Testimony of a Former Irish Priest

BereanBeacon.Org ^ | Richard Peter Bennett

[Cronos]

Sigh — the foundation of Our Confidence is Christ, who was/is found in Mary’s womb. Mary is the ark, the bearer of God. God is the source of our Confidence.

[Cronos]

Irrelevant conclusion. Jesus didn't say, "Among those that are born of women there is no one with less sin than John the Baptist." He said there was not a "greater prophet" than John the Baptist. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was not a prophet. This Bible verse is irrelevant to the point in question.

--> very good point. This talks about that there will be no greater prophet than John the Baptist, Mary is not/was not a prophet, so the entire statement is utterly irrelevant

All smoke and mirrors

[Cronos]

Actually, the Throne of the Caesars was claimed by the Byzantines and then by the Carolongians. The papacy had no authority beyond the pale of the city of Rome, in fact less than that as Northern Italy was overrun by Lombards, Spains by Arian Visigoths, Gaul by Franks, Britain by Frisians and Angles and Saxons, while Southern Italy was still held by the Byzantines.

[Cronos]

Hildebrand? You mean Pope Gregory VII? Where exactly did you read that falsehood? You know that your pastors do lie to you about all of this, right? Do you have any proof for this statement? There is none, except in one anti-Catholic screed site. Are there any impartial historical sites you can cite?

[Cronos]

Also, there's another lie that your pastors have told you which you repeat. Pope Innocent did not tell people that they could not read the bible in their own language, he forbade the unauthorised (read Cathar i.e. Gnostic) translations of the Bible, where the Cathar would emphasise the demiurge aspects of their own philosophy and lead the population (remember that at that point in time, less than 10% and more likely less than 1% of the non-clerical population could read or write, so were dependent on what they heard) to heresy.

ALSO, in the 12th Century, all the LITERATE people could read Latin -- the latin Vulgate was hence "their own language" for the literate and OLD French was not sufficiently removed from Latin Vulgate to make it impossible but WAS sufficiently removed to allow for confusions to arise in the uneducated (which was the vast majority of the populace)

Needless to remind you, at that time there were no printing presses, hence books had to be laboriously copied out by hand and so cost a fortune (more than a year's worth of labor) and were extremely rare, so being literate was not really worth it except to the clergy and some (yes some) royalty.

[Cronos]

and, continuing with the lies that your pastor has fed you (don't you realise that with all of these lies, they also lie about scripture?) we have the canard about Pope Gregory IX: where exactly do you have any kind of proof about this? Any real websites that are not peddling in the same lies, but real, historical, impartial websites?

It's really funny that the websites by the various cultic groups outside The Church persist in spreading lies and excerpts. During the Middle Ages, priests AND Royalty had the Bible owned by them. I'll repeat -- Bibles were expensive as YOU REALISE THERE WERE NO PRINTING PRESSES AT THAT TIME and every one had to be laboriously copied out by hand and cross-verified to make sure that there were no errors in the copying. And, these would cost more than a year's wages for a man (a merchant). And, of course, the % of people who COULD read and write were minuscule (as there was very little point with so little to read or write)

Your pastors lie to you about this and they lie about the scriptures. Most likely they just repeat a lie that's been repeated ad nauseum

[Cronos]

Again, each of the statements you’ve made about the popes banning are just utterly false — your sources are inaccurate to say the least, actually the pastors are liars.

[Cronos]

The Bible Historiale was the predominant medieval translation of the Bible into French. It translates from the Latin Vulgate significant portions from the Bible accompanied by selections from the Historia Scholastica by Peter Comestor (d. ca. 1178), a literal-historical commentary that summarizes and interprets episodes from the historical books of the Bible and situates them chronologically with respect to events from pagan history and mythology.

This was "allowed" to use your terminology and verified by the Church as an accurate (and not a Gnostic one like the Cathar one you cite) translation.

[Cronos]

Ah, yes, the Inquisition. Now did you read this from impartial history books or from what your pastors told you?

If you read impartial history books you see that

1. In practice, the Inquisition would not itself pronounce sentence, but handed over convicted heretics to secular authorities
2. the Inquisition had jurisdiction only over baptised members of the Church
3. Secular courts could still try non-Christians for blasphemy.
4. Most witch trials went through secular courts.
5. the Inquisition in Iberia, in the lands of the Reconquista counties and kingdoms like Portugal, Leon, Castile and Aragon, had a special socio-political basis as well as more conventional religious motives. This was because Portugal and Spain in the late Middle Ages consisted largely of multicultural territories fairly recently re-conquered from the Islamic states of Al-Andalus control, and the new Christian authorities could not assume that all their subjects would suddenly become and remain orthodox Catholics (as Muslims were of course suspect of sympathizing with the Moors and so too the Jews (as at least initially they were treated very well, rising to positions of Viziers and also business under the Moors was far more advanced than under the Christian reconquistadors))
6. Modern historians have begun to study the documentary records of the Inquisition. The archives of the Suprema, today held by the National Historical Archive of Spain (Archivo Histórico Nacional), conserves the annual relations of all processes between 1540 and 1700. This material provides information on about 44,674 judgements, the latter studied by Gustav Henningsen and Jaime Contreras. These 44,674 cases include 826 executions in persona and 778 in effigie. This material, however, is far from being complete - for example, the tribunal of Cuenca is entirely omitted, because no relaciones de causas from this tribunal has been found, and significant gaps concern some other tribunals (e.g. Valladolid). Many more cases not reported to Suprema are known from the other sources (e.g. no relaciones de causas from Cuenca has been found, but its original records has been preserved), but were not included in Contreras-Hennigsen's statistics for the methodological reasons
7. García Cárcel estimates that the total number processed by the Inquisition throughout its history was approximately 150,000. Applying the percentages of executions that appeared in the trials of 1560-1700—about 2%—the approximate total would be about 3,000 put to death. Nevertheless, very probably this total should be raised keeping in mind the data provided by Dedieu and García Cárcel for the tribunals of Toledo and Valencia, respectively. It is likely that the total would be between 3,000 and 5,000 executed.
8. There were so few Protestants in Spain that widespread persecution of Protestantism was not physically possible

So, let's see there were 150,000 trials over 200+ years. That's about 750 trials a year. hmmm...

Conviction rates were 2% -- compare that to the chances of being sentenced to death in the secular courts, which would be at least 20%, and you can see why many preferred to be sentenced in inquisition courts

So, you think it was an atrocity beyond imagination? What about Geneva under Calvin? You will see a higher conviction rate.

[Cronos]

Digressing a bit. While reading up on Geneva for the facts on Calvin's theocratic rule of the place, I found this interesting fact of modern-day Geneva:

While Geneva was historically considered a Protestant city, there are over twice as many Roman Catholics (39.5%) as Protestants (17.4%) living in the Canton. 22% of the inhabitants claim no religion. Some did not respond, and the remaining practice Islam (4.4%), Judaism (1.1%), or other religions

It seems like the ultimate result of protesting is to have 22% of the inhabitant claiming no religion. Protestantism with it's non-God derived legalism has the ultimate end of destroying all faith.

[Cronos]

I'm referring to your post where you specifically said that you would not worship in a place tha had icons, crucifixes, had the Eucharist where there is the True Body of Christ (i.e. it is not just 'symbolic'). Would you then attend a Lutheran Church which has all of this?

you seem to forget post 1653 where since you had said that tyou did not like kneeling, incense, statues, etc. you would not worship in a Church like the one below but woudl worship in any Protestant group

[Cronos]

Brilliant, ain’t it? the good doc makes a statement. One asks her to verify it or prove it and there is silence or fudging.

[Cronos]

Icanhazcolorfonts will not excoriate Pastor Ken, because Ken is one of those outside The Apostolic CHurch, so for these lot, that’s ok, they will associate themselves with anyone who attacks The Church — atheists, Adoptionists, Arians etc.

[Cronos]

So then do YOU agree with Copeland and his teachings? Does that mirror what the Orthodox Presbyterian Cult teaches?

[Cronos]

One beautiful description I've just discovered is by Saint Bishop Theophan the Recluse in response to the question, "What is the relationship between the Divine provision and our free will?"

Answer: The fact that the Kingdom of God is "taken by force" presupposes personal effort. When the Apostle Paul says, "it is not of him that willeth," this means that one's efforts do not produce what is sought. It is necessary to combine them: to strive and to expect all things from grace. It is not one's own efforts that will lead to the goal, because without grace, efforts produce little; nor does grace without effort bring what is sought, because grace acts in us and for us through our efforts. Both combine in a person to bring progress and carry him to the goal. (God's) foreknowledge is unfathomable. It is enough for us with our whole heart to believe that it never opposes God's grace and truth, and that it does not infringe man's freedom. Usually this resolves as follows: God foresees how a man will freely act and makes dispositions accordingly. Divine determination depends on the life of a man, and not his life upon the determination

[Cronos]

Unless of course I understood you incorrectly and you WOULD go for a Lutheran service which had the entire Eucharist with the REAL Presence of Christ in sacramental union, the crucifix, icons, kneeling, incense, etc. — would you? If I did misunderstand and you would go to such a service, I apologize for misunderstanding that statement...

[aruanan]

NONSENSE.

The point was . . . prophets were the top of the heap of all mortals. John was the top of the top of the heap.

Elementary for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

Reasoning is the only way to get from premises to a valid conclusion. If you don't start with true premises, then correct reasoning will get you to conclusion that is valid but untrue. If you start with premises that have no basis in fact and don't employ correct reasoning then you'll get to a conclusion that is both untrue and illogical.

[caww]

How do you know they are not? As I have mentioned...there are two sides to the issue...those who believe and those who do not. It’s clear I believe. My posts reflect my opinion on the issue that more than sufficient is the bible we, as it is and have today...and Christ is sufficient and more to determine what I need to know to live as HE would ask.

[caww]

I cannot take time now to answer your posts as I must go to work. Perhaps tonight..but any are certainly free to dispute what they will...and usually do in order to somehow make out the Inquisition was not that bad. It was and the Internet has volumes of information for any to seek the answers...People who denied the Holocausts also attempted to defend what happened...but it happened none the less and just as we know the evidence is plentiful.

[caww]

If you only use catholic sites and information , why of course we will differ on the Inquisition.