Posted on 09/06/2016 11:16:34 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
What was the role of the Catholic Church in building Western Civilization? While the typical mainstream narrative depicts the church as hostile to science and philosophy, it appears that once again the truth about history has been stolen from us. Dr. Duke Pesta joins Stefan Molyneux to discuss the unspoken truth about the impact of the Catholic church on scientific inquiry, philosophy and Western Civilization overall.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtu.be ...
"How such widows are to be secured, and in what manner their effects are to be disposed of"
-- Jerome Zajorowski; "Screw You", Circa 1556
1556? Everybody knows Algore didn't invent the intrawebs until much later than that.
The point is they were offering these for money.
It's one of the reasons Luther wrote his protest.
If the rcc had not been doing this, maybe there's no reformation.
You found it on the internet. Internet hoax. Try as you might, you can’t escape it. You fell for an internet hoax. One born every minute, Kitchen Sink. Every minute.
Maybe.
But then, considering whatever it was that motivated Jerome Zahorowski and Dante to drive their screws into the historical wood work... the manure was probably headed for the wind mill sooner or later.
"2) No one from “Rome” had any influence or control over 7th century Arabia."
---vladimir998
Meanwhile in pre-islamic Roman-influenced/persecuted reality land...
Pre-Islamic period[edit]
The earliest Arab Christians belong to the pre-Islamic period. There were many Arab tribes that adopted Christianity. These included the Nabateans and the Ghassanids, who were of Qahtani origin and spoke Yemeni Arabic as well as Greek. These tribes received subsidies and protected the south-eastern frontiers of the Roman and Byzantine Empires in north Arabia. However, a number of minority Christian sects were persecuted as heretic under Roman and Byzantine rules.The tribes of Tayy, Abd Al-Qais, and Taghlib were also known to have included a large number of Christians prior to Islam.
The southern Arabian city of Najran was also a center of Arab Christianity. Letters exist in Syriac that record the persecution of believers by the king of Yemen in the 6th century, when the latter had adopted Judaism. Cosmas Indicopleustes records the launch of a punitive expedition from Ethiopia in response. The leader of the Arabs of Najran during the period of persecution, Al-Harith, was canonized by the Roman Catholic Church as St. Aretas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Arab_Christians
Escape that.
Control and influence will have to be clarified for their roman catholic meanings.
This latest urinary contest reminds of a skit Edgar Bergen (Ventriloquist) did on TV w/Charlie McCarthy (his Dummy), generations ago.
The two began bantering when Charlie said something outrageous causing the audience to boo long and loud. Edgar piped up, “Waddaya booing me for; the Dummy said it???”
This fandango about an allegation linking the Counter-Reformation to Islam is less intelligent than the poor Dummy.
Islamic tradition claims that Mohammed was born in Mecca around 570 AD of the Quraysh Tribe. At his birth, Judaism was dominant in Yemen while Christianity was ascendant on the eastern side of the Arabian Peninsula( modern Oman, Qatar, UAE and Kuwait). In 618 he fled to Yathrid (Medina) and in 632 he died there, succeeded by his male family.
End of tale.
“The roman catholic church had given the ok for indulgences for money.”
Nope. There was no Church approved direct exchange of money for indulgences. A contribution was made by those who could make it and it differed from person to person. The contribution was not the only thing involved by any stretch of the imagination so there was no direct exchange of money for the indulgence approved by the Catholic Church. Again, you keep getting it wrong and I can only conclude it’s deliberate.
“There’s no way to deny that.”
Sure there is: It didn’t happen.
“The authority came from Rome....that is the pope.”
Nope. No authority was given for any “ok for indulgences for money.” Never happened.
“However they were distributed or acquired is not the point.”
Actually that’s entirely the point because that is where you find the instructions from the Church on what was and was not approved, permissible. And sales were not permissible.
“The point is they were offering these for money.”
Nope. Again, there were no approved sales - and that’w what you’re describing. Again, the poor could get an indulgence and they had no money so money was not what was essential to get an indulgence - just like today any Catholic can receive an indulgence by simply being disposed to it and doing what is asked for it. No money is necessary at all.
“It’s one of the reasons Luther wrote his protest.”
No. Luther did not oppose contributions to the Church. Luther opposed the selling of indulgences - as did the Church. Luther, however, also had problems with indulgences for other reasons.
“If the rcc had not been doing this, maybe there’s no reformation.”
No, Satan would have simply have caused the division in some other way. There is always scandal in the Church, and there’s always sinners in the Church. What there isn’t supposed to be is schism over. There isn’t supposed to be a sect founded by a German monk rather than the Church founded by Christ.
“Meanwhile in pre-islamic Roman-influenced/persecuted reality land...”minority Christian sects were persecuted as heretic under Roman and Byzantine rules.”
Except in Arabia and Yemen where neither the Romans nor the Byzantines ruled. http://tinyurl.com/gs2x2j8 Now note where St. Aretas was from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najran
That’s just how easy it is to prove you wrong time after time after time after time.
Perhaps God was doing some house cleaning of His ekklesia which existed way before the roman catholic church.
He's done it before and He may be getting ready to do it again.
“Perhaps if the rcc hadn’t been so corrupt then the German monk wouldn’t have had to call them out.”
The Church wasn’t “so corrupt”: http://the-orb.arlima.net/non_spec/missteps/ch11.html
“Perhaps God was doing some house cleaning of His ekklesia which existed way before the roman catholic church.”
No, since the Catholic Church is His “ekklesia” that isn’t it. It was merely Satan gaining a victory through schism. Only Satan inspires schism. The Holy Spirit never does.
“He’s done it before and He may be getting ready to do it again.”
He’s never caused schism before and He never will. Jesus prayed we would be one (John 17:21). Protestants chose otherwise.
Perhaps you’ve overlooked the OT regarding Israel and Judah. There was a lot of house cleaning that happened.
“Perhaps you’ve overlooked the OT regarding Israel and Judah.”
nope.
“There was a lot of house cleaning that happened.”
No schism against the Church is caused by God. Jude 1:19
The whole concept of indulgences for example.
“No one said God caused the schism....”
No, Protestants did.
“man did as man departed from the Truth.”
Yes, Protestants departed from the truth.
“The whole concept of indulgences for example.”
Nope. Protestantism was invented by men. Jesus founded the Catholic Church.
Christ founded the ekklesia. The ekklesia is the body of believers. It's not an institution as the rcc.
There is no mention of the roman catholic church nor any example of the practices of Rome (worship of mary, indulgences, etc) in the early church.
“Christ founded the ekklesia. The ekklesia is the body of believers. It’s not an institution as the rcc.”
Even if all of what you just said is true - and not all of it is - there is still no doubt whatsoever that only men established Protestantism. It is 100% guaranteed to be nothing but a man-made sect or group sects established 1500 years after Christ established “the ekklesia”. That’s why this is another reason to not trust the almost-thinking of Protestant anti-Catholics. Even if one follows their almost-logic, it still shows Protestantism to be nothing more than a latter, man-made, heretical, schismatic sect. That’s all it could be.
“There is no mention of the roman catholic church nor any example of the practices of Rome (worship of mary, indulgences, etc) in the early church.”
Well, since Catholics do not worship Mary there’s no reason to think it would be mentioned. And any Catholic would freely admit that indulgences were a later development albeit one proceeding from the merits of Christ of course. Protestantism, however, was never mentioned in the first 1500 year of the Church, nor were its peculiar doctrines or denials of doctrines part of Christianity. We all know where Protestantism was invented - but you’re not allowed to state where that happened here at FR. The truth is too much for some precious little snowflakes here in the religion forum.
Well, if I claimed to be a protestant you might have an argument and I might be concerned.
However, I identify as a Christian....a follower of Christ just like Paul, Peter and the other Christians we read about in the NT.
Well, since Catholics do not worship Mary there’s no reason to think it would be mentioned.
The catholic has a different definition of worship than the Christian does. But then I've learned on these threads the catholic has redefined a lot of words.
The catholic has idols of mary, they bow before these idols, they offer prayers to these idols while claiming praying to mary, they rely upon mary for salvation, they have invoked titles such as advocate, helper, benefactress and mediatrix for her when none are warranted by the NT.
If you substituted the name of Zeus in the above paragraph you would have no problem identifying those practices as worship.
And any Catholic would freely admit that indulgences were a later development albeit one proceeding from the merits of Christ of course.
Now that is quite an admission on your part. Indulgences came about as a later development. On this you are correct as we do not see indulgences in the New Testament. Why? Because they are not warranted by Scripture.
You prove my point that many of the practices of the rcc are not found in the New Testament.
They did not come from the merits of Christ.
Once we confess our sins to Christ they are forgiven. Completely. There may be consequences to our actions but from Christ's perspective the sin(s) are forgiven.
btw...i will be away from the thread for a while. I have homework for my Greek class that’s due tonight.
Finally, we see the root of your beliefs ... conflation of the religious institutions with THE Ekklesia / Body of Believers in Jesus. Catholiciism is not Christianity, no matter how often you shout or insult or condescend otherwise in defending your institution.
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.