Posted on 06/13/2013 4:51:02 AM PDT by Rashputin
If you are looking only as far back as 'Protestants', you need to have another look. You are missing more than half of the Roman church's escapades.
As to whose atrocities were whose, who am I to judge between the whore and her daughters? But then, one must suppose they only knew what their mother had been teaching them for a very, very long time... So maybe that might help to affix blame.
Since you claim that the likes of the Spanish Inquisition were going on continuously after Constantine’s time, I expect you to produce a list.
Today’s Catholics are anything but templar
Would that it were
The inquisitions started under Innocent III (c.1100) against the Cathars and at the rise of the Dominican rite... I did not say the Inquisitions were started with Constantine.
I could be wrong about this --- but that still remains to be seen. Produce the evidence. Opinions, no matter how widely repeated, if not coming straight from sources involved there at the time prove next to nothing, rendering such as;
land right back nearer the doorsteps of those who casually fling that sort of talk around, than the porch they were a-aiming for. Where is this "secret knowledge" that book was in actual fact;
when we know korans are often times green too, and as I said, there was published commentary, from reliable source, containing first person witness.
Not that I believe it meant that Pope being endorsing Islam unreservedly, but rather as many have pointed out, likely did so as sign of respect for the giver (from a group of guests invited from the Middle East). That pope too was known as quite a kisser. He'd kiss the ground after arrival on an airplane or jet flight, and it wasn't over having a rough trip along the way. He'd kiss babies. He'd kiss other presents. Some people would kiss his ring. KIssy kissy, lot's of kissy.
Read into it whatever blows your skirts up. Meanwhile, stuff like this;
still get's us nowhere fast. If it is desired there be a bit less mind reading, attributing of motive, insult aimed in broad brush strokes, then tighten up, be more disciplined, knock that sort of thing [behavior] off regardless if all others don't, and carefully consider that there are standards of proof & evidence that have not yet been met concerning that picture.
There are possibly a few FR Roman Catholic who agree it was a Koran. I know of one. Perhaps he has changed his mind, I wouldn't know. But it's likely quite safe to assume that person did not think so (koran kiss) at the time, just because he was "knew it wasn't a Koran" but was lying so that he could go about "playing little games" concerning it.
see also Jimmy not categorically denying, but doing some wqigglin' http://www.jimmyakin.org/2006/04/jp2_and_the_qur.html
Here's Father Joe accepting it be fact, and raising points worthy of consideration, with F.Joe being both kind and generous towards one and all in his own comments. H seems like a serious and decent guy to me. Since it be rather handy summation of sorts, the last paragraph;
The Koran was a gift to him from the delegation. Islamic peoples are not casual in the giving of gifts. It represents the giver. They knew perfectly well that the Pope was a Catholic Christian, but they gave to him that which was regarded as most important in their life, their own holy book. Thus, at the end of the audience, the Pope showed his deep appreciation to this intimate self-donation, by bowing and kissing the Koran as a sign of respect. Such a gesture ran totally against the grain of crusades and condemnations. It did not mean that the Pope accepted all that was in the book, only that his love for the Muslim people, and the Iraqis in particular, was genuine. He makes the first move, not in the capitulation of our faith, but in the recognition that the followers of Jesus and those who cherish Mohammed should not be engaged in name-calling, or worse, killing each other. The Pope appreciated the suffering of the Iraqi people, particularly the women and children. It showed he did not look down upon them but had a genuine respect for them within the brotherhood of man.
Scroll down at that last above link to see F.Joe holding the line as late as some time late August 2010, or even bit later.
a couple of more links for Catholic of the "ok we accept a Koran got kissed" crowd, possibly available at this FR reply/comment though I've not investigated for while an so cannot assure link validity, or validity of citations presented on FR in that comment.
Others here whom believe that it was indeed a Koran can and will reasonably consider that to be so, unless or until there was some retraction or clarification coming from the Vatican that it not be so. Since JP II is now fairly long since deceased, I seriously doubt anything will be forthcoming from that source concerning the matter. I further suggest that attributing motives and impugning the character of many here be refrained from in regards to this matter.
What is a good for the goose, is good for the gander. Now if you'll excuse me for a while...I think I'll find myself a big 'ol bowl of gravy, and have myself a swim.
People in little Gnostic cliques prefer lies to the Truth so they repeat lies and even throw Scripture in the trash can rather than deal with the Truth.
And though your confidence may_be shattered
It doesn't matter...
in the stands the home crowd
scatters...
It's always interesting to see people who claim to be Christian play the same little propaganda games and snarky remark games the fascist democrat media play. It shows that while such folks may not be on the same side as the fascists politically, they're definitely on the same side as the fascist democrats spiritually.
Which also explains how Nancy Pelosi says she determines what she thinks is right exactly the same why the anti-Catholic crew say they decide what's right. The only difference is that there's some small chance that Nancy doesn't use a Bible that has a large part of the Old Testament missing.
I didn't suddenly "become a Zionist." I'm a simple Bible Belter, and Bible Belters are pro-Israel and pro-Jewish because of Biblical sentimentalism. Try it some time.
I became a Noachide, which isn't a cult or sect but the Halakhic designation for non-Jews--all non-Jews, regardless of their religious beliefs. That means technically, you are a Noachide. One can only be a Noachide or a Jew. There is no middle ground.
My defection from chrstianity would never have been possible without first defecting to Catholicism, a religion as radically opposed to the Bible Belt mentality as it is possible to be. Growing up, to me being a Catholic was like being a Communist. I overcame that prejudice. And while it didn't work out, it made my other prejudices easier to overcome as I carried the logic of my historical investigations to its conclusion. For now I'll just say that as I went from Protestantism to Catholicism to Orthodoxy, I noticed that the defects of human nature were becoming less severe and human responsibility was becoming greater. Why stop somewhere half-way?
We don't have time to discuss this now and you wouldn't listen to anything I had to say anyway, but if I could give advice to the Catholic catechumanal committees (I won't say missionaries because American Catholics think missionizing is a "Protestant thing") I would tell them that they are missing the big picture. They are defending individual Catholic doctrines without transmitting the Catholic worldview. They are expecting people whose only understanding of chrstianity is Protestant to just add purgatory and confession to what they already believe. This doesn't work because no matter how accurate Catholic claims of authenticity are, neither purgatory nor confession make any sense from the uncorrected Protestant perspective.
No Protestant has ever been told that Adam and Eve in the Garden were in a probationary state waiting to be "translated" to the "beatific vision." They think Adam and Eve were placed in a static paradise that was an end in itself, with nothing to prove. Once J*sus "saves" them they are restored to status quo ante. What's this business about the "door to heaven being open again" and and now it's up to each "redeemed" person to "cooperate" lest they "lose their salvation?" It's merely a loophole anyway. Adam was not headed for any other "heaven" than the one he was already living in and to which each "saved" person is now sure to return, so what is there to "merit?" Why this need for "purgation" before entering heaven? That makes as much sense as saying Adam couldn't have been created until he was first purified. Try pushing purgatory onto that worldview. It doesn't work!
As for confession, what Catholics fail to realize is that even if its authenticity is proved beyond the shadow of a doubt chrstianity as Protestants have always understood it simply cannot assimilate it. Protestants are not damned for individual sins, but for the propensity to sin in the first place. A "totally depraved" person confessing individual sins makes as much sense as trying to cure smallpox by picking off scabs. It is what Catholics call "concupiscence," not the symptoms known as "sins" that damn the Protestant. You wanna here a Protestant confession? Here it is. "Bless me father for I have sinned. I have a monster inside me. I was born with it. It will be there when I die." Now, what penance would you assign for that, hmmm? And no Protestant that I am aware of has ever learned how to count every single mortal sin, even after an absence from the confessional for forty years, and then accurately report it. You cradle Catholics must be "rain men." Maybe you should all be working on getting us all free energy.
Why would someone who was meant to live forever in the Garden of Eden have to do anything once the loophole brilliantly preserves G-d's holiness while letting the sinner go free? Who ever said Adam had a journey to make in the Garden? I certainly never heard this. And why is confession or art or saints or rituals or anything necessary once one has taken advantage of the loophole? Why did J*sus come here in the first place if not to be vicariously damned in our place? And since he was, what is the rationale for thinking one has to do anything???
A Catholic FReeper once sneeringly referred to Protestants' "get out of hell free card" as if that were supposed to be ironic. Isn't that the whole purpose of the chrstian religion? It's not? Then how does one justify its existence? What's it for? That's something no one raised a Protestant can ever figure out.
I have read many Catholic apologetic books and articles (I own a good number, having once been a member). All Catholic apologetics make the same mistake: they take individual "Catholic things," justify them with history, and then think their job is done. William James was right. Catholics' and Protestants' centers of emotional energy are too different. "They will never understand one another."
And as one moves from Catholicism to even more ancient and "authentic" versions of chrstianity it only gets worse. Eastern Orthodoxy is "semi-pelagian" and professes that one must participate with G-d to achieve "deification" (they are very up front about this and call it "synergy"). They don't believe in original sin at all and think all Catholics are a merely Calvinists who are too dumb to notice what they are. Augustine is the "arch-heretic" who introduced the alien, pagan Greek idea of "original sin." I once asked an Orthodox priest if all this is true what was the difference between Adam in the Garden of Eden and me sitting right there talking with him. He said there wasn't any! (How he justified his job I have no idea!) And most of all, I have even read Eastern Orthodox writers (not liberal ecumenists, mind you, but the genuine article) who insist that the Talmud teaches the true, original, Biblical doctrine of human nature which all "western chrstendom" (Catholics as much as those "poor deluded Protestants") twisted and corrupted. Now . . . you wanna tell me what's wrong the Talmud since its conception of human nature is true and trumps that of Luther, Calvin, or Catholicism?
All this was headed to one place. I saw it. I embraced it.
And finally, though this will probably get no response, whatever else may be said about the ancient churches, they have all embraced evolution and higher criticism as a way to "prove" their not inbred American Protestants. No matter what they may be right on, any religion that says that G-d is (chas vechalilah!) guilty of errors, mistakes, or (G-d forbid!) falsehood is simply evil. But I notice most of the more "conservative" Catholics on this forum won't touch that issue. After all, who wants to be asked what "trailer park" one is from? But anyone who believes in either evolution or "higher criticism" while claiming his religious beliefs are identical in every way to those of Jerome or Athanasius (who never heard of either) is either very, very confused or something worse.
Good night, gentlemen.
Oh for crying out loud. Give it up. The pope most likely did kiss a Koran.
Can you prove different? The evidence is strongly in favor that it did indeed occur. Without presenting compelling evidence to the contrary, you've got less than that with which you began. Insulting me isn't helping.
I did include some indication that I personally didn't regard the Koran-kiss as something oogity-boogity bad big deal.
Like F. Joe wrote about it, there may have been some general, non-specific peace-making sentiments as the more important part of the overall setting and proceedings. It was just a fairly routine visitor's reception, which I do not myself care to criticize, nor in any real way did.
If people, by which I mean possible critics of Catholicism, or Islamics, or anybody including Catholic faithful who are possibly much disturbed by the mere thought of that pope having puckered up towards the gift of a book, then misread or read in-between the lines stuff that may or may not properly belong--- well, whatever blows their skirts. Big whoopee-dee-do.
Meanwhile, the statements in your own posting I highlighted concerning it, I found to be like a gizmo; that upon delivery from a gizmo factory, was defective upon receipt of delivery. Said item was initially shipped free of charge, with payment for item due only at some later date also. I did pick up on indication that in the view of the branch manager of this particular gizmo factory, my home address was on the "wrong side" of town, even as I do notice scattered around my neighborhood more than a few empty boxes from the same general Co. So go figure.
Writing a note to said gizmo factory explaining the defects found in the gizmo, along with some testimonial from others attesting to the same "defect", whose own home addresses were NOT on the "wrong side of town", carefully packing the gizmo as to not "damage" it beyond manufacturer defect, off to the post office I went, waited in line, applied proper postage and off the gizmo went, back to point of origin.
Imagine my surprise when short time later I received note from the branch manager in reply to my own having shipped the item back (at some cost of time and effort to myself) with no mention at all of the gizmo item, or acknowledgement of it's defect.
Some manufacturers take pains to be polite to the general public, come what may. If anyone can alert them to potential problems in their own product line, most (if they are experienced operators) do try to pay attention, and often even send thanks in recognition of that customer having provided some beta-testing like, moderately detailed feedback as to a specific sample from among the various wares they offered, the gizmo receiving this benefit of just how and why the product be defective at little to no actual cost to themselves. Big outfits spend serious coin in "market research" as part of product development.
In regards to some smaller businesses we have had dealing with,
how many times have we all at some time or another been asked "how did you hear of our company?"
Well, that's a test of advertising. Is it working? Which method isn't? Which is bringing the right sort of customer, and which is presenting the Company in a positive light? Is there anything that could stand changing, or improve the product, or possibly remove some gizmos from production entirely, being as the return on effort for those particular small items wasn't netting positive result to the Co.?
In this allegorical tale, not only was there no acknowledgement of the problem, but I was effectively told I lived on the wrong aide of town, and that was the problem.
Now I will confess to having sent follow-up reply to the note from the manager which rather rudely implied it was all my fault from the beginning, indicating that I did still believe the gizmo item itself to be a serious loser, but without negative mention of the company itself, or any of it's other product line. Though composed in a way to give a slight tweak to the manager for reason of my own being needlessly insulted. I confess all.
Being as in this allegory the fuller line of gizmo's themselves be to a large extent advertising materials and/or the makings of informational promotional distribution exchange, and I myself be in (decidedly small-time) advertising/circular/flyer distribution myself, and being as this isn't my first time around the block so to speak, there was one further issue come to mind.
We all, the whole dang town, uses the same printing presses, which run pretty well automated, day and night. Write up a flyer, "send" it into the magic machine, and presto. One copy. Free(Republic) access open generally to all whom share some similarity in mindset...and whom will conduct themselves with a modicum of decency as towards other flyer producers when meeting at the print house. The print house itself needed regular moderate maintenance, and a very real-world electricity bill of some not insignificant amount but generally covered by donations from those whom use the facilities, both reading flyers posted on the moveable bulletin boards, and tacking up notes thereon themselves.
Herein lay a slight difficulty. Though I do further confess my own flyers tending towards being of some length in comparison to many other shorter notes (whom can be more effective in sweet simplicity) and these long streamers though not the only Lo-oong ones tacked up, my own painstaking handwritten ones can along with those of more the duplicate of duplicate sort, irritate those whom support the printing presses with their own noT-tax deductible charitable donations.
Yet too, those whom tack up personal "hate mail" rather induce others to do the same, and or lead to more streamers from guys like me. All of which impedes what could be a smoother flow...
Leaving that allegory behind, I'd like to ask you one question;
Attending a three-ring circus, with lots of action going on all around, have you ever wondered as have I, that if a guy could get close enough to one of the clowns to make a grab at one of those big 'ol red noses, and was able to give it a quick but firm squeeze, would the nose go "honk"?
That takes us back to the Thirteenth Century and into a feudal order where the Church was only one of the players. Innocent III was one of the few popes who was able to exercise the kind of authority that some think seem normal in papal history, As for the Cathars, are you sure you want to be the champions of a sect that was as different from Christian as the Muslims were? Imagine the Mormons of Joseph Smith but with ten times their numbers? It does, of course, show the futility of suppression. The South of France, where the Cathars were powerful, would be a hotbed of Calvinism and then of revolutionary radicalism. Injustice leaves a stain that lasts generations.
Yes. 1208. Pardon me... the 'c.1100' is my mistake - I was operating from memory, and anything north of Bede is too contemporary for me, and generally out of my ken...
[...] and into a feudal order where the Church was only one of the players.
That is a bit disingenuous (in this case, at least). There is little doubt that the Roman church was THE player in the Albigensian Crusade. I consider this sort of dissembling to be in poor taste generally (throughout the feudal states) - The buck inherently stops at the top (one of the pitfalls of *having* a top, eh?)... But in this particular, there is *no* shifting of responsibility.
As for the Cathars, are you sure you want to be the champions of a sect that was as different from Christian as the Muslims were? Imagine the Mormons of Joseph Smith but with ten times their numbers?
Need I remind you that you are talking to an American? Of course I will champion them in the case of their collective right, inherently granted by God, to believe as they choose. IIRC, the adherents of the Roman church profess to a belief in 'free will', so the concept should not be incomprehensible to you...
And as an aside, I consider the record to be tainted by Romanist propaganda - The victor writes the history, after all. It is of more consequence that even the local Romanists defended the Cathars against the predations of Rome... and quite often defended them to the point of their own deaths. That speaks volumes, and does much to counter that propaganda. These were, by all accounts other than Rome's, a good and moral people regardless of how their beliefs might differ from yours.
It does, of course, show the futility of suppression. The South of France, where the Cathars were powerful, would be a hotbed of Calvinism and then of revolutionary radicalism.
TRUE, but I see the nexus of that coming from the mountains of Northern Italy (and points northward of that through time). Not the people, mind you - The Message (regardless of how that message may have been bent by the Cathari). That linkage seems evident not only in the Cathars, but also among the Poor Men, Vaudois, the Waldenses, and even, I might suppose (albeit with somewhat less robust evidence), proto-Protestantism. That mountain stronghold was impossible for the Roman church to dispose of. And that message seems to hail from Antioch, not Rome or Alexandria.
Injustice leaves a stain that lasts generations.
In that we almost agree - I would consider the stain indelible.
Religious liberty in a political context works only if the parties involved want peace. When the Turks attacked Vienna in 1683, both sides agreed on one thing:that the God of battles would decide the issue. Pretty much the same applied in the clash between the Christians and the Cathars. Feudalism is the name we give to the polity of the time, Europe was not a single entity except quite loosely something called Christendom, not a unite but more like 10,000 private estates of which maybe 1,000 were controlled by the bishops and monks. There was a spiritual allegiance to the pope and a broader allegiance to a hierarchy of overlords, the most important of which were called kings.
But in the colonies there was no such sharp divisions among the sects. Madison saw the matter in much the same light as he did when he treated special interests in his Federalist #10. That a majority faction is a danger to liberty but that a balance among them worked very well.
Yeah... heard all that before. rather a rosy description that downplays the role of pope and church. Not buying it.
I don’t know what you mean by rosy. In the Estates-general, in those places where there were feudal assemblies, the Church constituted the first “order,” of society since “citizenry” in Christendom belonged to the baptized, but the authority of a bishop in matters where the secular the religious blended ,was more like that of a federal judge, and the pope something like the Chief Justice, where the Emperor was supposed to act as his Sheriff. The parallel breaks down, of course, where the bishops and abbots were great landowners who were supposed to defer to lay lords such as the kings. The barbarism of earlier times, of course, had deeply impressed itself on society, especially since at the time of the First Crusades, the Northmen were just being assimilated into Christian society. The Emperors, of course, in both west and east, regarded themselves as successors to Constantine, as Roman Emperors. So strong to this attachment to the past that the Ottoman Sultans, after they took over the eastern Roman Empire, also cast themselves into that same role, except not as Christians.
Right on target, fire for effect.
Too bad the syncretist L.I.F.E.R. parrots in the pulpit are more interested in pacifying the McSheeple for their Insurance masters than they are in empowering folks with the Truth.
Observe the multiple instances of the faithful being herded into schools and churches... where they became easy prey for the machete-wielding Muslim mob.
For the Wolves who delight in assuming dominion over the faith of others, “Doctrine” is nothing but a ball of string that binds the good ol’ boys in the in pack together for the meal, and a bit of floss to remove the bits of wool between their teeth when the carnage is done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.