Posted on 12/27/2023 2:43:51 PM PST by ebb tide
I don’t have lurkers: just OnlyFans.
Who?
History has shown it’s anyone who rails against the leadership of the Roman Catholic church.
(Not that I want to name names or anything.)
All I see are those that want him GONE!
Romans 13:1-2 ESV
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
Nah, any Catholic who knows history doesn’t overlook these.
These are emphatically not doctrinal, but more local/temporal.
Are they bad in today’s sense? You betcha - very bad
Were they bad in the 1215s? No. It does say that “a blasphemer of Christ should not exercise power over Christians” - which, considering what the Talmud says about Jesus, is pretty mild.
However these oppressive measures are not “die or convert” as was the norm of the centuries right until the 19th or 20th in Europe/NordeAmerica
If you wish to judge people of 800 years ago by today, I assume you also are among those who condemn any founding fathers who may have had slaves at some point in their lives?
“It seemed likely that Catholics know something about the landmark Nostra Aetate — the official declaration of the Second Vatican Council, reiterating that the Catholic faith begins with the patriarchs and prophets of ancient Israel, and condemning the notion that Jews share collective guilt for the death of Jesus. Many must also know of Pope John Paul II’s and other popes’ personal devotion to the people of the Covenant. “
The traditional attitude of historical chrstianity to the Jews is utterly bizarre and makes absolutely no sense. It's insane. And yet it is so absolute and uniform that it must in some way be essential to the entire religion.
American-style Fundamentalist Protestantism may be a-historical and anachronistic, but it is the ONE and ONLY form of chrstianity that has an "orthodox," conservative philo-Semitic tradition. This because, in its total lack of history, its only ancestors are the ancient Israelites of the Hebrew Bible. And it cannot illogically condemn those people as chrstianity's (lehavdil!) `Amaleq.
Another reason for this lack of anti-Semitism is that it's theory of the atonement is "penal substitution"--ie, G-d killed J*sus in place of sending every fallen human being who would ever live to Hell. The sacramental churches cannot adopt this view because it renders mankind's part in salvation completely passive, making any sort of church or sacramental ritual unnecessary. They'd all be out of a job.
Just think for a moment. The historical churches consider the passion to be at once the absolute greatest thing that has ever happened (saving the world) AND the greatest crime in history. It was necessary for J*sus to die, to be killed, yet the people who played the priestly role and slaughtered the victim are now "accursed." Does that make any sense? Why not say the same about the priests who re-enact that sacrifice so many times? Are they "deicides" too?
Do the ancient churches believe it would have been better had the passion never taken place? Then there would be no salvation and no chrstianity. Is it because they didn't know they were saving the world when they did it? Then how should they have done it? I mean it! Think about this for just one moment and you will see how insane this all is! And isn't it just too convenient that all this hatred, all this claims of "accursedness," apply to the "predecessor" religion, which would be the new religion's most serious competitor. Coincidence, or an attempt to eliminate this competitor?
Unfortunately historical chrstianity has made Judaism "liberal," a decriminalized sin like homosexuality. American-style Fundamentalism is still attached for reasons of Biblical sentimentalism and neither hates the Jews nor teaches that "all religions are equally valid." For historical chrstianity this is impossible.
I am glad to have seen the light and become a Noahide. This means I believe there is only one religion (Judaism/Noahism) to which all mankind is statutorily obligated which will outlast all other religions and eventually be universally acknowledged. Straight-up Theocracy, no liberalism, "tolerance," or "democracy" involved.
I cannot understand why sacramental chrstianity so looks down its nose at Fundamentalist Protestants. They have avoided a fatal problem without compromising their attachment to J*sus and to objective religious truth. Churches that have taught hatred of the Chosen People throughout their history (especially for doing what metaphysically had to be done) seem far inferior. I'll never get it. I'll never understand.
Of course Fundamentalist Protestantism is still completely a-historical, but its peoples' stubbornness also vaccinates it from the Torah Truth. HaShem yerachem!
Except every Roman Catholic today.
These are emphatically not doctrinal, but more local/temporal.
Yeah....most Roman Catholics are not even aware of these but when pointed out they often reply in a manner as you.
Were they bad in the 1215s? No
Whoa.....hold the phone....it was not bad in the 1215s to make Jews wear special clothing or ban them from office????
Well, what in the world happened to make that change from not being bad in the 1215s to now being bad (aside from what happened in WW2).
That "church" that never changes certainly has a lot of change!
It puts in you a very, very bad light.
That makes as much sense as "The council is dogma" -- a council like Vatican II is a meeting in which dogma generally is discussed - the meeting (council) itself is not dogma, it's a meeting
Councils in the Church are / were called only when there were questions raised or detailed clarification needed for aspects of belief that have been held. They don't create dogma
Vatican II did lead to Lumen Gentium which was a document that did have dogma defined / clarified within it
Now within Lumen Gentium there are multiple dogma defined.
Catholics can interpret the Bible within boundaries - for instance limbo is one example. But we don't believe in non-biblical beliefs like sola scriptura or sola Fide
Now, perhaps you, ealgeone mean - what happens if a Catholic disagrees with a dogma?
What they can’t do is go ahead and change the church for them - as happens in non-Catholic western groupings like the ECUSA, PCUSA, Westboro Baptists, ELCA, etc. etc.
Now the article talks a lot, but it doesn’t really name what dogmas it disagrees with - it talks about Chapter 2 - On the People of God, but not more.
That would be any number of Baptist, mega-church etc. protestant "pastors" or the founders of Protestant and Protestant derived religions like the Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Scientists, Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons and Dispensationalists
The bishops even the bishop of Rome isn't "inserted between God and mankind" - that's a lie that you've been told about the Church
For a Catholic (or Orthodox or Copt or Assyrian), God is directly present at every worship - in the form of the Eucharist, the True Body and Blood of Christ -- as Jesus said in Matthew 26:26 this is my body.” - not "this is in the symbol of my Body" nor "this is bread but assume it to be my body" but clearly "this IS My Body"
“most Roman Catholics are not even aware of these “
You mean most Catholics — the% of Catholics that are cities of Roma is small.
Anyway, most people are not aware of a council in 1215 that was not on dogma.
For the matter - were you aware of it for any reason other than to prepare a bazinga?
“were they bad in the 1215s? No”
And I state that no, for that time, symbolizing people by their clothes was not bad — it was also right until the late 1800s that certain classes of people in the UK wore certain clothes.
If you want to judge people in the 1200s by your opinions today, then you probably also condemn the founding fathers for not holding today’s views
I stand by what I said - for the 1200s, the same period that Genghis Khan devastated the Khwarezm, Jing, Tangut, Khara-Khita, Naiman, Rus, Chiphcak-Kuman etc.
Anyway, for that period, the designation of clothes to identify people was no different to what was happening even in the secular sense - as yeomen v/s nobility etc.
You cannot judge people of the 1200s by today’s standards. Unless you are one of those woke folks who also condemn the founding fathers for not having 2024 sensibilities
Oh, so much whatabouttery in that statement
Which period of historical Christianity are you referring to?
The 100s? The 500s? The 1500s? The 1800s?
What?
In the period from 33 AD (foundation of Christianity) to at least 70 AD, if not 136 AD, the "Jews" included not only today's rabbinical Jews but also the Jesus-movement Jews
Let's not forget that rabbinical Judaism with the Talmud etc. dates from only 70 AD if not later - derived from the Pharisees
Christianity is actually a few decades OLDER than rabbinical Judaism
For the period from 33 AD to 70 AD, the "Christians" were a sect of 2nd temple Judaism
For the period from 70 AD to 378 AD, Jesus-movement Judaism i.e. Christianity, competed with rabbinical Judaism in the Roman empire - while this competition continued until 700 AD in the Sassanid empire and until 500 AD in southern India
After the Talmud as solidified along with HAlakha in the 8th and 9th centuries, then opinions hardened on both sides
Quite the contrary - it was simple competition between two sects of 2nd temple Judaism -- Jesus-movement Judaism and Pharisee (to become rabbinical) Judaism.
Christianity brought its own scripture in the form of the New Testament, while rabbinical Judaism brought its own scripture in the form of the Talmud and the Halakha in the 8th/9th century (as an aside, the Halakha creation (i.e. Jewish laws) was made in parallel with and cross-fertilized with Sharia - as both were made in what is now Iraq.
That shows a pure Eurocentricity: the Christian attitude to rabbinical Judaism in south India was far more syncretic. The Christian attitude to Rabbinical Judaism in the Sassanid empire was also quite different.
Furthermore - you have cases like the JewishKing Dhu Nawas of Yemen who massacred Christians and burnt many alive in their churches - so the attitudes were differing in BOTH communities in different places
That shows a pure Eurocentricity: perhaps you haven't see the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, nor the Syro-Malankara Church
So many errors, ZC, no one see's that Jews conducted the priestly role and they definitely were not the ones who nailed in the nails
Jesus was born and died a Jew as were the entire batch of first Christians except Cornelius and the Ethiopian
You’re attempting to justify a wrong. The Nazis used your same “logic” by making the Jews and others wear identifying marks. It was wrong in the 1200s, the 1930s and now. That you’re trying to justify this is telling.
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.