Posted on 06/13/2013 4:51:02 AM PDT by Rashputin
Them ‘Damned’ Catholics
on June 12, 2013
By Walid Shoebat
Throughout the Church’s history, it has warred with Islam. Yet, it has nothing to offer us today. This is the typical answer I get when I discuss Christian history with many Evangelicals. They tell me that beyond the Bible, there is nothing else we need. So next time you have a fire in the house, read the Bible, don’t forget to pray while you forget dialing 911 and enjoy the smoke and fire billowing inside the house.
I find it difficult to even ask questions: What was Christian history like, that withstood Islam’s evil and defeated it in Europe? Why and how did Christendom lose Egypt and Asia Minor to Islam? And what are we doing in our days to emulate or not emulate from that history?
The one million dollar question that no one can answer – although I will get many remarks from people damning me as a heretic – is this: Why did God choose Catholics to stop Islam in its tracks in all the major battles intended to destroy Christendom? Anyone who has the answer, please step forward.
What do most spirit-filled evangelicals know about the Battle of Lepanto, Battle of Tours, The Battle of Vienna, and The Battle of Malta?
Had the ‘damned’ Catholics not fought the Battle of Tours, all of Europe would have been Muslim today, like in Asia Minor. It would have been the end of Christianity, as we know it. Today, Turkey (Byzantium) is 99% Muslim and looks very likely to produce the Antichrist while Evangelicals still think that Antichrist and the Harlot is the Roman Catholic Church.
Why is it so rare to find holy spirit-filled evangelicals that speak of such history, except paint it as Crusader, dark, warring and bloodthirsty? What difference then is there between the die-hard liberal and the spirit-filled evangelical? Both criticize this history. Even further, like many evangelicals and liberals, the Muslims also condemn this history. So why do we echo their interpretation as we damn the Catholic?
Why? Is it because of them ‘damned’ Catholics who defended Christendom and saved the Protestants from utter annihilation? Could it be perhaps the Catholics did something right, like fight them damned Muslims and thwart them from annihilating Christendom?
In all these battles there were no Protestants coming to help save Europe and Protestant states refrained from helping or even lifting a finger. They were too busy doing Bible studies on how them ‘damned’ Catholics were the Antichrist.
Perhaps I need to exercise the typical American habit before speaking about such matters and prequalify my statements. I am not saying that all Protestants are evil, heavens no. Yet, every time I say the word “Catholic” and the whole church jumps up and down pin-pointing the leaven of the Catholics without even looking into the piles of dung worth of heretical books produced by so-called evangelicals.
Is the rich Catholic history such an evil subject that the Bible warned us not to touch and even beat down on the Catholic wars with Islam? Even during Nazism, there were many more of these ‘damned’ Catholics that chose to die in Hitler’s ovens than there were evangelicals and Protestants put together. Are these Catholics damned to hell despite making a choice to enter Hitler’s furnace? Which of the two is more pleasing to God, the sodomite loving pastor or the Jew loving Catholic who died in the infernos of Hitler’s crematoria?
So who will answer my questions? Will it be some unlearned, half-cocked, spikey-haired, tattooed, nose-pierced, ear ringed, mocking, useless, teenage brained heretic from The Free Grace Movement who will instantly obtain from his own authority to anathematize and excommunicate me since such homosexual sodomite sinners must be welcomed into the fold as Christians without repentance? Will such mutants be the future soldiers who will outdo the Knights of Saint John and fight to thwart the forces of darkness and the devil? What will they use to fight, the earrings of their noses and the spikes of their stupid looking hair? Or perhaps these are the very sons of the devil?
Must I denounce the Pope as a heretic while I remain silent on America’s pastor, this self-appointed son-of-the-devil-pope named Rick Warren who signs a treaty with Islam saying we “worship the same God”? Dare I say anything on that fattened whore who pussyfoots with homosexuality while he condemns the Crusaders in that very treaty?
Perhaps these things can aid in answering my question, which I’ve asked more than once and no one seems to have answered: During my two-decade walk in my Holy Spirit filled evangelical faith; Jesus said: “I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. Well, in two thousand years, who was this church? Was the church lost from the time the authors of the New Testament departed until the time the holy Martin Luther showed up? Hitler used Martin Luther’s demonic writ, On The Jews and Their Lies, to help him rid Europe of six million Jews.
Evangelicals answer this dilemma by saying that the true Church was always there but it was persecuted by them ‘damned’ Catholics. Yet, such answers are impossible to prove. Perhaps some Jesus-style questions will help clarify this issue. So which Christian movement was it that them ‘damned’ Catholics persecuted? Was it the Montanists, Novationists, Donatists, Docetists, Cathars, Albigensians, Waldenses, Hussites, and the followers of Wycliff? Were these “The Church” that Jesus spoke about? Were these the true Bible-believing, evangelical-type, spirit-filled believers?
There is no historian who will tell you that these movements even fit into the definition of evangelical “spirit-filled” model. Such movements, which the Catholics squashed (thank God), were radically non-Christian, heretical, and gnostic. Only the Waldenses and the Hussites were somewhat Christian but even these were closer to Catholicism than they were evangelical. How would a common Holy Spirit-filled evangelical even know what these movements are all about? After all, we only need the Bible and the hell with history, right? To ignore history is to also ignore the Bible.
Even Martin Luther and the Protestant movement, which came up with the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) that is adhered to by protestant denominations, in fact, aided the Ottoman Muslims and provided them with tin to build canons to destroy catholic states because in their view, the Catholic Church was the Harlot of Babylon and the Antichrist.
So important was this WCF that it was an essential doctrine of the faith and was non-negotiable. If the Trinity was essential, so was this belief regarding Catholics. Despite Islam’s overt denial of the Trinity, it was never even mentioned in the WCF while the Catholics who prevented the annihilation of Christendom, took precedence over Islam when it came to that document, despite Islam being the religion of Antichrist. Even Martin Luther himself came around on this issue to confess after reading the writing of the Catholic Riccaldo Di Montecroce in his wonderful work, Refutation of The Quran. As a result, Luther changed his views and even according to him Islam was the system of Antichrist, yet the WCF never even included it.
And lest I get into grace versus works theology… One thing is certain; Jesus gave the example about the good worker and the gung-ho church-goers of His day when He chose the Samaritan over the Pharisee who walked by the persecuted beaten naked man and did nothing, claiming he was doing the Lord’s business. If we take that example, the Samaritan in that time would be viewed as the way we view a Catholic; ‘he was all screwed up and got it all wrong’. The Samaritan didn’t even follow Sola Scriptura and his canon of Scripture was missing many books. He even believed such madness that the Temple was on mount Gerizim and not Jerusalem. Yet, Jesus honored the Samaritan over the Pharisee who got both the Bible and Temple correct – but helped not, the persecuted.
When Jesus comes, He will throw in hell many ‘damned’ Catholics and them ‘damned’ Evangelicals for not helping persecuted un-damned Jews, un-damned Catholics and un-damned Evangelicals and other un-damned others (Matthew 25). Today, neither Catholic nor Protestant is doing much to save Christians slaughtered in Muslim countries. Name me the organization that rescues Christians today? There are NONE. We try and our supporters are predominately Armenian, Copts and Assyrians. Where is America’s pastor? Where are the American Evangelicals and Catholics? Perhaps I should follow the Copt, Assyrian or even Armenian and dump this modernized homosexual-loving, Americanized version of Christianity.
While we accuse these ancient churches of holding to deuterocanonical books like The Wisdom of Solomon, which Evangelicals reject, in less than fifty words, sums up the entire purpose of the Incarnation of the Son of God and why God became man:
“While all things were in quiet silence, and the night was in the midst of her swift course, Thine almighty Word leaped out of Heaven out of Thy royal throne, as a fierce man of war, into the midst of a land of destruction.” (Wisdom of Solomon, 18:14-15)
Who is this “Thine almighty Word”? Who was “The Word”? When will He leap from out of Heaven and out of “Thy Royal throne”? When will He be this “man of war”? Is this not a prophecy about Christ coming to battle in the end of days? Who is He battling with? The Catholics, who preserved the Bible – including The Wisdom of Solomon? Has wisdom departed from earth that no man can point it out? Isn’t the Holy Spirit leading me to re-discover such prophecies struck out of the American evangelical Bibles? Is Polycarp who was the student of John unnecessary for study? Was Irenaeus his student so unimportant? Was the Coptic Church that was founded by Saint Mark of the Bible unimportant? Was it not Christ who built that Church in Egypt? Even when the Portuguese first entered India they found native Christians who, to their surprise, declared their apostolic succession to St. Thomas.
When I first became Christian, I entered an Evangelical Church that taught me that in Daniel chapter II, the two legs were the Eastern and Western churches (Orthodox and Catholic) and that these were the spirit of Antichrist. Yet, I never believed them because I examined the Word of God and discovered that Bible prophecies were speaking of Islam. Was I not following the Bible or were these Evangelicals misinterpreting the Bible? It was the Evangelicals who also misinterpreted many things in the Bible.
I reject all doctrines that differ with the Bible but for centuries, Holy Protestants have pointed to several Popes as Antichrist, which have all turned out to be false. Is this not unholy slander? Did Jesus not warn about such damned slanderers?
We trumpet: “my people perish for the lack of knowledge” when we, the ones who trumpet such verses are perishing. There is a difference between knowing the Bible and doing the Bible.
But there is also a difference between emotionally loving Jesus and doing what Jesus says. We preach something. Yet, we follow the opposite; we continue in lacking knowledge.
As a result, we see things from a certain prism we think is holy and is not.
If you are looking only as far back as 'Protestants', you need to have another look. You are missing more than half of the Roman church's escapades.
As to whose atrocities were whose, who am I to judge between the whore and her daughters? But then, one must suppose they only knew what their mother had been teaching them for a very, very long time... So maybe that might help to affix blame.
Since you claim that the likes of the Spanish Inquisition were going on continuously after Constantine’s time, I expect you to produce a list.
Today’s Catholics are anything but templar
Would that it were
The inquisitions started under Innocent III (c.1100) against the Cathars and at the rise of the Dominican rite... I did not say the Inquisitions were started with Constantine.
I could be wrong about this --- but that still remains to be seen. Produce the evidence. Opinions, no matter how widely repeated, if not coming straight from sources involved there at the time prove next to nothing, rendering such as;
land right back nearer the doorsteps of those who casually fling that sort of talk around, than the porch they were a-aiming for. Where is this "secret knowledge" that book was in actual fact;
when we know korans are often times green too, and as I said, there was published commentary, from reliable source, containing first person witness.
Not that I believe it meant that Pope being endorsing Islam unreservedly, but rather as many have pointed out, likely did so as sign of respect for the giver (from a group of guests invited from the Middle East). That pope too was known as quite a kisser. He'd kiss the ground after arrival on an airplane or jet flight, and it wasn't over having a rough trip along the way. He'd kiss babies. He'd kiss other presents. Some people would kiss his ring. KIssy kissy, lot's of kissy.
Read into it whatever blows your skirts up. Meanwhile, stuff like this;
still get's us nowhere fast. If it is desired there be a bit less mind reading, attributing of motive, insult aimed in broad brush strokes, then tighten up, be more disciplined, knock that sort of thing [behavior] off regardless if all others don't, and carefully consider that there are standards of proof & evidence that have not yet been met concerning that picture.
There are possibly a few FR Roman Catholic who agree it was a Koran. I know of one. Perhaps he has changed his mind, I wouldn't know. But it's likely quite safe to assume that person did not think so (koran kiss) at the time, just because he was "knew it wasn't a Koran" but was lying so that he could go about "playing little games" concerning it.
see also Jimmy not categorically denying, but doing some wqigglin' http://www.jimmyakin.org/2006/04/jp2_and_the_qur.html
Here's Father Joe accepting it be fact, and raising points worthy of consideration, with F.Joe being both kind and generous towards one and all in his own comments. H seems like a serious and decent guy to me. Since it be rather handy summation of sorts, the last paragraph;
The Koran was a gift to him from the delegation. Islamic peoples are not casual in the giving of gifts. It represents the giver. They knew perfectly well that the Pope was a Catholic Christian, but they gave to him that which was regarded as most important in their life, their own holy book. Thus, at the end of the audience, the Pope showed his deep appreciation to this intimate self-donation, by bowing and kissing the Koran as a sign of respect. Such a gesture ran totally against the grain of crusades and condemnations. It did not mean that the Pope accepted all that was in the book, only that his love for the Muslim people, and the Iraqis in particular, was genuine. He makes the first move, not in the capitulation of our faith, but in the recognition that the followers of Jesus and those who cherish Mohammed should not be engaged in name-calling, or worse, killing each other. The Pope appreciated the suffering of the Iraqi people, particularly the women and children. It showed he did not look down upon them but had a genuine respect for them within the brotherhood of man.
Scroll down at that last above link to see F.Joe holding the line as late as some time late August 2010, or even bit later.
a couple of more links for Catholic of the "ok we accept a Koran got kissed" crowd, possibly available at this FR reply/comment though I've not investigated for while an so cannot assure link validity, or validity of citations presented on FR in that comment.
Others here whom believe that it was indeed a Koran can and will reasonably consider that to be so, unless or until there was some retraction or clarification coming from the Vatican that it not be so. Since JP II is now fairly long since deceased, I seriously doubt anything will be forthcoming from that source concerning the matter. I further suggest that attributing motives and impugning the character of many here be refrained from in regards to this matter.
What is a good for the goose, is good for the gander. Now if you'll excuse me for a while...I think I'll find myself a big 'ol bowl of gravy, and have myself a swim.
People in little Gnostic cliques prefer lies to the Truth so they repeat lies and even throw Scripture in the trash can rather than deal with the Truth.
And though your confidence may_be shattered
It doesn't matter...
in the stands the home crowd
scatters...
It's always interesting to see people who claim to be Christian play the same little propaganda games and snarky remark games the fascist democrat media play. It shows that while such folks may not be on the same side as the fascists politically, they're definitely on the same side as the fascist democrats spiritually.
Which also explains how Nancy Pelosi says she determines what she thinks is right exactly the same why the anti-Catholic crew say they decide what's right. The only difference is that there's some small chance that Nancy doesn't use a Bible that has a large part of the Old Testament missing.
I didn't suddenly "become a Zionist." I'm a simple Bible Belter, and Bible Belters are pro-Israel and pro-Jewish because of Biblical sentimentalism. Try it some time.
I became a Noachide, which isn't a cult or sect but the Halakhic designation for non-Jews--all non-Jews, regardless of their religious beliefs. That means technically, you are a Noachide. One can only be a Noachide or a Jew. There is no middle ground.
My defection from chrstianity would never have been possible without first defecting to Catholicism, a religion as radically opposed to the Bible Belt mentality as it is possible to be. Growing up, to me being a Catholic was like being a Communist. I overcame that prejudice. And while it didn't work out, it made my other prejudices easier to overcome as I carried the logic of my historical investigations to its conclusion. For now I'll just say that as I went from Protestantism to Catholicism to Orthodoxy, I noticed that the defects of human nature were becoming less severe and human responsibility was becoming greater. Why stop somewhere half-way?
We don't have time to discuss this now and you wouldn't listen to anything I had to say anyway, but if I could give advice to the Catholic catechumanal committees (I won't say missionaries because American Catholics think missionizing is a "Protestant thing") I would tell them that they are missing the big picture. They are defending individual Catholic doctrines without transmitting the Catholic worldview. They are expecting people whose only understanding of chrstianity is Protestant to just add purgatory and confession to what they already believe. This doesn't work because no matter how accurate Catholic claims of authenticity are, neither purgatory nor confession make any sense from the uncorrected Protestant perspective.
No Protestant has ever been told that Adam and Eve in the Garden were in a probationary state waiting to be "translated" to the "beatific vision." They think Adam and Eve were placed in a static paradise that was an end in itself, with nothing to prove. Once J*sus "saves" them they are restored to status quo ante. What's this business about the "door to heaven being open again" and and now it's up to each "redeemed" person to "cooperate" lest they "lose their salvation?" It's merely a loophole anyway. Adam was not headed for any other "heaven" than the one he was already living in and to which each "saved" person is now sure to return, so what is there to "merit?" Why this need for "purgation" before entering heaven? That makes as much sense as saying Adam couldn't have been created until he was first purified. Try pushing purgatory onto that worldview. It doesn't work!
As for confession, what Catholics fail to realize is that even if its authenticity is proved beyond the shadow of a doubt chrstianity as Protestants have always understood it simply cannot assimilate it. Protestants are not damned for individual sins, but for the propensity to sin in the first place. A "totally depraved" person confessing individual sins makes as much sense as trying to cure smallpox by picking off scabs. It is what Catholics call "concupiscence," not the symptoms known as "sins" that damn the Protestant. You wanna here a Protestant confession? Here it is. "Bless me father for I have sinned. I have a monster inside me. I was born with it. It will be there when I die." Now, what penance would you assign for that, hmmm? And no Protestant that I am aware of has ever learned how to count every single mortal sin, even after an absence from the confessional for forty years, and then accurately report it. You cradle Catholics must be "rain men." Maybe you should all be working on getting us all free energy.
Why would someone who was meant to live forever in the Garden of Eden have to do anything once the loophole brilliantly preserves G-d's holiness while letting the sinner go free? Who ever said Adam had a journey to make in the Garden? I certainly never heard this. And why is confession or art or saints or rituals or anything necessary once one has taken advantage of the loophole? Why did J*sus come here in the first place if not to be vicariously damned in our place? And since he was, what is the rationale for thinking one has to do anything???
A Catholic FReeper once sneeringly referred to Protestants' "get out of hell free card" as if that were supposed to be ironic. Isn't that the whole purpose of the chrstian religion? It's not? Then how does one justify its existence? What's it for? That's something no one raised a Protestant can ever figure out.
I have read many Catholic apologetic books and articles (I own a good number, having once been a member). All Catholic apologetics make the same mistake: they take individual "Catholic things," justify them with history, and then think their job is done. William James was right. Catholics' and Protestants' centers of emotional energy are too different. "They will never understand one another."
And as one moves from Catholicism to even more ancient and "authentic" versions of chrstianity it only gets worse. Eastern Orthodoxy is "semi-pelagian" and professes that one must participate with G-d to achieve "deification" (they are very up front about this and call it "synergy"). They don't believe in original sin at all and think all Catholics are a merely Calvinists who are too dumb to notice what they are. Augustine is the "arch-heretic" who introduced the alien, pagan Greek idea of "original sin." I once asked an Orthodox priest if all this is true what was the difference between Adam in the Garden of Eden and me sitting right there talking with him. He said there wasn't any! (How he justified his job I have no idea!) And most of all, I have even read Eastern Orthodox writers (not liberal ecumenists, mind you, but the genuine article) who insist that the Talmud teaches the true, original, Biblical doctrine of human nature which all "western chrstendom" (Catholics as much as those "poor deluded Protestants") twisted and corrupted. Now . . . you wanna tell me what's wrong the Talmud since its conception of human nature is true and trumps that of Luther, Calvin, or Catholicism?
All this was headed to one place. I saw it. I embraced it.
And finally, though this will probably get no response, whatever else may be said about the ancient churches, they have all embraced evolution and higher criticism as a way to "prove" their not inbred American Protestants. No matter what they may be right on, any religion that says that G-d is (chas vechalilah!) guilty of errors, mistakes, or (G-d forbid!) falsehood is simply evil. But I notice most of the more "conservative" Catholics on this forum won't touch that issue. After all, who wants to be asked what "trailer park" one is from? But anyone who believes in either evolution or "higher criticism" while claiming his religious beliefs are identical in every way to those of Jerome or Athanasius (who never heard of either) is either very, very confused or something worse.
Good night, gentlemen.
Oh for crying out loud. Give it up. The pope most likely did kiss a Koran.
Can you prove different? The evidence is strongly in favor that it did indeed occur. Without presenting compelling evidence to the contrary, you've got less than that with which you began. Insulting me isn't helping.
I did include some indication that I personally didn't regard the Koran-kiss as something oogity-boogity bad big deal.
Like F. Joe wrote about it, there may have been some general, non-specific peace-making sentiments as the more important part of the overall setting and proceedings. It was just a fairly routine visitor's reception, which I do not myself care to criticize, nor in any real way did.
If people, by which I mean possible critics of Catholicism, or Islamics, or anybody including Catholic faithful who are possibly much disturbed by the mere thought of that pope having puckered up towards the gift of a book, then misread or read in-between the lines stuff that may or may not properly belong--- well, whatever blows their skirts. Big whoopee-dee-do.
Meanwhile, the statements in your own posting I highlighted concerning it, I found to be like a gizmo; that upon delivery from a gizmo factory, was defective upon receipt of delivery. Said item was initially shipped free of charge, with payment for item due only at some later date also. I did pick up on indication that in the view of the branch manager of this particular gizmo factory, my home address was on the "wrong side" of town, even as I do notice scattered around my neighborhood more than a few empty boxes from the same general Co. So go figure.
Writing a note to said gizmo factory explaining the defects found in the gizmo, along with some testimonial from others attesting to the same "defect", whose own home addresses were NOT on the "wrong side of town", carefully packing the gizmo as to not "damage" it beyond manufacturer defect, off to the post office I went, waited in line, applied proper postage and off the gizmo went, back to point of origin.
Imagine my surprise when short time later I received note from the branch manager in reply to my own having shipped the item back (at some cost of time and effort to myself) with no mention at all of the gizmo item, or acknowledgement of it's defect.
Some manufacturers take pains to be polite to the general public, come what may. If anyone can alert them to potential problems in their own product line, most (if they are experienced operators) do try to pay attention, and often even send thanks in recognition of that customer having provided some beta-testing like, moderately detailed feedback as to a specific sample from among the various wares they offered, the gizmo receiving this benefit of just how and why the product be defective at little to no actual cost to themselves. Big outfits spend serious coin in "market research" as part of product development.
In regards to some smaller businesses we have had dealing with,
how many times have we all at some time or another been asked "how did you hear of our company?"
Well, that's a test of advertising. Is it working? Which method isn't? Which is bringing the right sort of customer, and which is presenting the Company in a positive light? Is there anything that could stand changing, or improve the product, or possibly remove some gizmos from production entirely, being as the return on effort for those particular small items wasn't netting positive result to the Co.?
In this allegorical tale, not only was there no acknowledgement of the problem, but I was effectively told I lived on the wrong aide of town, and that was the problem.
Now I will confess to having sent follow-up reply to the note from the manager which rather rudely implied it was all my fault from the beginning, indicating that I did still believe the gizmo item itself to be a serious loser, but without negative mention of the company itself, or any of it's other product line. Though composed in a way to give a slight tweak to the manager for reason of my own being needlessly insulted. I confess all.
Being as in this allegory the fuller line of gizmo's themselves be to a large extent advertising materials and/or the makings of informational promotional distribution exchange, and I myself be in (decidedly small-time) advertising/circular/flyer distribution myself, and being as this isn't my first time around the block so to speak, there was one further issue come to mind.
We all, the whole dang town, uses the same printing presses, which run pretty well automated, day and night. Write up a flyer, "send" it into the magic machine, and presto. One copy. Free(Republic) access open generally to all whom share some similarity in mindset...and whom will conduct themselves with a modicum of decency as towards other flyer producers when meeting at the print house. The print house itself needed regular moderate maintenance, and a very real-world electricity bill of some not insignificant amount but generally covered by donations from those whom use the facilities, both reading flyers posted on the moveable bulletin boards, and tacking up notes thereon themselves.
Herein lay a slight difficulty. Though I do further confess my own flyers tending towards being of some length in comparison to many other shorter notes (whom can be more effective in sweet simplicity) and these long streamers though not the only Lo-oong ones tacked up, my own painstaking handwritten ones can along with those of more the duplicate of duplicate sort, irritate those whom support the printing presses with their own noT-tax deductible charitable donations.
Yet too, those whom tack up personal "hate mail" rather induce others to do the same, and or lead to more streamers from guys like me. All of which impedes what could be a smoother flow...
Leaving that allegory behind, I'd like to ask you one question;
Attending a three-ring circus, with lots of action going on all around, have you ever wondered as have I, that if a guy could get close enough to one of the clowns to make a grab at one of those big 'ol red noses, and was able to give it a quick but firm squeeze, would the nose go "honk"?
That takes us back to the Thirteenth Century and into a feudal order where the Church was only one of the players. Innocent III was one of the few popes who was able to exercise the kind of authority that some think seem normal in papal history, As for the Cathars, are you sure you want to be the champions of a sect that was as different from Christian as the Muslims were? Imagine the Mormons of Joseph Smith but with ten times their numbers? It does, of course, show the futility of suppression. The South of France, where the Cathars were powerful, would be a hotbed of Calvinism and then of revolutionary radicalism. Injustice leaves a stain that lasts generations.
Yes. 1208. Pardon me... the 'c.1100' is my mistake - I was operating from memory, and anything north of Bede is too contemporary for me, and generally out of my ken...
[...] and into a feudal order where the Church was only one of the players.
That is a bit disingenuous (in this case, at least). There is little doubt that the Roman church was THE player in the Albigensian Crusade. I consider this sort of dissembling to be in poor taste generally (throughout the feudal states) - The buck inherently stops at the top (one of the pitfalls of *having* a top, eh?)... But in this particular, there is *no* shifting of responsibility.
As for the Cathars, are you sure you want to be the champions of a sect that was as different from Christian as the Muslims were? Imagine the Mormons of Joseph Smith but with ten times their numbers?
Need I remind you that you are talking to an American? Of course I will champion them in the case of their collective right, inherently granted by God, to believe as they choose. IIRC, the adherents of the Roman church profess to a belief in 'free will', so the concept should not be incomprehensible to you...
And as an aside, I consider the record to be tainted by Romanist propaganda - The victor writes the history, after all. It is of more consequence that even the local Romanists defended the Cathars against the predations of Rome... and quite often defended them to the point of their own deaths. That speaks volumes, and does much to counter that propaganda. These were, by all accounts other than Rome's, a good and moral people regardless of how their beliefs might differ from yours.
It does, of course, show the futility of suppression. The South of France, where the Cathars were powerful, would be a hotbed of Calvinism and then of revolutionary radicalism.
TRUE, but I see the nexus of that coming from the mountains of Northern Italy (and points northward of that through time). Not the people, mind you - The Message (regardless of how that message may have been bent by the Cathari). That linkage seems evident not only in the Cathars, but also among the Poor Men, Vaudois, the Waldenses, and even, I might suppose (albeit with somewhat less robust evidence), proto-Protestantism. That mountain stronghold was impossible for the Roman church to dispose of. And that message seems to hail from Antioch, not Rome or Alexandria.
Injustice leaves a stain that lasts generations.
In that we almost agree - I would consider the stain indelible.
Religious liberty in a political context works only if the parties involved want peace. When the Turks attacked Vienna in 1683, both sides agreed on one thing:that the God of battles would decide the issue. Pretty much the same applied in the clash between the Christians and the Cathars. Feudalism is the name we give to the polity of the time, Europe was not a single entity except quite loosely something called Christendom, not a unite but more like 10,000 private estates of which maybe 1,000 were controlled by the bishops and monks. There was a spiritual allegiance to the pope and a broader allegiance to a hierarchy of overlords, the most important of which were called kings.
But in the colonies there was no such sharp divisions among the sects. Madison saw the matter in much the same light as he did when he treated special interests in his Federalist #10. That a majority faction is a danger to liberty but that a balance among them worked very well.
Yeah... heard all that before. rather a rosy description that downplays the role of pope and church. Not buying it.
I don’t know what you mean by rosy. In the Estates-general, in those places where there were feudal assemblies, the Church constituted the first “order,” of society since “citizenry” in Christendom belonged to the baptized, but the authority of a bishop in matters where the secular the religious blended ,was more like that of a federal judge, and the pope something like the Chief Justice, where the Emperor was supposed to act as his Sheriff. The parallel breaks down, of course, where the bishops and abbots were great landowners who were supposed to defer to lay lords such as the kings. The barbarism of earlier times, of course, had deeply impressed itself on society, especially since at the time of the First Crusades, the Northmen were just being assimilated into Christian society. The Emperors, of course, in both west and east, regarded themselves as successors to Constantine, as Roman Emperors. So strong to this attachment to the past that the Ottoman Sultans, after they took over the eastern Roman Empire, also cast themselves into that same role, except not as Christians.
Right on target, fire for effect.
Too bad the syncretist L.I.F.E.R. parrots in the pulpit are more interested in pacifying the McSheeple for their Insurance masters than they are in empowering folks with the Truth.
Observe the multiple instances of the faithful being herded into schools and churches... where they became easy prey for the machete-wielding Muslim mob.
For the Wolves who delight in assuming dominion over the faith of others, “Doctrine” is nothing but a ball of string that binds the good ol’ boys in the in pack together for the meal, and a bit of floss to remove the bits of wool between their teeth when the carnage is done.
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.