Testimony of a Former Irish Priest

BereanBeacon.Org ^ | Richard Peter Bennett

[Cronos]

Yes, it’s just as implicit as the idea of the Trinity or Sacraments. Fundamental yet implicit beliefs

[Dr. Eckleburg]

ST. BATHOLOMEW'S DAY MASSACRE

Pope John Paul II states that the cause of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre is obscure. This is a half truth. There were many obscure factors involved in the behind-the-scenes intrigue which led up to the massacre, but one very evident cause of the massacre was the repeated call by various popes for the extermination of the Protestants in France. The cause, simply put, was the incessant hatred exhibited by the Roman Catholic hierarchy toward anyone who would dare to attempt to follow Christ apart from Romanism. This is a matter of public record.

Eventually a plan was devised by Catholic authorities in France to destroy the Huguenot Protestants by inviting them to a wedding. The Huguenots had been bitterly tormented and had fought in self-defense in an attempt to preserve themselves a place in the land. A peace treaty had been signed with them a short while before the St. Bartholomew Massacre, and they wanted nothing more than to dwell in peace and to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience and their understanding of the Word of God. When the Huguenots were settled in various dwellings in Paris for the wedding and were completely unsuspecting of foul play, at a preset signal they were set upon by mobs who "neither spared the aged, nor women great with child, nor even infants" (Mezerai, History of France, II, p. 1098). In three terrible days "six hundred houses were repeatedly pillaged, and 4,000 persons massacred, with all the confusion and barbarity that can be imagined" (Ibid.). Thousands of others were murdered outside of Paris. "All over France the massacre was carried out. The fearful scenes of Paris were repeated in almost all the kingdom.... The massacre dragged out in the provinces for two long weary months until the persecutors, wearied of blood shedding, dropped their blunted swords" (Ian Paisley, The Massacre of St. Bartholomew, pp. 110,111).

Pope John Paul II failed to mention the role of the popes in instigating the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre.

He also failed to mention the public glee exhibited by Pope Gregory XIII when he learned of the butchery which had been committed. Consider the following amazing facts of history:

"The news of the bloody deed was received with unbounded joy by the pope at the Vatican. The Cardinal of Lorraine presented the messenger who brought the news to Rome with a thousand pieces of gold and exclaimed that the King's heart had been filled with a sudden inspiration from God when he ordered the massacre (Smedley, History of the Reformed Religion in France, 1834, II, p. 36).

"The pope and his Cardinals proceeded at once to the High Altar, after the dispatches from Paris had been read in Conclave, to offer thanks for 'the great blessing which Heaven vouchsafed to the Roman See and to all Christendom. Salvoes of artillery thundered at nightfall from the ramparts of St. Angelo; the streets were illuminated; and no victory ever achieved by the arms of the Pontificate elicited more tokens of festivity. The pope also, as if resolved that an indestructible evidence of the perversion of moral feeling which Fanaticism necessarily generates should be transmitted to posterity, gave orders for the execution of a commemorative Medal' (Smedley, II, p. 35).

"This medal, an original of which can be seen in the British Museum inculcated the message that the massacre was the joint result of Papal counsel and Divine instrumentality. On one side of the medal is a profile of the pope surrounded by his name and title and on the other side an angel is depicted bearing in one hand a cross and in the other a sword with which he is killing a fallen host of Huguenots. The wording on this side is 'The Slaughter of the Huguenots 1572.'

"Wylie describes the rejoicing and thanksgiving of the pope as follows: "'Through the streets of the Eternal City swept, in the full blaze of Pontifical pomp, Gregory and his attendant train of cardinals, bishops and monks, to the Church of St. Mark, there to offer up prayers and thanksgivings to the God of heaven for His great blessing to the See of Rome and the Roman Catholic Church. Over the portico of the church was hung a cloth of purple, on which was a Latin inscription most elegantly embroidered in letters of gold, in which it was distinctly stated that the massacre had occurred after "counsels had been given." On the following day the Pontiff went in procession to the Church of Minerva, where, after mass, a jubilee was published to all Christendom, "that they might thank God for the slaughter of the enemies of the Church, lately executed in France." A third time did the pope go in procession, with his cardinals and all the foreign ambassadors then resident at his court, and after mass in the Church of St. Louis, he accepted homage from the Cardinal of Lorraine, and thanks in the name of the King of France, for the counsel and help he had given him by his prayers, of which he had found the most wonderful effects' (J.A. Wylie, History of Protestantism, II, p. 606).

"As an enduring monument the pope commanded three paintings to be put in hand by George Vasari. These frescoes originally bore the following inscriptions, 'Gaspard Coligny, the Admiral is carried home wounded;' 'The slaughter of Coligny and his companions;' 'The King approves Coligny's slaughter.' Some time ago the Vatican had the inscriptions deleted from the frescoes" (Wylie, II, p. 606)...

[Quix]

Sometimes words fail me.

Shocking that folks would rationalize and defend such . . .

[dsc]

“Using Scripture as a point of authority is OK, but the concept that referring to Scripture alone as a point of authority is from Satan? Quix does seem to have a good handle on what your post said.”

No, he doesn’t, and neither do you, as we see from your addlepated attempt to restate my remark.

I really have to get away from all this malice, bigotry, and stupidity. Just can’t seem to take enough showers.

[dsc]

“Dr. Rodregus wrote...interesting I thought.”

Forgery.

[caww]

Cronos, There will always be propaganda by some on both sides of the Inquisition issue. Some will narrow it down to one of the three Inquisitions, others will cover the full time frame of years and years where these atrocities were committed. The Vatican Website has some interesting articles as does other Catholic sites...and I was surprised they too admit and speak candidly of the church History regarding the Inquisition and frankly understand the church's role in what took place...as well as accepting it was indeed a dark side of the catholic churches History.

Additionally they speak of it's memberships struggle to admit this....so those on the thread who are trying to somehow to make lighter of it than it really was are mistaken to do so... according to the Vatican leadership.

As for Protestant Pastors who have or go to websites about the Inquisition. Well they have that right as much as Catholics do who only refer to Catholic sites and generally disregard all other religious sources as faulty one way or another. This is why I do not post my sources for the most part....they get trampled on and divert from the topic...and the arguments then turn to who is credible or not. I have and will arrive at my own conclusions based on the evidence I find...and that includes books and resources I have here in my home as well as on line. BTW the numbers are of less interest than what was done and by whom, and where, and why these attrocities were committed and all claiming this from God at that time. We know this was not of God....anymore than the Muslims who claim that very thing of their God today.

[caww]

I suppose that works for you...and anticipated.

[dsc]

“They are by and large scripturally illiterate and ignorant of how to read it within context.”

No Catholic is as ignorant of scripture as you are of Catholicism.

And, sorry for the lack of charity, but a rational person must howl with derisive laughter at the spectacle of a protestant claiming more context than a Catholic.

[dsc]

“I suppose that works for you...and anticipated.”

Anticipated because you knew it already.

[dsc]

“what was done and by whom, and where, and why”

If you were completely ignorant of those things, that would be an improvement over your current state—that is, bloated with slop buckets full of malicious misinformation.

[betty boop]

I was not trying to say that you agreed with me to the least degree in opposition to Mad Dawg or anyone else on that interpretations made by the Vatican system related to God being beyond time.

Well thank God for that, dear brother in Christ!

It seems here we have two systems being alluded to at once: the "Vatican system" [whatever that is] and a system that envisions God as being "Beyond Time." — As if God is not involved in the world of human experience in any way. So it's a little confusing....

I dunno. Try as I might, I cannot conceive of these two systems as being occupants of the same mathematical (logical) category. Thus they cannot be directly compared.

So can we quit this futility and just look at the problem of God and man and time/timelessness/eternity? There's an amazingly rich heritage of human inspiration, genius, and achievement behind this question. Our ancestors have bequeathed us a tremendous legacy: They left us their findings, their observations, their experiences, their theories, down the ages. It's not like people have to start over from scratch every time the question is asked....

And of course, the questions that must be asked: What is the relation of God and man? Or man's relation to the world of creation, and also his relation to society?

To me, the answer is simple. I learned it from the classical Greek philosophers first. The Logos resolves everything unto itself in Truth. The Logos is Alpha and Omega and the entire in-between.

And then Christ came — in fulfillment of the heritage that was planted by God's Logos in the Beginning — as prophesized by e..g., Isaiah....

He IS the Logos of the Beginning, "Who was God, and was with God."

And He is final Judge in the End.

All thanks, praise, and glory be to God!

Good night, dear brother in Christ!

[Cronos]

I already told you — check the ENcyclopedia BRitannica, and check the Spanish Historical Archives. That’s pretty darned impartial

[Cronos]

Actually, YOU have misunderstood the Lutheran service. They have the Eucharist, kneeling, incense, Crucifixes and icons, all of which if in a church, YOU would not go too — so you say. However, you then haven’t answered — would you go to a church that had all of these? Like the picture I showed you?

[Cronos]

I disagree with a lot of Copeland’s teachings.

but you WOULD attend a Kenneth Copeland ministry as they are not Catholic, right?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I’ve learned to stay out of RC churches. They preach error, superstition and darkness.

[Cronos]

Really -- check out the demographics statistics for Geneva CITY. "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."

And, this was in a canton that was completely Calvinist until +Frances de Sales. Geneva canton is also heavily urbanized and was heavily urbanized during Cauvin's time

For Geneva city itself, the statistics are Religion Roman Catholic 46%, Protestant 40%

Calvinist leanings are decreasing as the Protestant number will also include Pentecostals and Arminians :)

[Cronos]

I've lived and live in Europe and that statement of yours is false. During the 60s, there was a move away from Christianity as a whole in W. Europe, yes, but the ones hit the most were the Protestant north and north-west and Catholic France. Now, the statistics are still better in France compared to England or Sweden or Denmark (Germany is a mixed bag as it is 60-40 Protestant-Catholic).

In Eastern Europe, Church attendenace remains high, while in ITaly it is moderate. In Spain it is decreasing, but still higher than Italy. In Flanders it is HIGH as in Poland, Hungary, Greece and Croatia.

Catholic communities seem to be lasting longer where there is a more knowledgeable group of people (like in Poland or Flanders) who read and question their faith, while in places were both the Protestant and the CAtholic clergy became wishy-washy and liberal (England), Church attendance is slipping

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Mindless repetition is the RC apologist’s only friend.

[Cronos]

Nice, I didn't refer to this historian, I just looked at statistics. Different,impartial sources give the facts that you have given (with your permission, repeating them for emphasis):

All persons actually interested in the real history of the Inquisitions should read Dr. Edward Peters,Inquisition Henry Charles Lea Professor of History at the University of Pennsylvania and a prominent historian in the field. Edwards wrote: "The Inquisition was an image assembled from a body of legends and myths which, between the twentieth and the sixteenth centuries, established the perceived character of inquisitorial tribunals and influenced all ensuing efforts to recover their historical reality."The popular (aka Protestant) view of the Inquisition is at best a myth and at worst a cynical manipulation of fact. In reality, the Inquisition was an attempt by the Catholic Church to stop unjust executions.

Heresy was a capital offense against the state. Rulers of the state, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no tolerance for heretics and heresies. Neither did common people, who saw heretics, like witches and pagans as dangerous outsiders who could bring down divine wrath.

Like any other crime, when someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment. The sad result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities lacking in theological training (aka relying on YOPIS) without fair trials or a competent judge of the crime.

The Catholic Church's response to this problem was the Inquisition, an attempt to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges.

From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.

With a conviction rate of about 2% the vast majority of people tried for heresy by the Inquisitions were either acquitted or had their sentences suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ. The underlying assumption of the Inquisition was that, like lost sheep, heretics had simply strayed.

If, however, an inquisitor determined that a particular sheep had purposely left the flock, or worse proselytized the heresy, there was nothing more that could be done. Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to secular authorities. Despite popular myth, the Inquisition did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense, not the Church. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.

Where did this myth come from? After 1530, the Inquisition began to turn its attention to the new heresy of Lutheranism. It was the Protestant Reformation and the rivalries it spawned that would give birth to the myth. Innumerable books and pamphlets poured from the printing presses of Protestant countries at war with Spain accusing the Spanish Inquisition of inhuman depravity and horrible atrocities in the New World.

Also not to be ignored are the many, many Protestant Inquisitions that had far higher conviction rates and death toll in a much shorter period of time. These ranged from so-called witch trials to Catholic purges of England and the Scandinavian countries , Cromwell’s conquests of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the atrocities committed by the Puritans in the New World.

[Cronos]

So, then do you guys really support Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland? Would you worship in their groups? Considering they are not Catholic, would you feel right at home with their sola scriptura beliefs and practises?