So that you know that my views are not just mine, they are certainly not new. Despite the window dressing of the papacy nothing has changed. Every Lutheran pastor and every member of the Lutheran church, throughout the world and for over five hundred years subscribes to the Lutheran Confessions which states: “It is clear that the Roman pontiffs, with their followers, defend godless doctrines and godless services. And the marks of the Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the pope and his followers.”
That just about sums it up.
I am pressed for time at the moment, as I was yesterday. I was a little annoyed with myself for not breaking down the fatuity of your comments related to these. Your point was and continues to be that the Roman Catholic Church is neither Catholic nor Holy due to events that took place in the distant past, specifically the Crusades and the 30 Years War. For some reason, you chose to leave out the other time honored favorites, the Inquisition and the so-called selling of indulgences, but I will avoid speculating on your intentions. Shall we explore the Crusades? A lot of bad things happened during the Crusades, but liberal historians have left 100% of the blame with Catholicism. In fact, the Crusades were Christiany's (and let's not forget that the Catholic Church WAS Christianity at the time) response to the Koran's dictate that it spread itself by the sword. Before the Holy Lands were filled with "Palestinians," they were populated by Christian kingdoms. The Muslims invaded and forcibly converted much of the Christian and Jewish Population. The Muslims were also advancing and occupying other Christian lands at the time. The goal, which continues today was to forcibly convert the planet in anticipation of the 13th Imam or some other such nonsense. It continues today, and the Muslim word has sworn an oath to their false god to persevere until a crescent sits on the dome of St. Peter's. Many atrocities were committed during the Crusades. Perhaps the majority were committed on the part of the Christians. The point is that they were a good idea. The world would certainly be a better place today if they had been seen through to their inevitable conclusion. I went to the top-ranked Jesuit college in the country. Our sports teams were nicknamed the Crusaders. After 9/11, some liberal wrote an Op-Ed piece in the LA Times demanding that my school pick a new mascot. The president of the school, a Jesuit, politely told him why he was an idiot. If I can find that article, I link it for you. The point is that Christians have no business felling any remorse for the crusades, except for the fact that we ultimately lost. I will make my last two points separately, because they are more important than the one I just made. To repeat: They are the ones you should address first, if you are planning to respond to this post.
Fist, the Crusades took place hundreds of years before the Reformation. As I said earlier, the Catholic Church WAS Christianity at the time. Unless your particular denomination of Protestantism broke away before the Crusades or at the time of the Crusades (because of them), your own faith owns them just as much as mine does. Of course, you should be proud of that fact, the Crusades weren't all bad after all. But you have no license to be pointing fingers at others for something your own faith participated in.
Second, this business bringing up examples from hundreds of years in the past is a conjectural dead-end. First, as we said, because your own faith is complicit if it was undeniable but failed to step forward to combat the practices you find fault with now. Second, because it denies the obvious fact that institutions and organizations do evolve over time. If you follow the witless point that you are trying to make to its obvious conclusion, then the United States would have no moral standing today, due to its history with slavery. Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, and Spike Lee do just that. I'm sure you admire their reasoning, if not the actual message.
Finally (because this is all I have time for a the moment), the idea that no US president met with the Pope in the past is unbelievably ignorant. The fact that I have to explain this to you makes me think you are deliberately wasting my time. Before the mid 20th century, there was little possibility of a Pope meeting a president. Popes didn't come here before dependable transatlantic flight. Plus, Catholicism did not become the majority faith in this country until about that time. FDR didn't meet with any Puis XII that I know of, but there was a great deal of correspondence between the two. FDR also (not so) privately hated Catholics, and may have only run for his last term to keep a Catholic from becoming president. Truman also corresponded frequently with the Pope. Eisenhower definitely met with the Pope. Kennedy was what people like you call a "papist." LBJ greeted the Pope in NYC. Nixon met with the Pope. Carter is the only one modern president for whom I can't find a record of having had a papal audience. Reagan grew quite close to JPII. So did HW Bush. Let's hope for Clinton's sake that the Pope heard his confession when they met. W Bush had audiences with both JPII and Benedict XVI. Are you having the same problem here, where you think that what the diplomacy from 100 years ago applies to today? But to reiterate, the only President you seem to be in agreement with here is Carter. Enjoy the company.
And the only people who use the term "papist" ARE anti-Catholic bigots. Especially the KKK. Are you owning up to something? I've pretty much explained this to you a couple of times now. So now when you do it, it looks to any Catholic who reads this like you are going out of your way to attack us and intentionally insult us. You seem like an otherwise civil guy, so I am left scratching my head as to why you would act this way. Obviously, this is a very long response to only 2/3 or so of what you had to say. I'll try to get to the rest later.