Posted on 06/18/2004 9:55:45 AM PDT by xsysmgr
Easy, authority comes from God, not from Rome. If someone teaches in error, it is the responsibility of the whole Church to deal with it - meaning whatever part of the church encounters the error is to turn from it while attempting to correct the error. Failing that, the apostles said let those people spreading lies be accursed of God - the end. Error is bad, so is adultery and so to is treachery like that of Judas. But judgement for all these things belong to God as shown in the scriptures and spoken to directly by Christ. Nobody is arguing that error isn't bad. But you want to argue that error is worthy of Death and say it was ok to put people to death for it. Christ said no. He then asked the woman "where are your accusers"... Christ already judged this issue. And he told you 'put away your sword, for those who take up the sword (, Peter) will die by it'.
I never claimed to be better than you, sir. To the contrary, it is you and yours constantly harping on your intellectual superiority etc and yet can't even read english to tell us what your own documents say without getting it wrong. I'm a sinner just like Paul, just like Barnabas, just like the thieves on the Cross. The difference is I've been saved and have the common sense to know to stick to the message the apostles taught because not doing so could mean my soul. I therefore speak boldly as stated in Titus. As the Apostles were told to make disciples of all men teaching them ALL the things which the Apostles had been commanded to do. I have no problem speaking boldly, forcefully and without apology because I know I'm right. To you it's offensive the thought that anyone could claim to be right. And that is your own problem to deal with. The same thing offended the pharisees. "Who is this man...!"
Spanish Leyenda Negra term indicating an unfavourable image of Spain and Spaniards, accusing them of cruelty and intolerance, formerly prevalent in the works of many non-Spanish, and especially Protestant, historians. Primarily associated with criticism of 16th-century Spain and the anti-Protestant policies of King Philip II (reigned 1556–98), the term was popularized by the Spanish historian…
>> Not quite. Royal houses claim descendancy from David. They reigned by the will of God (sometimes His will was determined on a battlefield) & it was acknowledge or confirmed by the Roman Catholic Church. There was never anything "secular" about any monarchy, never.<<
The warring between Catholic kings gives lie to this statement. The title "Holy Roman Emporer" was given to any king who was deemed worthy from Rome. It did not imply that the greatness of Imperial Rome had been re-established, or even that the Vatican had chosen that one king as its secular ruler. In fact, there were times when the H.R.E. ruled a very meager territory, far removed from Central Italy, and times when there was more than one H.R.E. All it mean was the formal approval of Rome. And H.R.E.s were very rare, indeed! Not even "Defender of the Faith," Henry VIII was made H.R.E. (Probably because Rome recognized his value as a political ally, but also recognized he was a louse.)
>> A remarkable assertion, since the same monarch that had Tyndale strangled and burned for "errors" authorized a translation that relied heavily on the work of...Tyndale.<<
Tyndale's "errors" were deliberate, and ideologically prompted. But why start from scratch when you can simply make minor fixes to the work someone has already done?
Right. You wanna run that past us all again. I have to say, I've read those documents on Catholic sites too - they say the exact same thing in translated form - as do the documents I haven't posted here. So, if it's some huge conspiracy, Rome is in on it and as big a bunch of "Anti-Catholic Bigots" as the people you keep wanting to say just don't understand you or have it in for you. Nonsense. But care to try another one, excuses seem to be 2 for 1 today.
Unless you're Havoc. LOL
Clarify.. you mean like in post 66 where you mislead yet again by mistating what the canon actually says. Is that clarifying or blowing more smoke trying to CYA. That is a rhetorical question, sir.
>> In light of that, does the Catholic church hold the position that publishers of the King James Version should be burned for error? <<
The Catholic Church might not, but I certainly do. The evil done by King James and his immediate predecessors is legendary, and horrifying. And if the Catholics ever reclaimed England, after the Protestant's massacring of hundreds of thousand Catholics, you'd better believe I'd've supported the execution of King James! Just as the Protestants did to Queen Mary. As for the translators, I'd allow them to recant, but if they continued their treason, yes, I'd have them dealt with too.
At present, however, English Protestants are merely following the faith of their ancestors, and are simply poor souls in need of conversion. Execution is neither just nor efficacious.
Don't waste too much time trying to make sense of it. Just observe Havoc for a while and you will begin to appreciate the irrational glee he derives from lying about the Roman Catholic Church.
After that, just back away slowly and take the time now and then to warn others of his spite.
LOL You're priceless.
>>especially the KJV as the entire civilized world finds the KJV to be a very good translation.<<
*Laugh*
"Thou shall commit murder... thou shall bear false witness... Thou shall covet they neighbor's wife."
-- The King James Bible. Hence, it was known as the "Devil's Bible" until these errors were corrected.
People who believe the dcotrine promoted by the crappy translation of the KJV think it is a wonderful translation. And artistically, the Psalms are maginificent, and widely recognized as so. But the letters of Paul are unreadable, and there are more flase doctrines promoted within than can be imagined. Even spellings are changed to prevent people from realizing that certain characters mentionned in different passages are the same people.
Get a load of Havoc's latest, er, whatever they're called.
Well, first of all, you might point out for the edification of all of us here where I lied about the Roman Church? Your own documents back me up. But I appreciate the fact that I make enough impact for you usual suspects to show up to yet another thread to accuse me. If you want to stand about and lie, I'll debunk your lies. I know it's infuriating to not be allowed to get by with it; but, that's why Jesus said he didn't come to bring peace but a sword; because the truth ticks people off.
I suppose you do know how very infuriating that is, but you should try to remain calm. Cut down on the lies and you'll feel much better.
Perhaps a nice walk would help?
>>I've read those documents on Catholic sites too - they say the exact same thing in translated form - as do the documents I haven't posted here. <<
Yes, and, in fact, they were reprinted by Soothing Dave, who explained to you what they meant. You disregarded it, apparently believing that the Catholic CHurch slaughtered people and then felt it necessary to say that people who have been slaughtered for heresy should not hold public office.
The documents are real. You once could be excused for misunderstanding them, but I know you know better, now. Sadly, I'd bet the publishers were ignorantly repeating what they had heard. It's funny how quick Protestants are to recognize bias in publishing when the issue is the entirety of Christianity, but they could never conceive that the publishers could have had an agenda against Catholicism in an earlier age.
OMG! That's precious.
LOL
You'd better stock up.
Actually, the Spanish Inquistion was originally focused on Muslims and nominally converted Muslims. Not surprising considering the Muslim invaders had coverted a fair percetnage of the population.
You know, I bet Thomas F. Madden would be among the first to decry moral relativism.
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.