from Faber's Difficulties of Romanism in respect to evidence 
Posted on 11/21/2012 2:34:48 PM PST by Lera
Not a word was heard from the Vatican all the years Sderot babies were in mortal danger. They began noticing the violence last week.
Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, President of the Vatican Council for Culture, commenting on the war between Israel and Hamas, delivered a severe attack on the Jewish people: “I think of the ‘massacre of the innocents’. Children are dying in Gaza, their mothers’ shouts is a perennial cry, a universal cry”.
The Catholic Church high official equated Israel’s operation in Gaza against terror groups with the New Testament story of Herod’s slaughter of Jewish babies in his effort to kill Jesus.
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
If you aren't capable of finding out if outrageous rumors are true or false, why are you even using the Internet?
The article about his earlier plagiarism is here.
But look, he gets 300 posts in response to his exaggerations, fabrications, and provocations, so I guess it pays off.
Amongst the back-and forth engaged in on this thread concerning Meotti's article, can be seen evidence for individuals [not particularly you] from either "side" of the discussion dragging their own prejudices & pride into the mix, over-stating their own case in manner not completely unlike Meotti's methods, sans the plagiarism?
No, and if the numerous comments I have posted on this thread so far have not convinced you of that, nothing will. What is clear to see for those objective enough, that is, is that the Vatican IS and has been playing favorites in the Israel/Palestinian dispute. Maybe it is because some Palestinians are Christians, maybe because there is a historical bias against the Jewish people, but it is not by a long shot equitable or fair. The unfortunate comments of this Cardinal only contribute to this sense and, although I do not share the hatred of the author towards Catholics and other Christians, I can sympathize somewhat. It is not as if the Vatican can be counted upon to always do the right thing.
It is no secret that the Vatican has supported the statehood aspirations of the Palestinian Authority before the United Nations. That their demands and expectations include that Israel relinquish the West Bank, Gaza Strip AND East Jerusalem - which Israel took back after the 1967 war and who also hold that all of Jerusalem belongs as the capitol of Israel - seems to hold no weight whatsoever. I agree with Lera that Almighty God will hold those responsible for Israel's destruction to account.
I don't have a fan club and I don't plan on starting one. I long ago ceased worrying about popularity. I'm Catholic and I defend the Catholic Church from lies. Attack it and there will be a response. Count on it.
As is your every right. Just be sure that what you respond to so fiercely actually IS a lie before you draw your sword. Those who make up the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church are not the lily white, pure as the driven snow, standard bearers some would like the world to think. That many have and will continue to do and say wrong things is to be expected. Bringing such to the notice of others is a step towards correction and works much better than sweeping it under the rug and pretending every criticism is a "lie". Those of us who have come out of Catholicism have every right AND duty - just as you assert you have - to speak as God leads us to so that the truth of the Gospel is preached to the glory of God.
Just be sure that what is asserted really IS being lead by the Holy Spirit, because if one denies the Church the ability to speak the truth of the Gospel there is no assurance that any other person has that ability either. The chances are even less when one gets nearly everything wrong about the doctrines of the Church.
Were such folks glorifying God when they preached that all contraception was a sin, or were they wrong then and glorifying God now that they preach the exact opposite?
How convenient.
Where have we heard that argument before? hmmm...
Notice paragraph labeled VIII from Faber, in the year 1825
While Faber isn't in the same league as Hislop, his work and others that were torn to ribbons and discredited over a century ago are obsecure enough that many "prophecy experts", and rabid anti-Catholics refer to them knowing full well they've been debunked but also knowing full well that very few in their audiance will know or care that it's all been debunked.
Faber originated the theory that each day recorded in the Genesis creation account is actually an age. Based on that assumption he claimed that Darwinian evoultion was a very good fit with the Biblical account of creation. It's always been interesting to me that the same people who believe Genesis is a literal account of a six day creation ignore that portion of Faber's work in order to embrace his anti-Catholic, lies, fabrications, and speculations. Is that an indication that they don't care whether or not he was led by the Holy Spirit, that they think the Holy Spirit takes frequent vacations and wasn't home when Faber wrote about evolution, or an admission that anti-Catholic folks could care less whether someone is led by the Holy Spirit or by Satan just as long as they're anti-Catholic?
It's also interesting that there were many well known Anglicans contemporary with Faber who wrote books and tracts specifically to debunk what Faber was preaching, both about evolution and about the early Church. The anti-Catholic crowd, however, don't seem to care that his own church didn't buy what he was selling. I take that as pretty good proof that those who quote Faber don't really care whether his fabrications are true or not, but I'm sure others see things differently or are unaware of what was going on at the time.
Apparently, as long as someone is anti-Catholic they can deny the Trinity, deny the diety of Christ, call Christ a liar by denying what Christ Himself said, and preach any sort of anti-Christ doctrine they like. Not a bit of that will bother those who constantly attack the Catholic Church but insist that they're Christian and not anti-Catholic. And obviously not a bit of it will cause them to ever doubt the authority of any known liar they enjoy quoting.
If this Cardinal said that he should be removed for stupidity.
Never was it Israel’s fault that terrorist set up their organizations near hospitals, schools or population centers.
How delighted I am that you have decided to post to me again!
Assuming that this is more than a rhetorical question to me, let me answer simply that what a person or denomination believes about "contraception" has nothing whatsoever to do with the "Gospel". Though I don't approve of any contraceptive that causes an abortion (the death of the unborn) - as is the "secondary" effect of most oral birth control pills and other hormonal methods as well as the primary function of the IUD - the other choices a married couple have to regulate their own families is none of my business. It is between themselves and God. Just because the Roman Catholic Church has made the issue their business doesn't mean it has anything to do with the Gospel of the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ.
It's very simply a question of how can non-Catholics who claim to be led only by Scripture and the Holy Spirit preach something as truth yesterday and the exact opposite today. At one time, either yesterday or today, they were not being led by Scripture and the Holy Spirit. It's that simple and that obvious no matter how the infallible interpreters of what Scripture they don't throw out try to obscure and avoid the question.
I ask again, were those folks who preached that contraception was a sin being led by the Holy Spirit and Scripture when they were preaching that doctrine or are they being led by the Holy Spirit and the Scripture now that they preach the exact opposite?
Smells of desperation. And fear. Faber did not need be correct in all things, to be correct in many.
I'll grant that same leeway to Roman Catholicism in general, and individual adherents more generously.
As it stands now, the description & use of "anti-catholic" simply remains much as Faber described it more fully, over the course of many pages.
It is great conceit for the Latin Patriarch of the Western Church to ascribe most chiefly & solely to themselves and their dogmas (not agreed to by many other "catholics" of long standing) the term CATHOLIC particularly when such was first used in history in the small case (letter "c"), and the word meant basically "universal", but over years was appropriated to refer not to the greater, universal church, but to refer chiefly to themselves --- describing all else to be "lacking fullness of the truth".
One may themselves subscribe to such as matter of choice, but to proclaim it "true" we continually see it be an argument of assertion, and quite vehement assertion, but failing here and there to establish in actual fact, when we look to those evidences that may be found from the primitive church of the first few centuries, and the Word.
Desperation? Character assassination?
Me thinks thou dost protest too much.
I am able to tell the difference between an honest exposition on Scripture by a Protestant and a bovine by product. While I have read many good treatises by Protestant authors, Fabers work is the latter.
Peace be with you.
I'll give you a simple answer even though I doubt it will be adequate. I'm sure you are familiar with the saying attributed to Augustine that says: It the major things - UNITY, in the minor things - LIBERTY, in all things - CHARITY (LOVE). The doctrines, the central tenets that make up what it even means to BE a Christian, are to be held by Christians and are spelled out clearly in Scripture. In areas that are not specifically spelled out in Scripture, there is liberty, meaning that what a person decides to believe about certain things is between him and God. For someone to say the Holy Spirit "led" him to deny the deity of Jesus Christ, for example, I think we can universally agree that the Holy Spirit would NOT be who is leading that person. On the other hand, if I want to go to an "R" rated movie, is that something the Bible says is a central tenet of the Christian faith? No, but I can be led to discern what is right or wrong for me in areas not spelled out in the Bible and, if I have dedicated my life to following Christ, I will be open to the leading of the Holy Spirit in those areas that affect my life. What might be wrong for me, may be right for someone else. But, again, I'm talking about those "gray" areas - NOT the doctrines of the Christian faith.
In the history of the Roman Catholic Church there are even examples where the hierarchy stated something was to be believed but then changed it later on. So, were they being led by the Holy Spirit to make those declarations and were they wrong to do so when they then changed their beliefs?
I ask again, were those folks who preached that contraception was a sin being led by the Holy Spirit and Scripture when they were preaching that doctrine or are they being led by the Holy Spirit and the Scripture now that they preach the exact opposite?
What you should really be asking is whether or not the Holy Spirit was even called upon by those "folks" to come to their decision about contraception. Not every church out there relies upon Him to formulate their statements of faith and I hardly think most churches even have a "plank" that addresses what they think everyone in their church MUST believe about the issue. Though the Roman Catholic Church does, how many of the "faithful" even follow it? Do you think that there just might be certain areas that even Catholics think the "church" has no business telling them what to do?
On the basic, fundamental doctrines to be believed in order to BE a Christian, yes, there MUST be unity and there IS though there is even disagreement on the explanations of some of them (i.e., salvation by faith apart from works). Where churches wander away from these tenets, they cease being Christian in God's eyes. So, no, a person is wrong to state the Holy Spirit is leading them to forsake the Scripturally defined doctrines of the faith because the Holy Spirit wouldn't do that - truth is absolute.
Leviticus 20:13 if a man lays with another man he should be stoned.
Gay marriage and Marijuana are being legalized on the same day.
Someone like Faber would take that as proof that we've been interpreting Leviticus 20:13 incorrectly until now and embrace the legalization of both. There are obviously quite a few like him on the loose these days and not a few of them pass through FR RF from time to time.
The same could be asked about divorce and several other things.
If people are guided by the Holy Spirit they do not reverse themselves or claim that "Christian Liberty" applies whenever they're caught in a contradiction. The Holy Spirit never leads anyone into a contradictory position from one day to the next or one decade to the next.
Of course, those who worship their own, Most High and Holy Self rather than Jesus Christ always claim that "Christian Liberty" permits them anything from adultery to the Zoroastrian duality doctrines they apply to the Holy Spirit.
I suppose that King Barry relies on the same sort of bogus application of "Christian Liberty" and "Charity" when he says that any infant that survives and abortion should just be left to starve or die from exposure. Apparently some people are comfortable with accepting as their beliefs whatever the king of their nation believes.
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.