Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The saint who opposed Luther
Catholic Herald ^ | August 7, 2012

Posted on 08/07/2012 2:39:20 PM PDT by NYer

Thomas_Cajetan

St Cajetan (1480-1547) was, like his contemporary Martin Luther, deeply concerned by the worldliness and decadence he saw among the clergy. He, however, sought to reform the Church from within, founding the Order of the Theatines.

This was the first congregation of regular clergy. Its aims were to preach sound doctrine, to tend the poor and the sick, to restore frequent use of the sacraments and to inspire better priestly conduct.

Born into the nobility of Vicenza as Gaetano dei Conti di Tiene, Cajetan lost his father at two. His mother brought him up to be both studious and devout.

After becoming a doctor in civil and canon law at Padua in 1504, he was protonotary to Pope Julius II in Rome from 1506 to 1513. Ordained in 1516, he returned to Vicenza two years later.

In Rome he had been associated with a group of zealous clergy styling themselves the Oratory of Divine Love. Back in Vicenza, he entered the Oratory of St Jerome and founded a hospital for incurables.

“In the Oratory,” he said, “we try to serve God by worship; in our hospital we may say that we actually find Him.” He went on to create hospitals in Verona and Venice.

Distressed by what he saw of the clergy, Cajetan returned to Rome in 1523 to confer with his friends in the Oratory of Divine Love. These included Pietro Carafa, Bishop of Chieti, a fiercely intransigent prelate who would be elected Pope Paul IV in 1555. With Carafa, Cajetan established in 1524 a new order, naming them the Theatines, after the Latin name for Chieti (Theate Marricinorum). There was particular emphasis on poverty and on thorough biblical training.

Carafa became the first superior-general, though Cajetan filled that office from 1530 to 1533. Perhaps due to Carafa’s uncompromising nature, the order did not immediately flourish. Moreover, it had to flee to Venice when the Emperor Charles V sacked Rome in 1527.

After 1533 Carafa sent Cajetan first to Verona, and then to Naples, where the Theatines gradually became respected for their stand against the city’s corruption and indifference to the poor. Cajetan established pawnshops which were run purely for the benefit of their users.

Among the Theatines at Naples from 1547 was the Englishman Thomas Goldwell, who had fled from Henry VIII’s regime. In 1555, under Queen Mary, he was appointed Bishop of Asaph, before once again being obliged to leave England under Queen Elizabeth. From 1561 Goldwell was briefly superior-general at Naples. He would live to be the last survivor of Mary’s bishops.

For 250 years the Theatines flourished in western Europe, as well as conducting foreign missions. In the 19th century, however, they fell into decline. In 2005 they numbered only some 200 religious, mainly in Spain and South America.



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-190 next last
To: Persevero

Your puerile excuse for “scholarship” is laughable as are your errors. Sorry, but my respect for your sources is as low as, well, they deserve. You use Wikipedia as a source? Laughable. Truly laughable.


141 posted on 08/10/2012 5:00:28 PM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
Foxe’s Book of Martyrs is being called a a lie.
Well, because it is. Documented and often so. That you fail to understand or acknowledge that fact reflects again on your lack of honest scholarship.
142 posted on 08/10/2012 5:03:05 PM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

You wrote:

“Wycliffe taught that there was no free will. He believed and taught predestination and “all things are ordained by God”. That is the foundation of Calvinism.”

Calvin is the foundation of Calvinism. Wycliffe lived 140 years before Calvin. He believed in things Calvin never would have.

“Donatism is something else and it does not detract in any way from the predestination he taught, which is the foundation of Calvinist doctrine.”

Wycliffe was no Calvinist. And Calvin was no Wycliffite.


143 posted on 08/10/2012 5:36:47 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

You wrote:

“No, narses, the RC church during it history banned the translation and distribution of the Bible.”

False. Show me the canon law where the Catholic Church “banned the translation and distribution of the Bible.”

“It punished people, some with death, for doing so.”

Again, false. Name the people - give me specific names. Can you? No. You might post names, but none of them will be people put to death for translating a Bible.

“Also, reading the Bible without permission from the RC church was forbidden.”

Also, completely false.

I realize there is no evidence whatsoever for your beliefs as stated above. I realize you will fail - UTTERLY - in any attempt to present a single shred of evidence for your beliefs. There is no other possible outcome. The sources are known. Most likely you have never read any of them like so many Protestant anti-Catholic sciolists before you.


144 posted on 08/10/2012 5:59:43 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Persevero; DManA; vladimir998

The thread was not begun as a frontal assault on Luther or protestantism and the statement that it was is false and provably so.

Also, the attacks began almost immediately....not from Catholics, but from protestants.

Foxe’s Book of Martyrs was not even mentioned until several posts after the one I challenged.

And, I did not comment on your debate with vladimir998.

I responded to post #66 which seems to serve no other purpose than to antagonize.

The acrimony here is palpable enough without adding to it with such blatant and pointless jabs.


145 posted on 08/10/2012 6:47:26 PM PDT by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
First, I never did what you accuse me of - I do not condemn all Protestants. I do not condemn all Protestants as anti-Catholics. But leave it to a Protestant anti-Catholic to claim I said something I never said. Incredibly you make this claim in a thread in which you demand examples from me. Okay, show me where I “condemn all “Protestants” as “Anti-Catholic Protestant liars”. Can you show that? No, you can’t. The closest you can come to what you’re claiming in this thread is 121 where I say “Protestant” two or three times but always clarify that with “Protestant anti-Catholic”. By the way, everything I said in 121 is clearly true and you’re proving it now.

Sure you did. You have made it more than obvious that you consider EVERY non-Catholic opponent of Catholicism - no matter what the issue or subject - an "anti-Catholic Protestant liar". You pin that to anyone who comes up against you. You did it here several times to three or four different posters and your history adequately demonstrates it is your standard OP that anyone can view. You are doing it right here with me - presuming because I testify to leaving Roman Catholicism, I am also a liar and, now, a hypocrite. What a surprise. Go ahead and look again at your posts 53, 62, 63, 89, 91, 104 and 105 - in every one you slap on the rhetoric about anti-Catholic Protestants almost like justification for whatever nasty insult you want to hurl next. It IS sad.

Rather than painting with a broad brush every non-Catholic who participates on these Religion Forum threads and disagrees from time to time with what Catholics say as Anti-Catholic Protestants, why not acknowledge that most of us love the Lord Jesus Christ every bit as much as you claim to do? Those of us who have left the Catholic Church do so for reasons that are our own and when the subject comes up, we do not shy away from explaining why.

I get it that you and some others here believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the ONLY legitimate church of Christ and ANY disagreement with that is viewed as suspect. However, if we are to have any semblance of respectful discussions on these boards - and that IS my intent - we should let go of prejudice and presumed evil motive. I stand by what I say and, though it may be hard for some to tolerate, I have every right and duty to defend my faith to the best of my ability. I don't need to resort to lies or "propaganda", though I do have the maturity to admit when I am proved wrong, even "neck deep" in the battle. It's part of being truthful, honest, fair and just.

146 posted on 08/10/2012 6:54:52 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

You wrote:

“Sure you did.”

Nope. If I had then I am sure you would easily be able to document your claim.

“You have made it more than obvious that you consider EVERY non-Catholic opponent of Catholicism - no matter what the issue or subject - an “anti-Catholic Protestant liar”.”

Again, false. First, your claim is logically impossible. There are opponents of the faith here who are Jewish, Mormon, athiest, agnostic and who knows what else. Since I know that there are such opponents, and have posted to them, I clearly could never have considered “EVERY non-Catholic opponent of Catholicism...[to be] an “anti-Catholic Protestant liar”. Thus, your claim is logically impossible from the start. Second, and I have said this before, not all anti-Catholics are Protestants and not all Protestants are anti-Catholics. Both are common here at FR, but they do not always overlap by any means.

“You pin that to anyone who comes up against you.”

No. I just correctly identify Protestant anti-Catholics because they so often admit to such in how they write, post, their pattern or illogic, ignorance, sciolism, deception, etc.

“You did it here several times to three or four different posters and your history adequately demonstrates it is your standard OP that anyone can view.”

Again, false. I correctly identified - based upon their own statements - that some posters are anti-Catholic Protestants. And they are.

“You are doing it right here with me - presuming because I testify to leaving Roman Catholicism, I am also a liar and, now, a hypocrite.”

False. I never said you were a liar or hypocrite because you left the faith. If I call someone a liar and hypocrite, it is because he lied and was a hypocrite.

“What a surprise. Go ahead and look again at your posts 53, 62, 63, 89, 91, 104 and 105 - in every one you slap on the rhetoric about anti-Catholic Protestants almost like justification for whatever nasty insult you want to hurl next. It IS sad.”

I was correct in every statement in all of those posts - every single one. You don’t have to like it, but that fact won’t change no matter how much or how little you like it.

“Rather than painting with a broad brush every non-Catholic who participates on these Religion Forum threads and disagrees from time to time with what Catholics say as Anti-Catholic Protestants, why not acknowledge that most of us love the Lord Jesus Christ every bit as much as you claim to do?”

For one thing, I cannot testify to the love of Christ supposedly held by “every non-Catholic who participates on these Religion Forum threads” because I don’t know them all, can’t know them all, and certainly can’t judge their love of Christ by their thread posts except in a few cases. Some people here are also not Christian and have no love of Christ and have said so (Jews, athiests, etc.). What is more readily discernable is how many people - sadly far too many in the Protestant anti-Catholic camp - are ignorant and spread lies apparently without a second thought. That is something that is easy to discern. Also, I cannot easily abide the idea that someone can love Christ but lie about His Church, love Christ but spread lies without a care, love Christ but not care about truth, etc. It seems that a person who does such a thing does not love Christ, but instead only loves a caricature or shell of Christ.

“Those of us who have left the Catholic Church do so for reasons that are our own and when the subject comes up, we do not shy away from explaining why.”

Your reasons are completly unimportant to me. I do not care about the subjectivity of Protestants, or anti-Catholics, or anyone else for that matter. It simply isn’t important. What matters is truth, not personal reasons, not feelings, not subjectivity.

“I get it that you and some others here believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the ONLY legitimate church of Christ and ANY disagreement with that is viewed as suspect.”

I’m not even sure what that comment is supposed to mean. Suspect? Logically, how many “legitimate” Churches did Christ establish? 10,000? 100,000? 10? Is that a difficult question for you?

“However, if we are to have any semblance of respectful discussions on these boards - and that IS my intent - we should let go of prejudice and presumed evil motive.”

Again, it is not about presumption, but actions. Actions, and patterns of actions, which are so common to Protestant anti-Catholics that they are predictable to a T.

“I stand by what I say and, though it may be hard for some to tolerate, I have every right and duty to defend my faith to the best of my ability.”

That, of course, is not the issue. When you attack THE faith, and yet do so so clearly in the wrong, that is very different than defending your faith.

“I don’t need to resort to lies or “propaganda”, though I do have the maturity to admit when I am proved wrong, even “neck deep” in the battle. It’s part of being truthful, honest, fair and just.”

You claim that, but I have no rational reason to believe it.


147 posted on 08/10/2012 8:03:36 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Jvette

God’s own fought the devil Luther. Nothing there a Protestant could possibly be offended by.


148 posted on 08/10/2012 8:03:55 PM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; vladimir998
"Sure you did. You have made it more than obvious that you consider EVERY non-Catholic opponent of Catholicism - no matter what the issue or subject - an "anti-Catholic Protestant liar".

You make Vlad's case almost as good as he did. You do realize that an "opponent of Catholicism" is by definition "anti-Catholic" and every opponent of the Truth a liar, don't you?

Peace be with you

149 posted on 08/10/2012 10:18:09 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Jvette

“The thread was not begun as a frontal assault on Luther or protestantism and the statement that it was is false and provably so.”

Well, I see it as a critique of Luther. He is compared and contrasted with a monk who managed to stay in the RC church.

I am ok with critiquing Luther in general, however, to say he left the RC Church when he was in fact excommunicated and sentenced to death is a bit much.

I assure you I have no personal acrimony towards you, and I was trying to write with cordialty, until such time as I was informed that Foxe’s was a book of myths (not by you), and got extremely disgusted. I put that right up there with Holocaust denial. I have no time for it.


150 posted on 08/10/2012 10:35:52 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

I already posted the excerpt from the Council of Trent.

Should I show you the martyr’s testimony written in blood on a wall, you would not believe it. You have made an idol of a particular organized church, and will not believe it has ever, as an institution, sinned. You dismiss all evidence as false, given by hundreds of witnesses, written records, and ancient history. All to preserve the idolatry which has its grip on you. You defend the exhumation and burning of a man who committed no crime, etc.

The Inquisition was real. The martyrdom recorded in Foxe’s and other histories is real.

Only Jesus never sinned.

You should repent.


151 posted on 08/10/2012 10:40:47 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: narses

Name your sources, narses.


152 posted on 08/10/2012 10:41:39 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
You do realize that an "opponent of Catholicism" is by definition "anti-Catholic" and every opponent of the Truth a liar, don't you?

I'm sure that is how immovable, eyes-slammed-shut Roman Catholics think, but it doesn't make it so. I think many Roman Catholics are "anti-any Christian BUT Roman Catholic" (I won't use the word "Protestant" because y'all have made it into a catchall polemic curse word). There are numerous Catholic doctrines that meet your definition as "opposed to the truth" and, yes, I would call them lies. Does that transfer to all Roman Catholics being liars and opposers of truth? No. Many are ignorant of what Scripture really says in contrast to what their religion tells them it says. They are believing a lie, but it doesn't make them liars.

Demonic delusion afflicts many people and, as born-again Christians, we are tasked with the ministry of reconciliation - that of sharing the true gospel of Jesus Christ who saves us by grace through faith in him and by whom we are cleansed of all sin and are reconciled to God through Christ. Paul said if he or an angel from heaven preached any other gospel than what he had preached unto them through the revelation of Jesus Christ, they were accursed and their message was also. Telling people they can be saved by their own merit - even if combined with faith - is an accursed gospel and it cannot save anyone. This is the truth - confirmed by the word of God, preached by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and passed down from him to his disciples who preached it and made sure it was written down so that all humanity could know what is the truth.

Any church or organization that claims to be from Christ must be faithful to this same Gospel. We are not saved by what church we attend, what good deeds we do, what bad deeds we refrain from doing or any other act but only by faith. By faith we receive the gift of God which is eternal life trough Jesus Christ. Those who oppose THIS truth oppose God himself.

Grace and peace be with you.

153 posted on 08/10/2012 11:34:53 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

You wrote:

“I already posted the excerpt from the Council of Trent.”

In post 31 you posted a quote from anti-Catholics which they lied about coming from the Council of Trent. No such quote appears in the documents of Trent. The Council of Trent did not do what your bogus quote claimed it did. But why let facts and truth get in the way of a juicy anti-Catholic fantasy, right?

“Should I show you the martyr’s testimony written in blood on a wall, you would not believe it.”

I believe the truth. I have no reason to believe you can discern what the truth is when you’re fooled so easily by bogus made up quotes from anti-Catholics.

“You have made an idol of a particular organized church, and will not believe it has ever, as an institution, sinned.”

First of all, I do not worship the Church, so it is no idol to me. I do know what the Church is, however, and as the Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ, it has never sinned. It can’t. People in it certainly can, but the Church itself cannot. Have you decided to just make things up out of thin air now about me?

“You dismiss all evidence as false, given by hundreds of witnesses, written records, and ancient history.”

False. I correctly interpret evidence, and quite frankly, I actually know that evidence. I have no reason to believe you know that evidence because you demonstrated so early on that you were easily fooled by phony, made-up, bogus non-evidence.

“All to preserve the idolatry which has its grip on you.”

Again, I have no idols. I worship the Trinity alone. What you’re doing, of course, falls in line with what I said Protestant anti-Catholics always do: “When that fails...the Protestant anti-Catholic will always either resort to, 1) simply making things up out of thin air - things which are, in fact, logically impossible - while claiming all along those things are based squarely on the Catholic’s beliefs, posts, comments, etc.”

So, there you, claiming I have an idol when I do not. Once again we see a Protestant anti-Catholic making things up out of thin air, making completely bogus charges. This also proves my earlier point that Protestant anti-Cathoics are predictible in their prejudice.

“You defend the exhumation and burning of a man who committed no crime, etc.”

First, Wycliffe HAD COMMITTED a crime. The crime was heresy. You might not like that fact, but it is undeniable that heresy was against the secular law in the 14th century. Second, the man was never burned. His bones were burned. Third, if the burning of his remains got across to anyone that Hell awaited thos who spread heresy without repentance in an age without modern communications, no TV, no newspapers, etc., I’ll sleep just fine tonight. In the Middle Ages, and even in much more modern times, we do things even with the dead to make a point. Hence, Joe Paterno had the last 14 or so years of victories stricken from his win tally by the NCAA. Paterno’s dead. The NCAA made it clear it was doing this not so much as punishment of Paterno (and since he’s dead this can’t be punishment of Paterno anyway) but it was done as a warning to others.

“The Inquisition was real.”

Yes, it was. But Protestant anti-Catholic fantasies about it are not. I have researched the inquisition in detail. I have colleagues who are urging me to publish a book on it in fact, but I don’t know if I have the time to produce it. Most likely you’ve never read a single reputable article or book on it. Not one, right? And I will be the first one to stipulate that there were excesses committed by inquisitors and we certainly wouldn’t want one just like it existed centuries ago. What I don’t do is make things up - as Protestant anti-Cathoics so often do.

“The martyrdom recorded in Foxe’s and other histories is real.”

Actually many of those Foxe lists and discusses were not martyrs at all. They were merely heretics and schismatics. Foxe’s book was propaganda. That’s why it was officially endorsed by the Protestant anti-Catholic state-church government of England.

“Only Jesus never sinned.”

Can a seven month old baby sin? What if that baby dies in the 8th month? Was that baby a sinner?

“You should repent.”

I repent of what I have done wrong - but that includes nothing in this thread. Have you repented for posting a completely bogus quote that appears nowhere in Trent? Have you repented for allowing yourself to be so easily fooled by it? Apparently not.

And what you did there falls in line with what I wrote earlier:

“...making a parting shot which strongly implies either that the Protestant is a better person...”


154 posted on 08/11/2012 5:47:31 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

I am not going to do a research paper for you, you know the Bible was forbidden to be translated/owned/read at various time and in various places by the RC Church, which was wrong. I acknowledge they no longer do that, but you don’t want to give me credit for that acknowledgement, just to accuse me of making it up because it makes you (justifiably) uncomfortable. Have some Council of Toulouse, I could do this all day, but here:

“ITEM #2 COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE - 1229 A.D.

The Council of Toulouse, which met in November of 1229, about the time of the crusade against the Albigensians, set up a special ecclesiastical tribunal, or court, known as the Inquisition (Lat. inquisitio, an inquiry), to search out and try heretics. Twenty of the forty-five articles decreed by the Council dealt with heretics and heresy. It ruled in part:

Canon 1. We appoint, therefore, that the archbishops and bishops shall swear in one priest, and two or three laymen of good report, or more if they think fit, in every parish, both in and out of cities, who shall diligently, faithfully, and frequently seek out the heretics in those parishes, by searching all houses and subterranean chambers which lie under suspicion. And looking out for appendages or outbuildings, in the roofs themselves, or any other kind of hiding places, all which we direct to be destroyed.

Canon 6. Directs that the house in which any heretic shall be found shall be destroyed.

Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”

As for innocent infants, yes, they do not commit actual sin, so far as I can detect, but they have original sin, and are thus sadly sinners, otherwise why baptize them? Of course they are sinners, if only by birth.

The church itself can indeed sin, it is a group of people, just like nations can sin and etc.

“Again, I have no idols. I worship the Trinity alone.”

I would love to believe that, but, your vitriol particularly against the very holy martyrs calls that into question.


155 posted on 08/11/2012 12:54:20 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
"Actually many of those Foxe lists and discusses were not martyrs at all. They were merely heretics and schismatics."

They were folks killed by the hands of the Catholic Church for daring to disobey them.

156 posted on 08/11/2012 1:16:18 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; Persevero; boatbums

Would you believe a Jesuit source, Fordham University? Or are they themselves indulging [no pun intended] in a "juicy anti-Catholic fantasy"?

Here we go;

TEN RULES CONCERNING PROHIBITED BOOKS DRAWN UP BY THE FATHERS CHOSEN BY THE COUNCIL OF TRENT AND APPROVED BY POPE PIUS

IV

Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them.

Looks like the Jesuits at Fordham must be liars and "anti-Catholics", too?

Or you yourself have been either misinformed or ignorant concerning such as the above quoted extract (even as you accuse others here of "ignorance' more generally).

These decrees may be ancillary to the others made at Trent, but they were made by a select group from that very body, with the results signed by the sitting Roman pontiff!

That makes them arguably, coming "from" Trent.

Since this be more generally the case, I must ask, why not yourself then set the record straight as to where such information came from?

Did you not know of where such information could be found?

To proclaim it is all "phony, made-up, bogus non-evidence" is gross distortion of the wider historical record.

Discussing the matter in historical context can be helpful...but if it is done in the interests of distracting from, or covering up that which can plainly enough be found, then what sort of treatment or analysis would that be, but one chiefly of denial and obfuscation?

I find that to be the case regarding most of today's Roman Catholic apologists. It is only by digging beyond, or around the typical 'proclaimed to be the truth' that one gets to the real heart of the matter(s).

Even then, when certain facts are brought to light, various oppositional strategies to what the records and accounts of what transpired actually show, kick into gear...

I've seen it over and over. What I have seen on this thread (more than once!) appears to me to be lawyerly exploitation of the narrowest of loopholes.

157 posted on 08/11/2012 1:27:42 PM PDT by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; boatbums
"You do realize that an "opponent of Catholicism" is by definition "anti-Catholic"

Anti is a prefix that means to oppose. Anti-Catholic means to oppose the Catholic, not to oppose Catholicism. The term is almost never used correctly, because in general, no one is ever opposing the Catholic. They're simply opposing the correctness, or truth of some particular element of their doctrine.

The general purpose and usefulness of the term is to change the subject from some particular subject matter to the person holding the title Catholic, so that the terms like bigot and hater can be applied. They are bigots and haters, because they are "anti-Catholic".

" and every opponent of the Truth a liar,

...but every liar is not an anti-truth. No one lies all the time. The terms anti-truth and anti-Catholic are bogus, as in illegitimate.

158 posted on 08/11/2012 2:05:52 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon

You wrote:

“Would you believe a Jesuit source, Fordham University? Or are they themselves indulging [no pun intended] in a “juicy anti-Catholic fantasy”?”

The quote you posted IS NOT THE QUOTE THAT WAS POSTED EARLIER and it CLEARLY SAYS SOMETHING DIFFERENT. I can understand that Protestant anti-Catholics commonly are ignorant about history, but that doesn’t mean they should falsely and dishonestly claim that two DIFFERENT QUOTES are the same when they obviously are not!!!

What was posted earlier in the thread IS A LIE. The Council of Trent NEVER SAID IT. The quote you posted does not say the same thing. That won’t stop Protestant anti-Catholics from lying about it anyway, of course.


159 posted on 08/11/2012 2:56:27 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

Actually none of them were killed by the Catholic Church.


160 posted on 08/11/2012 2:57:48 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-190 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson