Skip to comments.
Radio Replies First Volume - The Inquisition
Celledoor.com ^
| 1938
| Fathers Rumble & Carty
Posted on 11/01/2009 9:08:26 PM PST by GonzoII
The Inquisition
1068. What about the tortures of the Spanish Inquisition?
You have probably read many imaginary descriptions of that tribunal which pretend to be history. However let us be quiet about torture inflicted by Catholics four hundred years ago. Seventy years ago a young servant girl was transported for life to Tasmania for scorching linen while ironing, and that from England three centuries after the Reformation! We are rather in a glass house. In 1848 things occurred in Norfolk Island in the name of gentle English Protestant enlightenment which would make your hair stand on end. Here are the words of a document presented to Sir William Denison, of N.S.W.: "Floggings of the utmost brutality are incessant, as also the infliction of the 'Spread Eagle,' a species of racking and gagging with an instrument which cuts the tongue and mouth. Women are tortured by confinement in irons, iron collars around their necks, chained to the floor, and left on bread and water." And all this for the crime of stealing a tea-pot or a coat. These prisoners were our fellow Englishmen. Five are named from Middlesex; three from Surrey; others from Essex, Stafford, and Gloucester. Please don't ask me about the Inquisition. It makes me look up the records of what was done in the name of England after she had abandoned Catholic principles, and blush for our race.
1069. Llorente, secretary of the Inquisition in Madrid about 1790, says that during Torquemada's eighteen years some 8,800 persons in Spain alone were burned.
Llorente is discredited as an historian even by Protestant scholars. He was secretary to the Inquisition, some three hundred years after the death of Torquemada. But he was false to the Church and was expelled from Spain. After that he wrote his so-called and very biased history, pretending to make use of documents to which he said he had had access. When challenged even in his own day, he said that he had burned all the official papers upon which he had placed reliance. We cannot trust an historian who declares that he destroyed the original documents deliberately. Research has shown that about four thousand deaths occurred at the hands of the Spanish Inquisition during almost three centuries. But even did we accept 8,800 in a period of 18 years, that would work out at an average of some 500 a year. Sir James Stephens, in his History of English Criminal Law, shows that there were about 800 executions a year during the early post-Reformation period in England. Such severity was not due to Catholicism as such, but must be attributed to the general character of the times, which we are all glad have passed. If they have passed — the barbarity of the Great War leaves grave doubts!
1070. Do you feel proud of yourself when you read of Torquemada?
I do not feel very proud of myself. I am very proud of the Catholic Faith which, owing to God's sheer goodness, I now possess. But you have a wrong idea of Torquemada. He was head of the Inquisition in Spain, a great 'theologian and a good man. All the opprobrium associated with the Inquisition has been heaped upon his head, but unjustly. The cruelty and extravagance of other officials were despite him, and despite the protests and instructions of the Church. Popes Sixtus IV and Innocent VIII protested strongly against the excesses of disobedient officials, their protests proving that such excesses were not committed in the name of the Church. Yet even while we admit excesses, we must remember that they have been greatly exaggerated by partisan writers.
1071. Why was the Inquisition established at all?
On the same principle as that by which the U. S. Government passed the "Pure Foods Act" to prevent contamination of the foods we eat. The Inquisition was established and still exists in the Church to prevent the doctrine of Christ, which gives life to our souls, from being adulterated and contaminated. The Spanish Inquisition, of course, as a semi-political institution has lapsed.
1072. You still justify an ecclesiastical Inquisition?
Of course. It is as lawful and wise a tribunal as that for the censorship of films. And although the Holy See condemned brutal excesses, the Spanish Inquisition was as necessary for both Church and state in Spain as the Criminal Investigation Branch of the Police Department for the preservation of law and order in Chicago. There was no more need to suppress the Institution altogether because of abuses than there is to enforce prohibition because of individual abuses of drink, or to smash a pair of spectacles because dirt has spoiled their transparency.
1073. How can you reconcile the Inquisition with the fact that God is love?
The fact that God is love does not forbid the imprisonment of a criminal nor the hanging of a murderer. If love for the murderer does not prompt it, at least love for law and order, and love for other citizens suggests it. I am obliged to love my enemies, but not their crimes. Christ loved His enemies and prayed for them. Yet He told them that if they died in their sins they would be cast into hell for all eternity. Love does not forbid the punishment of crime. It insists that there should be some punishment so that men will not easily commit it.
1074. But the Inquisition is not all! The Pope honored the Duke of Alva for the slaughter of 18,000 heretics.
The Duke of Alva was a man of good and bad qualities. For his good qualities the Pope honored him by presenting him with a hat and sword. He did not honor him for the slaughter of 18,000 heretics, an event which happened afterwards. Alva was sent, not by the Pope, but by Philip II. of Spain to suppress a rebellion in Holland, then subject to Charles. In this expedition Alva showed himself to be a man of iron and blood, and Catholics condemn him for his conduct as much as any others could do. In reality he slaughtered about 6,000 heretics, not as heretics, but as rebels. In his vanity he himself multiplied the number three-fold, boasting that he had killed 18,000. However his disgraceful cruelty remains, but the Catholic Church was not to blame. If my parents teach me the right thing to do, and forbid me to do the wrong thing, you could not blame them were I to turn a criminal by my own choice. The same dear Alva took up arms against the Pope when it suited him later on! His spirit of obedience to the Church was not very remarkable.
1075. What about Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer?
It is a grim fact that they were burned at the stake during the reign of Mary for high treason under laws framed by Cranmer himself during the reign of Edward VI for the burning of both Protestants and Catholics who would not conform to the established Church of England!
1076. Did the Catholic Church protest against the massacre of Huguenots on St. Bartholomew's Day, Aug. 23, 1572?
Yes. That massacre had no connection whatever with the Catholic Church. The Church did not instigate the massacre, nor did the Pope have any knowledge of it beforehand. It was a purely political and deplorable murder engineered by Catherine de Medici, a woman almost completely irreligious. After its occurrence a lying report was sent to the Pope that it was a successful repression of a plot to murder the king. In thanksgiving for the king's safety, the Pope ordered a Te Deum to be sung in Rome. But when Gregory XIII. heard the real story he expressed his horror and condemnation, and refused to allow one of the leaders of the attack to be presented to him, saying, "I will not receive a murderer."
1077. Giordano Bruno was burned for saying that the earth moved round the sun. He died in 1600.
Bruno was not burned for that. His history would surprise, I think, even you. He apostatized from the Catholic Church and first joined the Calvinists. In 1580 he was excommunicated by them at Geneva. He went to England, but in 1584 had to leave because he proved to be a disturber of the peace, having among other things insulted the professors at Oxford by saying publicly that they knew more about beer than about Greek. He migrated to Germany, and was there excommunicated by the Lutherans in 1590. Returning to Rome he was excommunicated again by the Catholic Church, not for teaching the theory of Copernicus, but for blasphemy and heresy by denying the Divinity of Christ and asserting that He was but a magician. He was handed over to the secular authorities, and burned in the gentle style of those times as a traitor and as dangerous to the welfare of the state. Such, briefly, is the story of Giordano Bruno.
1078. Has not the Church always hindered the progress of science by her moral prohibitions?
No. The Catholic Church has ever conserved knowledge and encouraged true science. Her doctrine is that Catholic truth is of God, and that scientific truth is also of God. There cannot be a conflict therefore between Catholic truth rightly understood and demonstrated scientific truths. But the scientific truth must be demonstrated. A mere hypothesis may or may not be true, and as long as a doctrine is in the hypothetical stage the Church is prudent in her judgment. If the doctrine has no religious consequences, the Church is all encouragement in the pursuit of inquiry. If religious consequences are involved, she encourages inquiry, but forbids positive utterances until the hypothesis is proved definitely to be a fact. This has never hindered scientists, but has spurred them on to the securing, if possible, demonstrative proof of their theories.
1079. Why did the Church condemn Galileo? Were not the Cardinals wrong?
They were. But, as I have explained, the decision was not in any way connected with the infallibility of the Church. It was a reversible decision, and it was reversed in due time. The authorities at the time thought mistakenly that the theory of Galileo was opposed to Scripture, and also perceived as a fact that the propagation of the theory would tend to upset the faith of many of the simpler people. But this case does not justify the charge that the Church has consistently hindered scientific inquiry. As a matter of fact Galileo had not proved his case at all, and the Church encouraged men of science in every possible way to study the question and see whether his theory could possibly be demonstrated. Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
http://www.celledoor.com/cpdv-ebe/
TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Moral Issues
KEYWORDS: catholic; inquisition; radiorepliesvolone
Historical Context of "Radio Replies"
By markomalley
If one recalls the time frame from which Radio Replies emerged, it can explain some of the frankness and lack of tact in the nature of the responses provided.
It was during this timeframe that a considerable amount of anti-Catholic rhetoric came to the forefront, particularly in this country. Much of this developed during the Presidential campaign of Al Smith in 1928, but had its roots in the publication of Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, originally published in book form in 1919 and also published in pamphlet form in 1853.
While in Britain (and consequently Australia), the other fellow would surely have experienced the effects of the Popery Act, the Act of Settlement, the Disenfranchising Act, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and many others since the reformation (that basically boiled down to saying, "We won't kill you if you just be good, quiet little Catholics"). Even the so-called Catholic Relief Acts (1778, 1791, 1829, 1851, 1871) still had huge barriers placed in the way.
And of course, they'd both remember the American Protective Association, "Guy Fawkes Days" (which included burning the Pontiff in effigy), the positions of the Whigs and Ultra-Torries, and so on.
A strong degree of "in your face" from people in the position of authoritativeness was required back in the 1930s, as there was a large contingent of the populations of both the US and the British Empire who were not at all shy about being "in your face" toward Catholics in the first place (in other words, a particularly contentious day on Free Republic would be considered a mild day in some circles back then). Sure, in polite, educated circles, contention was avoided (thus the little ditty about it not being polite to discuss religion in public, along with sex and politics), but it would be naive to assume that we all got along, or anything resembling that, back in the day.
Having said all of the above, reading the articles from the modern mindset and without the historical context that I tried to briefly summarize above, they make challenging reading, due to their bluntness.
The reader should also keep in mind that the official teaching of the Church takes a completely different tone, best summed up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324
269 UR 3 § 1.
270 Cf. CIC, can. 751.
271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1:PG 13,732.
272 UR 3 § 1.
273 LG 8 § 2.
274 UR 3 § 2; cf. LG 15.
275 Cf. UR 3.
276 Cf. LG 8.
322 LG 15.
323 UR 3.
324 Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.
Rev. Dr. Leslie Rumble, M.S.C.
"I was brought up as a Protestant, probably with more inherited prejudices than most non-Catholics of these days. My parents were Anglican and taught me the Angelican faith. My 'broad-minded' protestant teachers taught me to dislike the Catholic Church intensely. I later tried Protestantism in various other forms, and it is some thirty years since, in God's providence, I became a Catholic. As for the 'open, free, sincere worship' of a Protestant Church, I tasted it, but for me it proved in the end to be not only open, but empty; it was altogether too free from God's prescriptions."
Eventually, Leslie became a priest of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart.
In 1928, Fr. Rumble began a one-hour 'Question Box' program on 2SM Sydney, N.S.W. radio on Sunday evenings that was heard all over Australia and New Zealand. For five years he answered questions on every subject imaginable that had been written to him from all over that part of the globe. His first show began with a classic introduction:
"Good evening, listeners all. For some time I have been promising to give a session dealing with questions of religion and morality, in which the listeners themselves should decide what is of interest to them. Such a session will commence next Sunday evening, and I invite you to send in any questions you wish on these subjects . . . So now I invite you, non-Catholics above all, to send in any questions you wish on religion, or morality, or the Catholic Church, and I shall explain exactly the Catholic position, and give the reasons for it. In fact I almost demand those questions. Many hard things have been said, and are still being said, about the Catholic Church, though no criminal, has been so abused, that she has a right to be heard. I do not ask that you give your name and address. A nom de plume will do. Call yourself Voltaire, Confucius, X.Y.Z., what you like, so long as you give indication enough to recognize your answer."
"By the summer of 1937, the first edition of Radio Replies was already in print in Australia, financed by Rt. Rev. Monsignor James Meany, P.P. - the director of Station 2SM of whom I am greatly indebted."
"I have often been mistaken, as most men at times. And it is precisely to make sure that I will not be mistaken in the supremely important matter of religion that I cling to a Church which cannot be mistaken, but must be right where I might be wrong. God knew that so many sincere men would make mistakes that He deliberately established an infallible Church to preserve them from error where it was most important that they should not go wrong."
Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty
I broadcast my radio program, the Catholic Radio Hour, from St. Paul, Minnesota.
I was also carrying on as a Catholic Campaigner for Christ, the Apostolate to the man in the street through the medium of my trailer and loud-speaking system. In the distribution of pamphlets and books on the Catholic Faith, Radio Replies proved the most talked of book carried in my trailer display of Catholic literature. As many of us street preachers have learned, it is not so much what you say over the microphone in answer to questions from open air listeners, but what you get into their hands to read. The questions Fr. Rumble had to answer on the other side of the planet are same the questions I had to answer before friendly and hostile audiences throughout my summer campaign."
I realized that this priest in Australia was doing exactly the same work I was doing here in St. Paul. Because of the success of his book, plus the delay in getting copies from Sydney and the prohibitive cost of the book on this side of the universe, I got in contact with him to publish a cheap American edition.
It doesn't take long for the imagination to start thinking about how much we could actually do. We began the Radio Replies Press Society Publishing Company, finished the American edition of what was to be the first volume of Radio Replies, recieved the necessary imprimatur, and Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen agreed to write a preface. About a year after the publication of the first edition in Australia, we had the American edition out and in people's hands.
The book turned into a phenomena. Letters began pouring into my office from every corner of the United States; Protestant Publishing Houses are requesting copies for distribution to Protestant Seminaries; a few Catholic Seminaries have adopted it as an official textbook - and I had still never met Dr. Rumble in person.
To keep a long story short, we finally got a chance to meet, published volumes two and three of Radio Replies, printed a set of ten booklets on subjects people most often asked about, and a few other pamphlets on subjects of interest to us.
Fr. Carty died on May 22, 1964 in Connecticut.
"Firstly, since God is the Author of all truth, nothing that is definitely true can every really contradict anything else that is definitely true. Secondly, the Catholic Church is definitely true. It therefore follows that no objection or difficulty, whether drawn from history, Scripture, science, or philosophy, can provide a valid argument against the truth of the Catholic religion."
Biographies compiled from the introductions to Radio Replies, volumes 1, 2 and 3.
Source: www.catholicauthors.com
1
posted on
11/01/2009 9:08:27 PM PST
by
GonzoII
To: fidelis; Atomic Vomit; MI; Sir_Humphrey; dsc; annalex; Citizen Soldier; bdeaner; CatQuilt; ...
Radio Replies Ping
FReep-mail me to get on or off
“The Radio Replies Ping-List”
ON / OFF
2
posted on
11/01/2009 9:09:02 PM PST
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: GonzoII; informavoracious; larose; RJR_fan; Prospero; Conservative Vermont Vet; ...
3
posted on
11/01/2009 9:09:26 PM PST
by
narses
("These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own.")
To: All
4
posted on
11/01/2009 9:10:10 PM PST
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: GonzoII
Oh, here we go. The inquisition. Watch for the innumerable errors, distortions, frauds and outright lies to be posted by anti-Catholics!
To: GonzoII
He was handed over to the secular authorities, and burned in the gentle style of those times as a traitor and as dangerous to the welfare of the state. At least in one sense these times were gentle indeed: vandalism such as Bruno's was suffuciently rare to occasion such extreme punishment. Today vandals rule.
6
posted on
11/02/2009 7:02:54 AM PST
by
annalex
(http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
To: vladimir998; annalex
"Oh, here we go. The inquisition. Watch for the innumerable errors, distortions, frauds and outright lies to be posted by anti-Catholics!" Actually things have quieted down lately on these threads, but still lots of hits; I think, really, that there's some serious study going on.
7
posted on
11/02/2009 11:17:57 AM PST
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: GonzoII
This is what is so good about the Radio Replies: they are so clear and direct that they leave no room for trolls.
8
posted on
11/02/2009 11:43:05 AM PST
by
annalex
(http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
To: GonzoII
"Floggings of the utmost brutality are incessant, as also the infliction of the 'Spread Eagle,' a species of racking and gagging with an instrument which cuts the tongue and mouth. Women are tortured by confinement in irons, iron collars around their necks, chained to the floor, and left on bread and water." And all this for the crime of stealing a tea-pot or a coat. These prisoners were our fellow Englishmen. Five are named from Middlesex; three from Surrey; others from Essex, Stafford, and Gloucester. Please don't ask me about the Inquisition. It makes me look up the records of what was done in the name of England after she had abandoned Catholic principles, and blush for our race.The fact that God is love does not forbid the imprisonment of a criminal nor the hanging of a murderer. If love for the murderer does not prompt it, at least love for law and order, and love for other citizens suggests it. I am obliged to love my enemies, but not their crimes. ... Love does not forbid the punishment of crime. It insists that there should be some punishment so that men will not easily commit it.
I find it amazing that the author would condemn the English for excessive punishments to crime while extolling the virtue of excessive punishment by inquisitors.
9
posted on
11/02/2009 12:24:09 PM PST
by
Between the Lines
(For their sins of 50 million abortions God gave them over to be an ObamaNation {Romans 1:24-32})
To: vladimir998
G'morning!
I don't believe one has to be 'Anti-Catholic' to be opposed to violence and terrorism.
Further, with respect to the unlearned above posters, 'Hell' (Sheol in Hebrew and Hades in Greek) simply refers to the common grave of all mankind.
Ge'henna (a perpetually burning, even today, garbage dump just outside of Old Jerusalem) is symbolic of the 'Lake of Fire which means the second death)'(Revelation 20:14) that Christ spoke of in His revelation to John.
Death is the punishment for sin (Romans 6:23), not torture!
Yeshua *paid* the price for the sins of all humankind, and He did so with His life. If torture were the required price for sin then Christ would still, of necessity, be on the Cross. He isn't. It is therefore prudent to take Christ at His Word when He tells us that Ge'henna ('The Lake of Fire which means the second death) is the destination of unrepentant sinners.
Ge'henna is a place of everlasting destruction (not torture), into which death and the grave are also thrown - obviously symbolically since neither one is a tangible entity.
Even if humans *were* given authority to take each other's lives (and we were not - 'Thou shalt not murder' still stands), there is no man, woman, or child on Earth who is qualified to 'Cast the first stone' (John 8:7), for we are *all* sinners, so only GOD has that right. Vengeance is Mine,' sayeth YAHWEH, 'I shall repay.' (Romans 12:19)
Let's face it, Catholics burned Protestants and then Protestants burned Catholics, after which they banded together and burned so-called witches. Now extremist Muslims and even (supposedly pacifistic) Buddhists are burning Christians of all varieties in the Middle and Far East. And then, of course, we have the war, and there's *always* a war of some kind coming to a neighborhood near you!
As Christ's followers, our job is to love YHVH with everything in us and our neighbors as ourselves - with all that entails - and that is it and that is all.
I've spent 36 years in the missionary field and seen many things, and I fear that when Christ does return to Earth, He will not find much of Himself in Christianity.
May GOD forgive us all.
Beth.
To: Between the Lines
"I find it amazing that the author would condemn the English for excessive punishments to crime while extolling the virtue of excessive punishment by inquisitors." I must have missed it??
11
posted on
11/02/2009 1:16:33 PM PST
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: GonzoII
The big difference here is twofold:
Protestants have never claimed they have institutions which ultimately do no wrong...nor do they claim that they have someone with the authority of St. Peter, Christ’ “Vicar,” a man who in certain circumstances speaks directly for God, with equal to or greater authority than holy Scripture. This doctrine is THE reason why we get upset over the inquisition...yes, Protestants have done just as bad and worse—but none had the blessing of the whole of their Church—nor did they claim it. The Inquisition, at the time, did...
Secondly, the examples given (while what, 100 years out of date?) are about a government—and one (England’s) which our ancestors shed blood to defeat. The American Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Baptists, & etc. bear no responsibility for crimes committed by other religious organizations or especially governments. Those under the Bishop of Rome however, logically, should face the responsibility of their organization for her crimes—even in the far past—since after all, it is the same organization.
To: AnalogReigns
13
posted on
11/02/2009 6:57:02 PM PST
by
annalex
(http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
To: annalex
Evening!
Most people, members of the RCC, Protestant sects, and all western religions - Jews too, have no idea what their Bibles say, let alone have accurate knowledge of what the wizards behind the curtains are up to, the men draped in regal attire who represent the hierarchy of all that is SUPPOSED to be holy. Most people are nominal Christians, Jews, ________ fill in the blank, if they're not entirely secular.
I don't believe it is reasonable to ask anyone to take the blame for the 'sins' of their fathers or of the leaders of ANY organized religion. Good grief! I've been a missionary for 36 years and I can't name you a single church that isn't corrupt in the upper echelon and the hushed and 'hallowed' halls of power. Power and money rule the world - we all know that - and there aren't any innocents (other than children), with the possible exception of a few Edith Bunker types who still believe the 'system' and the 'establishment' work.
If you're going to put your faith in man then you're going to be bitterly disappointed. We right now live in Satan's counterfeit system and will until Christ returns. (Thy Kingdom come, LORD!)
Instead of blaming each other for what dead people did and crooked people still choose to do, why aren't we concentrating on loving each other? Who cares what 'label' a person is attached to? Are they decent? Are they kind? Charitable? Peaceable? Forgiving? Do they LOVE GOD AND NEIGHBOR? These are the only attributes that matter and the rest is history and belongs with the oats that have already passed through the horse.
Until Christ’s return there will always be tyrants. There will always be fascists, dictators, power mongers, money lovers..., and scoundrels of every tint and hue, but what does *any* of that have to do with Christians?
As Christians we are NO PART of this world, so why are we concerned with who did what to whom, and when, and why? There are genuinely holy people in every corner of this Earth and GOD KNOWS HIS OWN regardless of what 'label' they happen to wear. It's what's in our heart that matters, brothers and sisters, and hate, vengeance, bitterness, and bigotry are NOT of YAHWEH, but of the devil!
For God's sake and your own sakes - LOVE EACH OTHER!
It is LOVE that conquers all - if you'll recall.
Sigh... Beth.
14
posted on
11/02/2009 7:57:38 PM PST
by
Beth Oleander
(Preach the Gospel daily - if necessary - use words. (St. Francis of Assisi.))
To: Beth Oleander
I am all for love. So, I am sure are the Radio Replies’ creators.
One of the ditues of love is honesty. It is fine to accuse the Church of what she did do, but the accusation flying around in regards of the Inquisition should, with few exceptions, be directed at the governments of these times, and viewed in the context of the jurisprudence of these times.
Is “Good thing you stopped beating your wife” a statement that love produces?
15
posted on
11/02/2009 8:18:10 PM PST
by
annalex
(http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
To: AnalogReigns
"Protestants have never claimed they have institutions which ultimately do no wrong" Nor Catholics.
"nor do they claim that they have someone with the authority of St. Peter, Christ’ “Vicar,”
Yes we do, that is correct.
"a man"
That's all he is. But called by God for a mission of service.
"who in certain circumstances speaks directly for God"
You're wrong there, Brother. The Holy Ghost speaks through the Pope, and only on matters of "Faith and Morals" and then only when the criteria for Infallibility are present.
"with equal to or greater authority than holy Scripture."
Wrong there; the Magisterial teachings of the Pope find there foundations in Divine Revelation, found both in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The same Holy Ghost that was active in the writings of Scripture and the giving of Sacred Tradition teaches what both mean through the Magisterium . So when the Pope speaks infallibly he's coming up with nothing new but rather clarifying and expounding about what has already been revealed through Christ and the Apostles. Apart from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition the the Magisterium could not exist.
This makes perfect sense as a Constitution needs a Supreme Court to define what it means (though as we know, it is fallible) so what has been Divinely revealed by God must have a system in place to prevent it from being misunderstood, this the Holy Ghost has insured by the Magisterium. The Scriptures themselves are clear about the difficulties contained in it:
2 Pet 3: 16 "as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things. Therein are some things hard to understand, which those who are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing that ye know these things beforehand, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness. "
By the way the word "unlearned" above can be interpreted as "undiscipled" that is not having been taught be proper authority.
Also if the Holy Ghost is the author of Divine Revelation then He alone can tell us what it means.
2 Pet 1: 20 "knowing this first: that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in olden times by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
"This doctrine is THE reason why we get upset over the inquisition"
As I have clarified your misunderstanding I don't think there is any reason to be upset.
When the Church officially speaks on matters of Faith and Morals exercising its authority to do so, it is infallible, its members are not impeccable, they can make mistakes in human matters.
"had the blessing of the whole of their Church"
Abuses in the Inquisition indeed were addressed by the Pope, and were not approved by him.
Regards.
16
posted on
11/03/2009 9:18:25 AM PST
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
