My, my...not very objective for a "historian" are you? It use to be scientists and historians were a tad bit more objective of their analysis of history. But this is the 21st century, right?
The scriptures state we are to judge people's attitude with regards to the church. Any misbehaving people are to be thrown out as it reflects poorly on the mission of the church. You let me know when the Catholics throw Ted Kennedy out and then perhaps your judging others might hold a little more water.
I'm not impress by your quotes of various authors. I have learned quite a while back that many Catholics on this site play very loose with their quotes (especially the early church fathers) twisting and distorting what the author has to say. Some of the names you have thrown out as reputed authors such as Pierre Cavard and Lawrence Goldstone are bias authors with an agenda. If you would like to point me to some authors who may be more objective whose articles are published on the Internet I'll research their points. However I've been around the block on this one with people telling me person X stated this or that when, in fact, they hadn't or their belief is a bunch of loose innuendos strung together.
You dismiss the references claiming Calvin was a "heretic" and yet the Church worked within the legal system? This after we have all stated that all this was done according to the laws of Geneva. In many countries the Catholic Church own the legal system. This is the best you can do?
I would point out Pope Honorius (625AD) was officially condemned by the Church as a heretic. Since he reigned for 13 years a case could be made that many decrees came from the Chair of Peter from him, a classified and bona fide heretic. This, by the way, is about the same time Catholic doctrine was being corrupted.
You wrote: "My, my...not very objective for a "historian" are you? It use to be scientists and historians were a tad bit more objective of their analysis of history. But this is the 21st century, right?"
Whether or not it is the 21st century it has nothing to do with objectivity.
"The scriptures state we are to judge people's attitude with regards to the church. Any misbehaving people are to be thrown out as it reflects poorly on the mission of the church. You let me know when the Catholics throw Ted Kennedy out and then perhaps your judging others might hold a little more water."
So you have so little to go on on Calvin you try to bring in Ted Kennedy? That's the best you can do? LOL!
"I'm not impress by your quotes of various authors. I have learned quite a while back that many Catholics on this site play very loose with their quotes (especially the early church fathers) twisting and distorting what the author has to say. Some of the names you have thrown out as reputed authors such as Pierre Cavard and Lawrence Goldstone are bias authors with an agenda."
Whether or not they had an agenda, and all authors who write books have an agenda of some sort because they have to go SOMEWHERE with what they're talking about, is irrelevant as to whether or not those works present valid information. Most people who write books about Servetus today are in fact biased toward him. The odd thing is that that was also the case in regard to his execution 450 years ago as well. Can you explain exactly why Pierre Cavard should not be used as a source?
"If you would like to point me to some authors who may be more objective whose articles are published on the Internet I'll research their points."
No. Go read a book. I use the internet as well, but every scholar knows that books are still better because they are still vetted. Again, what evidence do you have against Cavard?
"However I've been around the block on this one with people telling me person X stated this or that when, in fact, they hadn't or their belief is a bunch of loose innuendos strung together."
Fine. Now exactly what evidence do you have against Cavard?
"You dismiss the references claiming Calvin was a "heretic" and yet the Church worked within the legal system?"
What? Calvin was a heretic. And the Church did work within the legal system. That is merely fact.
"This after we have all stated that all this was done according to the laws of Geneva."
Yes, laws vetted by Calvin. Laws which Geneva had no right to enforce since it too was heretical.
"In many countries the Catholic Church own the legal system."
You can't own what isn't yours. If a country had a secular law code (and what country didn't other than perhaps the papal states from a certain point of view) then it had a legal system not "owned" by the Catholic Church. Please get away from silly stereotypes of the Middle Ages and Early Modern period. You're just embarrassing yourself.
"This is the best you can do?"
No, it isn't. This does not require my best. This is too easy for that. I just let you keep talking and embarrass yourself. I barely have to do anything. I know the information and you don't.
"I would point out Pope Honorius (625AD) was officially condemned by the Church as a heretic."
Honorius was not Calvin and Calvin was not Honorius. Whatever happened to Honorius is completely irrelevant to this discussion since it is about Calvin's actions. You do realize that don't you?
"Since he reigned for 13 years a case could be made that many decrees came from the Chair of Peter from him, a classified and bona fide heretic."
And this made him Calvin? No.
"This, by the way, is about the same time Catholic doctrine was being corrupted."
And we still didn't get Calvin from it so it is still irrelevant.
You are so desperate to avoid talking about Calvin's actions you felt compelled to bring up a pope already dead 900 years before Calvin? You really can't put together any argument can you?
At the risk of bringing the dreaded "H" word into any debate, I'm waiting for Rome to excommunicate Adolph Hitler.
Waiting...waiting...waiting...