Posted on 06/18/2004 9:55:45 AM PDT by xsysmgr
The Spanish Armada was defeated of course. The Spanish and Austrian armies in Germany faired much better. It was only Swedish intervention, and specifically Gustavus Adolphus, combined with French money that saved the Protestants in Germany in the 30 Years War.
Again, one invites the accuser to point out a lie. You haven't yet in the last two threads you've been on. You've merely stood by hurling false accusations. Oh, wait, sorry, I should keep quiet and let you lie about me so the crowd can judge for themselves..
No it doesn't, unless you leave out the part where I stated that His will was sometimes determined on the field of battle.
The title "Holy Roman Emporer" was given to any king who was deemed worthy from Rome.
Did Rome ever elevate anyone without any claim to a royal bloodline? If not, why not? If they did, what would lead any noble to follow them?
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.
I agree. I'd have to say Rome "saw" God's will involved in the choosing, which would hardly make the ruler a "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!
True
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.)
Henry VIII's skills as a warrior were poor, but his ego needed stroking, so awarding him a title made perfect sense. It was a gift to a child to keep him from feeling bad about the loss of his territories in France & getting good Christians killed if he wanted to try to win them back again.
No, Dave screwed up what they meant by quoting what was to be done to those that listened to heretics and saying that was what was to be done with heretics. He misapplied what was said and was corrected for it by someone who did bother to read it in advance. One doesn't need be a genius to read and understand the full of the Canon. But it's worth noting that you didn't bother reading it yourself but fall to what Dave said instead of quoting the document yourself.. so you can safely hide behind Dave in your reasoning perhaps.. lol
I'd bet the publishers were ignorantly repeating what they had heard
Oh give us a break. The publishers of what! These are your own documents. We aren't talking about misprint or mistranslation. We're talking about you guys lying about the record and Dave not even being able to get his own counciliar document straight in what it says. Any bleatin english major could set Dave on his ear for his mistatement. .. as well as any good latin major. The language matters not. He's wrong. You're wrong and the document is posted right here on the thread in post 66 for everyone to read and see you're both wrong. If you stabbed someone to death in broad daylight at this point with 1000 witnesses, I'm now sure you'd try to pin it on someone else though everyone saw it because it's exactly what you're doing now. Man I'd love to have you guys on video for other Christians to see. It's incredible.
I haven't needed any. Nor do I imagine I shall. You're the one sniping from the sidelines. You've had your shots and you keep missing. I'd recommend getting your personal problem off your chest in the appropriate venue on this forum. I'd further recommend you reread the forum rules.
The "authority" of the same organization that had a system for protecting child molesters? True authority is never arbitrary but adheres to a real standard. The KJV is at the least better than the Vulgate which is both authorized and erroneous.
This is not a minor point.
All translations have minor differences in wording that make no difference in meaning when viewed in the larger context of the bible. If you are going to parse scripture to that extent, a lot of the poetry and prophecy contains grievous errors. Since it is obvious scripture is not so errant, it is clear that God did not intend it to be a legalese trap to prevent Clintonian weaseling of obvious intention.
Ping! You gotta see 66 and 116, just beyond belief.
Where can I go to find all these errors detailed? I use several different translations including KJV, while there are some differences in wording none is erroneous by the standards of rational adults.
The focus of the Inquisition after Torquemade came on board was on the "Judizers"in part because of Jewish support for the Muslim state Ferdinand and Isabella were trying to overthrow. Kamen contends that the Jews who had converted were for the most part sincere, but that the "old" Catholic familes were jealous of them.
This has nothing fo with moral relativism. He goes on to explain that medieval Christians took heresy as seriously we, for instance, take radical Islam.
Counter assertion: In the context of all history, for a 1000 years the morally worst Mediaeval rulers were the Popes; far worse that the average contemporary secular monarch.
ping
Their conclusions are based on the documents in the archives. No different from Von Sybel's investigation of the Prussian archives. Of course it is one-sided. but before you can conclude that those documents are false, you would have to show that by referring to contrary evidence. Lawrence of Arabia is famoiusly credited with saying that documents lie. But we have to have some way of knowing this. You are simply brushing this research aside because it goes against your beliefs.
If the Catholic Church believes people will be contaminated makes it mandatory for those people to be exposed to the entire Bible, at least every three years. (It's considered a mortal sin otherwise.) Sorry if that gets in the way of your hatred and intolerance.
"Those are not to be accounted homicides who, fired with zeal for Mother Church, may have killed excommunicated persons." Decreti, pars ii. causa xxiii. quaest v. can. xlvii.
This means that anyone excommunicated from the Roman church whome a catholic in good standing chooses to murder is fair game and the charge of murder will not fall upon them. It doesn't even bother to reach the extent of pronouncing them a heretic which is only done under Lateran IV after a year of thoughtful time to recant. Even a mere excommunicant is at risk of their life. There's more. Innocent III & IV, Honorius III, Gregory IX from whome the Decreti above derives all had some to say on this.
Innocent IV is the one who gave the world Ad Exterpanda - the defining of the authority to torture someone to the point just short of killing them. I think most are aware of the devices used by the inquisition that are recorded today and still available for viewing to this day. It is rightly recorded that not killing one with torture didn't mean that the person might not have been better off dead by the time the inquisitors were finished. For those who don't know what I'm speaking of, try here
Killing these folks was exactly what was sought. When the Constitution of lombardy came up, it became law of Rome - not just Germany, the Pope made it law in Rome. There is no doubt - none - exactly what Rome meant by "extirmination"
Innocent also gave us Cum adversus haereticam I believe, and down the road, Boniface VIII gave us the Liber Sextus. Every pope practically had something to offer in tweeking the extent to which torture might be applied. Extirmination did not mean chasing people out of Roman or Catholic lands, Again, I remind everyone of Groups like the Waldenses who were chased to the ends of the earth practically and slaughtered wherever they might be found. If extirminate merely meant to remove from Catholic lands, the example of the Church should demonstrate that - it does not. Quite the contrary it demonstrates just what the text says Exterminate - murder - in the territories nobles occupy anyone found to be a heretic.
No need. Anyone who reads this thread can see your many mistatements and on a macro level decide if they could possibly be accidental, or if in fact they as a group and on whole must be intentional.
Wallow on.
How many people would OJ Simpson have to kill to be guilty of murder?
Answer: More than two, obviously.
How many people must the atheist Soviet Union put to death to be an unforgiveable atrocity?
Answer: The masses were put to death by merciful atheist elites, thus saving them from meaningless lives. It isn't the quantity of death, so much as the quality the redeems.
Unless, your Jewish.
Oh, to the contrary, I'd offer that there is every need. You've slandered me at this point and do so without evidence of any kind. As it stands, you are guilty of bearing false witness and to this point of sniping. The forum rules are quite clear about your behavior. If it's a personal problem, there is a place to settle it and it isn't on the thread. If it is something with any factual ground, you are bound by scripture to correct me. That's called chess, you are in check - move or shut up.
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.