Replies

In the context of an Internet thread, why are the words of war being used?

Since you directed this to me...

I'm not sure which posts reflect "words of war". But born-of-the-Spirit believers that Jesus of Nazareth is THE LORD and Son of the living God and Who founded His Church upon Himself (the Body of Christ that abide in Him yet)...such believers have been in spiritual battles and have known we are in HIS service since He told us to expect this sort of acceptance in the world, the same as He received.

The Truly Greatest War has already been won by our Savior. The rest is just the kicking and complaining of those sin-loving men who don't know or won't admit defeat and refuse to believe in and follow Christ only.

Yes, it will get uglier still toward the end of this Church era, Christians have been informed.

Why then do you defend Roman Catholicism against your brothers and sister in Christ? What manner of doctrine have you been taught?

I cannot understand why every day the anti Catholics post a straw man thread and then go to war.

It is simply not Christian.

Those are words of war??? So challenging an elitist church is war, while she is the one with the most history of engaging in physical war against Christians, and others.

► Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3), 1215:

Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath.

But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action.

The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp)

As said in other posts, Frankly, i am amazed at seeing posters whom i have never seen post here on the FR in my quite active engagement over the years, come in here and display their ignorance of what has been going on for years with RCs incessantly posting articles and posts which invite and incite debate, a sample of which post 472 lists, and then whine when countered.

When you have RCs for years using FR as a RC news and apologetics service for their elitist church, you cannot expect evangelicals who are not promoting any one particular "house" to not confront this cultic system.

Until recently there were few Prot articles reproving RC faith, but i can give you a list of RCs doing so against Prot faith, strawmen included. But now some souls we never saw post before on the FR start posting objections. Seems odd.