Posted on 03/16/2006 7:42:26 AM PST by Gamecock
LOL.
Who says Calvinists can't take a joke?
b'shem Y'shua
True, we do. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit are not sinners.
Some religions are based on blood.
But the only blood that matters is the shed blood of Christ.
You wrote: “However, beyond Fox there are numerous and widespread historically reliable accounts that the medieval and renaissance Roman Catholic church did indeed surpress the vernacular bible, and ruthlessly persecuted and killed individuals and groups who for one reason or another didn't toe the official church line on any number of subjects (often SURPRISE...those issues, like corruption of the curia, or threatening fund-raising (see "indulgences")involved money and/or political power...)”
No, actually there are no such sources. The Catholic Church had no authority to kill anyone. The Catholic Church never suppressed the vernacular bible, although it certainly suppressed erroneous translations held by Albigensians, Lollards and some others. The Church was also not ruthless. An institution that is ruthless would never promote confession, amnesties before inquisitorial processes, the use of defense lawyers, the denial of evidence provided by enemies of the defendant, reconciliations, etc.
”You can say the Church didn't kill anyone...technically almost true...however judging one (or hundreds and thousands ) heretical and turning him over to the state (to burn alive) makes them as culpible or more as the high priests of Jerusalem turning Jesus over to Rome while chanting, 'crucify!' (the original word "outlaw" applied to heritics, and meant they were "outside the protection of the law" meaning anyone, especially local rulers, could imprison, torture or kill them, without penalty)”
Incorrect. The high priests violated their own rules, laws and apparently for some even their own consciences up to a point. Can you show me something similar on the part of the Catholic Church? Nope.
”There is a reason why freedom of religion was so important to the (overwelmingly Protestant) founding-fathers of America--they were only a few generations away from the raging religious wars of Europe--which sprang up after the Catholic Counter-Reformation, and its highly intolerant Council of Trent declaration.”
Incorrect. They believed in religious freedom because of the suffering they encountered at the HANDS OF THEIR FELLOW PROTESTANTS. If you could think you would realize that the Protestant Reformation happened in England BEFORE the Catholic Reformation (what you called the “Catholic Counter-Reformation”). That means Protestants were fleeing from Protestants when they left England. The pilgrims were not fleeing from Spain or Italy, but Protestant England and Holland. Also, the English colonies themselves often persecuted Protestants of different stripes than those running the colonies. Ever learn in grammar school about the origins of the colony of Rhode Island? Here is the first paragraph of a history of Rhode Island in the colonial period: “Rhode Island's first permanent settlement was established at Providence in 1636 by English clergyman Roger Williams and a small band of followers who had left the repressive atmosphere of the Massachusetts Bay Colony ******to seek freedom of worship. ****** Canenicus and Miantonomi granted Williams a sizable tract of land for his new village. Other nonconformists followed Williams to the bay region, including Anne and William Hutchinson and William Coddington, all of whom founded Portsmouth in 1638 ******as a haven for Antinomians, a religious sect ******whose beliefs resembled those of Quakerism. A short-lived dispute sent Coddington to the southern tip of Aquidneck Island (also purchased from the Narragansetts), where he established Newport in 1639. The fourth original town, Warwick, was settled in 1642 by Samuel Gorton, another dissident from Portsmouth. During this initial decade two other outposts were established: Wickford (1637), by Richard Smith, and Pawtuxet (1638), by William Harris and the Arnold family.”
Protestants running from Protestant persecution. Nothing new there. The two most free colonies, in the earliest years, were Pennsylvania (Quaker) and Maryland (originally founded for Catholics to flee to from Protestant persecution in England).
“Until Roman Catholicism as a whole (not just the Vatican itself, which to a large extent has...) faces up to its history of persecution, corruption, and intolerance--focused on other Christians especially, will there ever be enough reform to reunify the Church.”
The Church is unified. Protestant sects are not asked to “reunify” with the Church. Protestants are not in the Church. Only Protestants as individuals can come to the unity of the Church and reconcile or convert. When Protestants learn basic vocabulary, history, which books belong in the Bible, how to think, how to pray, how to worship, and how God works – in addition to their history of persecution, hypocrisy, anti-Catholicism, indifferentism and attacks on God’s Church – then they will be ready for full Christianity. Until then? They are stuck with the sects of their own creation.
Citation please. You're not bearing false witness again, are you?
SD
Please note that in post #79, I retracted my assertion as I may have leapt to some undefensible conclusions.
Who were all as meek and sweet as lambs, right? No Protestants ever killed any Catholics, and that "Thirty Years War" stuff and the Lutheran conquest of Rome ... just myths.
You know that, at the first St. Bartholomew's day massacre, the killing went the other way, right?
Religious warfare and persecution is wrong, and both sides practiced it.
Unfamiliar with that one. When did Lutherans conquer Rome?
I did note that, after I had raised my question.
1527. The Pope had to hole himself up in the Castel Sant'Angelo. It was the baptism of fire for the Swiss Guards, who lost a number of their men.
Citation please. You're not bearing false witness again, are you?
The leaders of your organization,
The Pontiffs, have in days past ordered the murder of followers of the Christ.
b'shem Y'shua
That trecherous slaughter was not called "The St. Bartholomew's Day Battle."
The killing did NOT "go the other way." Thousands of men, women and children were routed from their sleep and had their throats cut.
You defend the indefensible and try to rewrite history at your own peril.
The pope did indeed strike such a medal. And he should have with the information he was given. After all, he was told that the Protestants of France were caught plotting a coup and murder against the Catholic king of France. When the pope heard the plotters were stopped and the king spared he rejoiced. Later, when he discovered he had been lied to, he was deeply angered.
The first report of the massacre reached the pope on Sept. 2. The details of events were garbled and unclear. Three days later a more complete message arrived from Paris in Rome but that message presented the massacre as a victory over armed Protestant forces preparing to overthrow the king. The pope was relieved that the king and his family had been spared, but was not at all happy about the massacre. He said, "I am weeping for the conduct of the king, which is unlawful and forbidden by God." The Spanish ambassador, Zuniga, wrote that the pope was "struck with horror" at the details of the massacre. The pope refused to recieve the massacre leader Maurevert in audience because of his actions.
The medal was struck to commemorate the safety of the royal family of France which was believed to be threatened by Protestants there (and not without reason either). The pope acted properly.
The leaders of your organization, The Pontiffs, have in days past ordered the murder of followers of the Christ.
So you don't have a citation for your slanderous and incorrect post. That's a surprise.
Where has any Catholic, officially or unofficially, stated that our "leaders" are not sinners?
Back it up or retract it.
SD
Somebody post some facts? I must have missed them. :-)
The only thing exruciating to watch was you picking 3 of the same final four teams as I did. :-)
If your choice of religion is based upon polemical fantasies about how evil other religions are, you might want to try some introspection.
SD
I looked.
I didn't see it as Protestant bashing.
Early Protestants were often a pretty sordid lot to begin with.
Our earliest leaders, the Apostles, have better reputations.
I'm referring to the massacre which occurred the preceding year on the same date, in which Protestants killed a group of Catholics who were surrendering. Look it up.
As for the rest, see vladimir998's post. He explains it well.
You defend the indefensible and try to rewrite history at your own peril.
If anyone is "rewriting history," it's Foxe, complete with his "third century" persecutions, and the faithful "reformed" Albigenses.
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.