, the Roman Emperors began the policy of using force against heretics..."

How popular did this free-handed style of torture become among the spiritually elite?
ibid pg 167. Pope Urban VI "turned more violent and savage. Suspecting his OWN Cardinals of plotting against him, he put them to torture and five of them died shortly afterward, probably thrown overboard from the Pope's warship!"

Equivocation - try to find that level of "support" for the KKK among Baptist "popes".

Worse - try to find an RCC "apology" for their acts of extermination.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Went right over your head Bob as I thought it would. You just never get it do you.

I'm still waiting for you to provide that list that supports your fifty million killed claim. If you can't provide it then you are a liar.

Blessings though.

 

[BobRyan]

I love it!

The RCC posts on THIS thread "That there are too few people available" for them to kill in the dark ages and cite the plague as their "example".

This is supposed to be their "proof" that they did not "exterminate" all those that they claimed to "exterminate". See the TITLE they pick for this thread.

I simply point out that fact of the BILLIONS that lived during that period of time to refute their "too few people to kill argument".

And then we get "bait and switch" so that NOW -- if I don't have a the "catholic log book" on each murder performed - or each torture "executed" then the "estimates" about the numbers slaughtered in the 1260 year reign of the RCC in the dark ages "MUST be in error".

(they appear to have NO shame about comparing that switch in tactics to the TITLe of this thread)

You have "already BE" RC to believe the line.

How about "a compelling" point instead?

This is not "an all RC" forum after all.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
I love it!

The RCC posts on THIS thread "That there are too few people available" for them to kill in the dark ages and cite the plague as their "example".

This is supposed to be their "proof" that they did not "exterminate" all those that they claimed to "exterminate". See the TITLE they pick for this thread.

I simply point out that fact of the BILLIONS that lived during that period of time to refute their "too few people to kill argument".

And then we get "bait and switch" so that NOW -- if I don't have a the "catholic log book" on each murder performed - or each torture "executed" then the "estimates" about the numbers slaughtered in the 1260 year reign of the RCC in the dark ages "MUST be in error".

(they appear to have NO shame about comparing that switch in tactics to the TITLe of this thread)

You have "already BE" RC to believe the line.

How about "a compelling" point instead?

This is not "an all RC" forum after all.

In Christ,

Bob

Bob's logic

A = FALSE B = FALSE so A = TRUE. Silly Bob.

How have I done a bait and switch Bob? The initial post was about the big lie. Therefore if I choose to try and get some numbers for you to prove the big lie (which the SDA's have on many of there websites) is true my posts have then been fully within the topic of this thread regardless of what you think you have proven. Your logic is there were enough people so it could be true so it is. Remember Bob, though shall not bear false witness doesn't say (unless of course you think what is false is true due to biggotry and hatred which is the source of the Big Lie) is a commandment. It is just shortly after "thou shall not kill" if I remember right. So if you wish to continue to bear false witness and continue to support the lie, don't blame me if things get a little hot in about 50 years for ya. I'll pray that doesn't happen and that you repent because personally I like you Bob and even if I didn't I wouldn't want you to go to hell for violating a commandment that you took so lightly while on this earth, but rather repent. Don't think I'll be able to keep you out of purgatory though. Your gonna have ta get spiffed up a bit before you get in the pearly's. Oh, I just gave you an opening for the bait and switch. Go for it. Could you answer my "who were you quoting" post above. I really want to know who you were quoting as, as I recall those words you quoted were not in any post or any link on this thread. Perhaps you were quoting yourself.

Blessings.

PS - Bob, I agree with you (two miracles in the same year) that over the time fram in question there probably were enough people. So what. It could be true so it must be?? It could be true so I am not accountable for bearing false witness??? Check with God on that one. Not sure about your Billion number. Further I don't know how the Popes would have had times for all the other attocities and false doctrines and making things up that you accuse them of, spending there time operating gallows and all. Further I highly doudt that anyone would have remained Catholic had the Catholic Church killed the 50 million or 150 million as SDA's that I know have claimed.

 

[BobRyan]

PS - Bob, I agree with you (two miracles in the same year) that over the time fram in question there probably were enough people. So what. It could be true so it must be??

Is this your way of admitting that the title of this thread is a joke - only believable if you are "already Catholic"??

Is this your way of saying that the "proof" used in the opening post AND the few that followed it - is a "joke"?

"My argument" was simply to "Show" that there WERE more than enough people to "account for the numbers". I was simply exposing the hollow nature of the PREMISE of this thread regarding the need to "Kill Everyone in Europe" before you could come up with 50 million over a 1200 year period of time in the dark ages of the RCC.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

PS - Bob, I agree with you (two miracles in the same year) that over the time fram in question there probably were enough people. So what. It could be true so it must be??

Is this your way of admitting that the title of this thread is a joke - only believable if you are "already Catholic"??

Is this your way of saying that the "proof" used in the opening post AND the few that followed it - is a "joke"?

"My argument" was simply to "Show" that there WERE more than enough people to "account for the numbers". I was simply exposing the hollow nature of the PREMISE of this thread regarding the need to "Kill Everyone in Europe" before you could come up with 50 million over a 1200 year period of time in the dark ages of the RCC.

In Christ,

Bob

No Bob. I don't think it is a joke. I once used Trying2's reasoning so I understand where he is coming from. It is base on a snapshot population so I don't think it holds. My point is your so up in arms about this killing thing but you turn a blind eye to almost every SDA today's sin of bearing false witness. You say it is okay for you to turn a blind eye to TODAY's viloation of one of the commandments because it maybe could be true. Yet you will not show how it is true. Your method of showing that it might be true would not hold up in a court of law. As a witness for your fellow SDA's (and you if you have ever used these silly numbers) your testimony is bogus and you require no proof from them, thus you are as guilty as them at bearing false witness. Obviously bearing false witness is much more serious then you are taking it. Or perhaps it is okay if it against someone's beliefs that you don't like. Bob, your positoin is the same as the pro-choicers who do not believe in abortion but can't make that decision for others. It's cowardly. If your SDA brethern cannot defend their 50 mil position you just sit back and say no big deal, it could be true so let's go with it. Who are you quoting Bob.

God bless ya Bob.

 

[BobRyan]

I was not trying to equivocate between the mass murder practices of the RCC in the dark ages as IT admits it was "exterminating" people groups - vs today's practice of estimating just exactly what that means (without having a video).

But you have chosen to equivocate those two radically different things.

And of course "you needed to" given that you are in the position of having to defend the murders and tortures of a Christian group for centuries "as if" that is "no big deal".

I applaud your efforts to twist the point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
I was not trying to equivocate between the mass murder practices of the RCC in the dark ages as IT admits it was "exterminating" people groups - vs today's practice of estimating just exactly what that means (without having a video).

But you have chosen to equivocate those two radically different things.

And of course "you needed to" given that you are in the position of having to defend the murders and tortures of a Christian group for centuries "as if" that is "no big deal".

I applaud your efforts to twist the point.

In Christ,

Bob

Where did I say it was no big deal Bob. You really take lying and bearing false witness lightly don't you. But God doesn't. He made it a commandment not me. He put it on the same level as though shalt not kill if I recall rightly. Is that a twist? I don't think so. By your estimation it is no big deal but I be there are people burning in hell for it and you guys are doing it today. Over and over and over. I haven't seen any inquisitions lately and there isn't a damn thing I can do about the ones 500 years ago. What you call estimates we both know are lies bent at destroying the Catholic Church at all cost Bob. You can't do it with scirpture so you do it with lies. Sorry, we have that promise. How does it feel to be a part of those gates of hell trying to prevail.

Blessings.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

I simply point out that fact of the BILLIONS that lived during that period of time to refute their "too few people to kill argument".

Just curious as to why you believe that your numbers of the population of the "world" at various dates is relevant to the discussion?