Posted on 05/19/2006 5:51:33 PM PDT by fishtank
LOL! And where does that say they killed those two dudes you were talking about to do it?
Still do not know what that has to do with anything.
Again, if you add up the numbers, Catholics have done alot better with Protestants then did the Protestants with the Catholics.
The Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre.
Last updated Feb. 24, 2002
An Eyewitness Account of the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre by François Dubois From the Musée Cantonal Des Beaux-Arts, Lausanne Switzerland
August 24, 1572, was the date of the infamous St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in France. On that day, over 400 years ago, began one of the most horrifying holocausts in history. The glorious Reformation, begun in Germany on October 31, 1517, had spread to France—and was joyfully received. A great change had come over the people as industry and learning began to flourish, and so rapidly did the Truth spread that over a third of the population embraced the Reformed Christian Faith.
However, alarm bells began to ring at the Vatican! France was her eldest daughter and main pillar—the chief source of money and power. . . . King Pepin of the Franks (the father of Charlemagne) had given the Papal States to the Pope almost 1000 years earlier. Almost half the real estate in the country was owned by the clergy.
Meanwhile, back in Paris, the King of France and his Court spent their time drinking, reveling and carousing. The Court spiritual adviser—a Jesuit priest—(emphasis given) urged them to massacre the Protestants—as penance for their many sins! To catch the Christians off-guard every token of peace, friendship, and ecumenical good will was offered.
Suddenly—and without warning—the devilish work commenced. Beginning at Paris, the French soldiers and the Roman Catholic clergy fell upon the unarmed people, and blood flowed like a river throughout the entire country. Men, women, and children fell in heaps before the mobs and the bloodthirsty troops. In one week, almost 100,100 Protestants perished. The rivers of France were so filled with corpses that for many months no fish were eaten. In the valley of the Loire, wolves came down from the hills to feel upon the decaying bodies of Frenchmen. The list of massacres was as endless as the list of the dead!
Many were imprisoned—many sent as slaves to row the King's ships—and some were able to escape to other countries. . . . The massacres continued for centuries. The best and brightest people fled to Germany, Switzerland, England, Ireland and eventually America and brought their incomparable manufacturing skills with them. . . . France was ruined. . . . Wars, famine, disease and poverty finally led to the French Revolution—the Guillotine—the Reign of Terror—the fall of the Roman Catholic Monarchy—atheism—communism etc., etc.
When news of the Massacre reached the Vatican there was jubilation! Cannons roared—bells rung—and a special commemorative medal was struck—to honor the occasion! The Pope commissioned Italian artist Vasari to paint a mural of the Massacre—which still hangs in the Vatican! http://www.reformation.org/bart.html
State that it's William the Silent then that you were talking about in the first place.
William of Orange is his name as well.
Now, you know that a William of Orange was murdered by a Roman Catholic so why the attempt to bluff?
Another publication said he was killed by a Spanish agent. Still, you haven't proven your claim that he was killed by a Jesuit! From your article: (and, some claim, to meet with Jesuit priests, including leaders of the order such as Father Henry Garnet and Father John Gerard.) Ok.. it says some "claim" so that means it's unsubstantiated, can't be proven. You still haven't proven your assertion that Jesuits killed William the Silent or that they attempted to kill King James
Those who did so were Roman Catholics.
The Jesuits were behind the scenes plotting and getting others to do the dirty work.
And the fact is that they were involved in both cases.
Just because they didn't do the actual act, doesn't mean they are any less guilty of the crime.
Who is kidding who and who is throwing up smokescreens? As for being killed by a Jesuit, aw come on now, you know how well those rascially Jesuits cover up their trial! Yeah, according to those Jack Chick publications you've been reading. Don't deny it either because I saw your admission to that on another thread. You also think all Catholics are condemned to hell because they don't believe as you do. Saw that little number on the Luther/Erasmus threads. Isn't there a rule here against religious bigotry?? Gee, there sure is.. it's right on the front of FR's homepage.
And what bigotry is that?
You think the RCC Gospel is the same as the Protestant one?
If not, then one of us is accursed (Gal.1:8) and going to hell for preaching the wrong Gospel.
But just like a Roman Catholic, when it gets too close to the truth, start trying to shut down the dialogue.
Real lovers of freedom!
Enjoyed to talking to you until I found out you are a Jack Chick enthusiast and that you take that devil seriously. Well.. gotta run. I can only catch about 4 hours of sleep before I meet with a client. This has gone past being worth losing sleep over.
Ofcourse, use the 'chick tracts' as a red herring.
I never referred to them.
So, first it was the 'Trial if Blood' then it was 'Chick Tracts'.
Neither of them had anything to do with our discussion which was the history of the RCC in general and the Jesuits in particular.
The plot against King James was considered part of the Counter-Reformation, hence the Jesuits.
You know 2plus2...
For whatever it is worth, imagine the finest and most Christian reformed preacher you have ever experienced. My idea of such a man would be the genuinely saintly Lutheran minister Pastor Richard Wurmbrand who died in Indiana a few years ago but spent about thirty years in Nazi and Communist prisons in the first half of the last century. I guarantee that Pastor Wurmbrand and any great reformed pastor who might have been found in Spain under the communist "Republican" regime would have been martyred along with the Catholics. The bad guys in that era in Spain did not hate just Catholicism. They hated God and they hated everyone who loved God.
The purpose of this post is not to whitewash Opus Dei as though it had no faults. It is a human institution run by and peopled by sinners. Hanssen is not to be regarded as typical of Opus Dei. Benedict Arnold was not a typical Protestant general and his betrayal of our country had nothing to do with his faith as, presumably, an Episcopalian or Congregationalist. If anyone purporting to be an Evangelical ever betrays our country, we can be reasonably sure that the betrayal will not grow out of his/her Evangelical faith in and love of God.
Once upon a time I thought that Opus Dei was a good organization, that is, until my son joined it. Then my eyes were opened and the truth about Opus Dei became clear. What ODAN says about Opus Dei is correct. My son experienced the kinds of things that people have described at ODAN's website. My son joined an Opus Dei "center" that was located off the campus of the university that he was attending. He was a freshman at the time. He was attracted by their spirituality, by the way their priests said Mass and by the "circles" he was invited to atttend. As soon as he expressed an interest in Opus Dei, he was told that he had a vocation to be a numerary, and from that point onward, he was pressured into pursuing this vocation. The director at the center actively discouraged him from discussing any of this with us, his family. He was not given the opportunity to make an objective, informed decision. Opus Dei told him that it was God's will that he become a numerary and that he might not be saved if he did not do this. They tried to get him to recruit other students. My son's personality and behavior changed. All he talked about was "the work." He had always been a straight-A student but now he no longer cared about his grades and he wanted to reduce the number of courses he was taking at college so that he could spend more time doing "the work."
They told him to that he was supposed to attend a special three-week "philosophy seminar" in Boston during the summer and they tried to get him to spend Christmas break in Mexico instead of coming home. He didn't go to Mexico, but he did go to Boston that summer. Opus Dei charged him $750 for the three-week brainwashing session and he lost three weeks of income, since he had to leave his summer job early that year. He returned home the night before he was supposed to leave for college. At first he acted as though everything had been fine and he talked about spending the whole summer the following year working at youth camp for Opus Dei. When I asked him how he was supposed to pay for college (the youth camp was not going to pay him), he did not reply. Then he confessed that he had some serious misgivings about Opus Dei and that he had hated the three weeks he had spent in Boston. This is when the truth came out. My husband and I were alarmed when we heard what he had to say. He was allowed to call home only once. His time was completely scheduled. He was finally told that if he became a numerary, he would have to give all of his income to Opus Dei, that he would not be allowed to own books, CDs, or movies, and that he would have to go where they sent him. In short, they would run his life. They told him not to discuss anything with us. He was told that he could not speak to any non Opus Dei priest. Although he did not want to live that kind of lifestyle, he went ahead and formally made the "oblation" to become a numerary. He thought that he had to do this even if he wasn't going to be happy.
I could go on but I won't. The upshot of this is that my son returned to college and that he formally left Opus Dei before the end of his sophomore year. His personality and behavior returned to normal. He just graduated from college.
What can I say about a group that tried to push a young man into a vocation that he was not suited for? At the very least, Opus Dei engages in very questionable recruiting practices. There is a place for their kind of spirituality in the Church and if they were open and honest about it, I'm sure they could attract people to their group. But they aren't honest or open.
Opus Dei may be part of the Church, but it is not a good part of it. My advice would be to stay away from it and to keep your children away from it.
If you could stop living in the 17th Century for just a moment, you might notice that the Jesuits have been so thoroughly corrupted by worldliness and avante garde theology that they're barely even Catholic any more, much less "the assassination arm of the Vatican".
Our bishop just got done banning a speaker from Church property in this diocese. The banned speaker (who is also banned in his own diocese) is a Jesuit ... a theology professor at Marquette, a Jesuit university.
In my years here, I have only asked that management deal with one person who had claimed to know who I am and threatened to find me and commit violence. I have never complained to management about anyone's expressed opinions no matter how much I may have disagreed with many opinions here.
As to Full Court, if you review the thread, another poster suggested that I had made a sinister suggestion which I did not, although the misunderstanding was understandable in retrospect. Full Court promptly responded that she did not take my post as having any sinister meaning. I thanked her for her confidence in my bona fides.
IF Full Court was temporarily banned, it may have been management on its own motion since an administrator was reviewing the thread and had warned a poster or two of the need for civility. I personally did not find anything uncivil but I really believe in a full back and forth. Beyond that, however, I believe that Catholics and reformed Christians and others of good will and good morals should unite against our mutual enemies in the social issues civil wars that afflict our nation. I also believe that we should go out of our way to demonstrate our good will toward one another.
As to the late Fr. Malachi Martin, he is one of my very favorite authors. The Final Conclave would certainly be a very good movie but it is fixed in time in the late 1970s and the real identities of the cardinals are overwhelmingly obscure to most Catholics much less to those not Catholic. It is a good enough drama in its own right that the identities of the cardinals are not necessary to the enjoyment. As I recall the novel: Cardinal Angelico was the real life Cardinal Benelli (ultimately of Florence) who had many colorful nicknames including The Hangman, Domenico was the real life Dominican Order Cardinal Ciappi, Azande was the real life Bernardin Cardinal Gantin of Dahomey. Along with two others, they constituted the "radical" faction of the College of Cardinals who wind up prevailing with the election of either Gantin or the real life Albino Cardinal Luciani (JP I) as pope after rejecting forcefully a very close attempt at opening the Church to alliance with Marxism in favor of a papacy dedicated to destroying Marxism. Luciani's father was a communist and Luciani rejected his father's ideology in favor of his mother's faith in his youth, entering seminary at 13 years of age. Gantin's African homeland is a dismal Marxist dictatorship. The ultimate truth grasped in fiction by Martin was the second conclave of 1978 which elected Karol Cardinal Wojtlywa as John Paul II in a different scenario with differing supporters but the same intended result.
The Keys of This Blood (non-fiction as to the role of Catholicism in Polish history) and Windswept House are also very eligible. The incidents and real life characters corresponding to the characters in Windswept House would make The Da Vinci Code look tame. It contains a Satanic Black Mass in which a participant is a young priest who will become a notorious cardinal (now dead) in real life. It is the novel of JP II in winter, brought low physically by age, infirmity and Parkinson's as his enemies (not Christian enemies either) wax in anticipation of his irrelevance or demise and some very surprising fellows, long enemies of the Church, come riding to his rescue and that of the Church to which they do not belong.
When we Catholics refer to reformed Christians as our "separated brethren," we mean that. We are separated as to our respective understandings of Scripture, as to the Catholic adherence to the Teaching Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church as an additional source of religious Truth, in which books we regard as canonical (which apparently has to do with the Jews having had two canons one from Jerusalem and one from Alexandria; i.e., one with and one without what you regard as Apocrypha). Jesus Christ knew that we would be separated and wept over that at Gethsemane. Without forsaking a single doctrine on either side, we all can strive to be civil in our disagreements and should do so. I am convinced that the better and kinder posts of this thread by those reformed and those not reformed is a good start.
May God bless you and yours.
I meant to ping you to #128. Sorry.
Well, if you had ever stated any truth to begin with that would be a different story, but you didn't. You started off with a falsity that the Jesuits personally killed William the Silent and that they attempted to kill King James. When I showed you where you had SPECIFICALLY said that, you come back blowing more smoke to try and cover your anti-Catholic drivel.
What's the point of talking to someone who persists in distorting the facts, EVEN when those facts were presented to him/her that proved otherwise? The Jesuits didn't kill William the Silent, nor is their any historical proof they were involved in the Gunpowder Plot.
You think the RCC Gospel is the same as the Protestant one?
Last time I checked, the Roman Catholic Church was spreading the gospel long, long before the Reformation was a gleam in Martin Luther's eye. Ever hear of SENORITY?
If not, then one of us is accursed (Gal.1:8) and going to hell for preaching the wrong Gospel.
In my humble opinion, from what I have read of your interpretation of the gospel, that finger you are pointing, you have three others pointing back at you. I will leave it to God, however, to determine whether it will be you or I in flames. While on earth though, if you want to tell Roman Catholics that they are condemned to hell on FR with impunity, I guess all you need to do is get on the donor list like you. Seems you get away with it quite often from reading your posts.
People report you and nothing happens. You are still here spewing venom against Catholic Christians condemning them all to hell for not agreeing with your interpretation of the gospel. Let me enlighten you what it says on the frontpage of FR:
"Please enjoy our forum, but also please remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, profanity, vulgarity, threats, racial or religious bigotry, or any other materials offensive or otherwise inappropriate for a conservative family audience
You're not courteous to Catholics, you've personally attacked them when you claim we are all going to hell as you did in that other thread and you have engaged in religious bigotry. For what ever reason you have been allowed to continue in this behavior unchecked.
Since it is not within my power to ban you, I can ban you from having conversations with me. It's fruitless and an occasion for sin to continue in conversation with someone who appears to take glee in ridiculing and condemning others who love and worship the Lord Jesus Christ as much as I pray you do.
And find anywhere I said personally.
Now, you want to play the semantics game (like a Jesuit).
The Jesuits were involved in both plots, so your attempts at evasion are dishonest (like the Jesuits)
What's the point of talking to someone who persists in distorting the facts, EVEN when those facts were presented to him/her that proved otherwise? The Jesuits didn't kill William the Silent, nor is their any historical proof they were involved in the Gunpowder Plot.
The Jesuits were involved in the plot to kill William of Orange, knowing beforehand what was going to take place,
The Jesuits, with whose foreknowledge of the deed had taken place,reckoned Gerard (the assasian) among the holy martyrs of the Church;.. As for the attempt on King James, About a dozen laymen had full knowledge of the Satanic enterprise, and several priests were privy to it,....among these were Garnet, Superior of the Jesuits in England, who fell into the hands of the government and was sent to the scaffold (History of the Christian Church, vol.3, pg 249, 333, Henry C. Sheldon)
You think the RCC Gospel is the same as the Protestant one? Last time I checked, the Roman Catholic Church was spreading the gospel long, long before the Reformation was a gleam in Martin Luther's eye. Ever hear of SENORITY?
We are not talking about how long the RCC has been around, but what Gospel they spread.
Does the RCC believe in faith alone in Christ alone or not.
The Pharisees went all around making converts and Christ said that those converts were 'twofold more the child of hell than yourselves' (Matt.23:15)
If not, then one of us is accursed (Gal.1:8) and going to hell for preaching the wrong Gospel. In my humble opinion, from what I have read of your interpretation of the gospel, that finger you are pointing, you have three others pointing back at you. I will leave it to God, however, to determine whether it will be you or I in flames. While on earth though, if you want to tell Roman Catholics that they are condemned to hell on FR with impunity, I guess all you need to do is get on the donor list like you. Seems you get away with it quite often from reading your posts.
It seems that you are a bit sensitive about the truth.
I do not pick out Roman Catholics for going to hell, I say anyone who doesn't personally accept The Lord Jesus Christ as their personal saviour and trust in only Him for their salvation, is going to hell.
That is the Gospel that separates the RCC from Christianity.
People report you and nothing happens. You are still here spewing venom against Catholic Christians condemning them all to hell for not agreeing with your interpretation of the gospel. Let me enlighten you what it says on the frontpage of FR: "Please enjoy our forum, but also please remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, profanity, vulgarity, threats, racial or religious bigotry, or any other materials offensive or otherwise inappropriate for a conservative family audience
And again, we are talking about a religious issue, not anything personal.
So your cries of 'bigotry' smack of at attempts of censoring the true Gospel, the very thing that Rome always does when it gains control of a nation.
Romanism never changes.
You're not courteous to Catholics, you've personally attacked them when you claim we are all going to hell as you did in that other thread and you have engaged in religious bigotry. For what ever reason you have been allowed to continue in this behavior unchecked.
I believe that it is called freedom of speech.
I never personally attacked anyone.
The RCC believes that I am going to hell for not believing their Gospel do they not?
Since it is not within my power to ban you, I can ban you from having conversations with me. It's fruitless and an occasion for sin to continue in conversation with someone who appears to take glee in ridiculing and condemning others who love and worship the Lord Jesus Christ as much as I pray you do.
Yes, thank goodness you do not have that power.
The Roman Catholics who worship Christ must worship him in spirit and in truth, truth which the RCC does not provide.
for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified (Gal.2:16)
The only place in which Scripture uses the term "justified by faith alone" has a "not" before "justified". Look it up. (James chapter 2)
in Christ alone or not.
What (other than a slogan) is "faith in Christ alone"? I'm not supposed to believe in the Father or the Holy Spirit?
I do not pick out Roman Catholics for going to hell, I say anyone who doesn't personally accept The Lord Jesus Christ as their personal saviour and trust in only Him for their salvation, is going to hell.
The term "personal savior" (or "personal saviour" if you prefer) is not found anywhere in Scripture.
The RCC believes that I am going to hell for not believing their Gospel do they not?
Not necessarily, if you believe you are doing God's will. If, OTOH, you believed that Catholicism was true but stayed where you were because the choir was better or all of your friends were there, then there would be a problem.
for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified (Gal.2:16)
Which is exactly what Canon I of the Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, taught. Thank you for posting Catholic doctrine.
That's not true, here's what you said on that other thread:
Now Dangus is just upset because he can no longer pretend to Jude 24 and the rest of the 'soft' evangelicals that they are really 'brethren' being saved under the same Gospel. No Roman Catholic will be able to point to me before being condemned to the Lake of Fire and say that I should have told them the true Gospel. The same cannot be said for many Evangelicals today,who put peace and unity above truth. (I would have 'pinged' Dangus, but I was afraid he would have had a nervous breakdown and ran screaming to the Mod!)
That's from post #1254 Worship:Evangelical of Reformed?
Freedom of speech? Your rights end where my nose begins. You don't have a constitutional right to hold yourself up as holier and better than others or to insult Catholic Christians by telling us we're going to hell for not buying into your "truth." That is religious bigotry, that's a personal attack against Catholics and against FR rules.
As to your "historical source" a Methodist pastor who lived in the 1800's (really anti-Catholic times in America) you still have not PROVEN that the Jesuits were directly involved. Would Mr. Sheldon have called the attacks and deaths committed against Catholics a "Satanic enterprise?" I seriously doubt it!
All of this is speculation on your part and of your sources.
Does the RCC believe in faith alone in Christ alone or not. The Pharisees went all around making converts and Christ said that those converts were 'twofold more the child of hell than yourselves' (Matt.23:15)
LOL! You are transparent as glass. Why don't you just spit it out and stop beating around the bush? Now you have called Catholics devils.
FYI, the Bible never says the phrase "faith alone." In fact, even in your own KJV is says in St. James 2: 24-- "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
Sorry my friend, even St. Paul whom Protestants will use as an example believed in good works. Grab your concordance and see how many times he referred to that and while you're at it.. check out St. Matthew 25 and see what Jesus will do to those who don't perform those works of mercy.Romanism never changes.
Unfortunately, neither do some long held animosities:
Main Entry: Ro·man·ism Pronunciation: 'rO-m&-"ni-z&m Function: noun often offensive
Nice to see you are using a pejorative word to further fan the flames of that animosity.The Roman Catholics who worship Christ must worship him in spirit and in truth, truth which the RCC does not provide.
The only truth out there is this: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."
Since I get down on my knees every day in prayer, go to Mass and worship that TRUTH, I'm not really worried about what your judgemental, "Thank God I am not like this Catholic here oh Lord!" You keep up with that okay... while I throw myself to my knees and cry, "Lord, have mercy on me a sinner!"
sorry for the bad editing in post #133. All italicized comments are by fortheDeclaration. Should have put my glasses on, lol!
According to the facts presented in this thread, nothing I said was "unjust."
And even though I was "suspended" for a day, I did not make personal comments to those who called me a nasty bigot, which I certainly am not.
I would like to know if the people making the TRUE personal remarks were censured?
Also, can someone please tell me how the rules apply? Are people of a certain religion allowed to "moderate" against people of a different religion?
Why do you think you have to report people for not agreeing with you?
2 John 9 ...Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son
I was never Catholic. I was once an unsaved sinner, now I am a born again Saint!
However, I notice from you post to me that if I was formerly a catholic but wasn't now, you would say that I am not a Christian?
What do you say if I was never a catholic?
In a review of the book: Spy : The Inside Story of How the FBI's Robert Hanssen Betrayed America , a reviewer comments: "Opus Dei's prelature even stepped in to urge Hanssen's wife not to make no statements about her husband since that might delay its founder's elevation to sainthood by John Paul II."
Thank you for your testimony.
We just don't have a lot of those though, do we?
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.