Church Authority and Church Atrocities

[dronald]

I don’t believe we are judging solely on present day conceptions. Didn’t the Popes and Church fathers responsible for the errors have access to natural law, the writings of St Thomas and St Augustine and others, which haven’t changed over time?

If I remember correctly, Augustine wasn’t exactly easy on heretics either.

 

[mardukm]

I’d like to test the consistency of Dronald’s beliefs.

Dronald, could you please respond to my post#66?

Also, please answer this question: Do you believe in the separation of Church and State?

Blessings

 

[frobert]

If I remember correctly, Augustine wasn’t exactly easy on heretics either.

I believe your are correct his writings had and continue to have quite an influence on Church doctrine.

 

[dronald]

I’d like to test the consistency of Dronald’s beliefs.

Dronald, could you please respond to my post#66?

Sure. But, as I said I wasn’t really interested in debating the topic with you because I feel the same way when I debate with creationists or fundamentalists who think the CC is the “whore of babylon” or something like that. People will believe strange things and I do think your belief is strange and it can be mighty stressful knowing that Christians believe the same thing Muslims believe when it comes to killing off those who try and convert one away from the faith.

So do you believe that “execute only if necessary - i.e., when the offender becomes violent to others” of course, this naturally includes a fair trial, and a chance at reform) is an immoral principle?

This is more of a political issue and there are many variables to each case, wouldn’t you agree? Perhaps you can give me a less general example of a situation and I’ll give it my best.
Should someone who is about to murder my daughter be stopped even if it means his life? Yes, I believe so. Should he be murdered for trying to change my daughters beliefs? No.

Let’s take this in context with the OT. God would not rain down fire on a city if Abraham could find even a few righteous people there. So the point is more likely that we cannot judge indiscriminately a whole group of people just because they live in a certain town. Guilt is not by mere association, so it would have been wrong to rain fire on a whole town and kill innocent people. Agreed?
Blessings

Luckily for us, when it comes to passages like this Jesus always gives us context. The reason wasn’t given that “there might be some good people in that city” the reason was “The Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” Immediately after explaining that the Disciples do not know what matter of Spirit they are of.

So you are saying that “hang a millstone around their neck” was a statement that God would do this to their soul - i.e., cast these people to the fires of Gehenna? So if we find someone causing others to stumble in the faith, we should do nothing about it? What is your proposal? What would someone in the Middle Ages have done given their political and social standards?

1.It would have been better that “Judas would have never been born” as well, and yet Jesus did not kill him and when the Disciples fought, Jesus rebuked them. When Christ’s Disciples wanted to make Jesus king by force, He left them. Jesus didn’t only do this because He needed to die for us, He did it because He was acting in absolute perfection and we’re meant to follow His example.

2.There’s a reason the Apostles didn’t go around killing others that rejected them, and why their letters are so honest that Christianity must be spread by love. If someone is causing another to stumble, we must act in love, pray, and do our best to show such a person the right path. Trust in God.

1. I know exactly what they did in the middle ages and I’m glad it’s not that way any more.

It is individuals who act un-Christ like. Do you disagree? Again, I would ask you to answer the first question in this post.

And if you disagree with every one of those individuals who all believe their Church is acting Christ like, and know speaking out could get you labelled a heretic then burned at a stake you do what?

All religions were once bad according to today’s standard. Why did you choose your religion? Is it because it has historically been composed of perfect people who never sinned?

This confuses me… Christianity as it is practised properly now is morally the same and just as perfect as it was meant to be practised before. So no, Christianity has never been bad by today’s standards; in fact it was way ahead and continues to be ahead.

I’d like to test the consistency of Dronald’s beliefs.
Also, please answer this question: Do you believe in the separation of Church and State?

I believe we should render unto Caesar what is his.

 

[jinc1019]

Dear jinc1019,

I wonder where Abu is? He’s the one that started this whole mess.

Mardukm,
After carefully considering your points, I do think that we will just have to agree to disagree on the issue of burning heretics. While I agree with you that Jesus was not necessarily a radical pacifist (Peter did carry a sword!), I think the argument can reasonably be made that a captured individual, imprisoned and bound, is virtually never the kind of threat required of the death penalty. There is quite a difference between binding a person and setting them on fire and shooting an intruder breaking into one’s house or engaging in a justified and moral war.

I think the larger point I was making was not that this one particular argument about burning or “exterminating” heretics is keeping me from being Catholic…It’s numerous other similar teachings that have been delivered by the Pope infallibly (or at least some claim this) as well as some of the decisions of councils (such as the one we discussed regarding the Fourth Lateran Council). Other issues also create a lot of problems…the awarding of indulgences for engaging in the Crusades and the treatment of the Jews are two other examples. I just don’t believe that these teachings could be valid based on the teachings of Christ in plain language AND based on the fact that Church has reversed its position on some of these issues. Forgetting for a moment the issue of infallibility (because one could dispute whether any or all of these teachings I have an issue with are infallibly true or not by Church standards), the simple fact that the Church mandated that these teachings be held by the faithful at large and secular authorities is proof enough of the Church’s failures. I wonder how many Catholics today would stay attached to the Church if it were to come out and say “Jews can no longer hold positions in civil governments.” This is precisely what the Church taught in 1254, and regardless of the “changing times,” it was wrong. The Church isn’t supposed to “change with the times,” it’s supposed to be teaching infallible truths from the very start. It’s supposed to be guiding people toward Christ…Is mistreating Jews guiding others toward Christ? I don’t believe so.

This, of course, doesn’t mean the Church is engaging in such matters today (although I do think there are some errors the Church is teaching.) What it does mean for me, however, is that the Church is capable of authoritatively mandating erroneous teachings, and that is enough to worry me. Because the Church tries to separate errors “in the Church” and “of the Church,” I have absolutely no faith at all that the Church won’t make errors again in the future. It can’t even seem to admit (fully) the mistakes it has made in the past.

I would love to see the whole of Christianity united again, but it will never happen so long as the Church demands nearly absolute obedience and fails to fully live up to its mistakes in the past. Personally, I don’t believe the Eastern Orthodox are close to reuniting to the Church for these very same reasons.

I sympathize greatly with C.S. Lewis on this problem (who himself was essentially an Anglo-Catholic who believed in nearly all the teachings of the Church today as well):

The real reason, I take it, why you [Catholics] cannot be in communion with us [Anglo-Catholics] is not your disagreement with this or that particular Protestant doctrine, so much as the absence of any real “Doctrine”, in your sense of the word, at all. It is, you feel, like asking a man to say he agrees not with a speaker but with a debating society.

And the real reason why I cannot be in communion with you is not my disagreement with this or that Roman doctrine, but that to accept your Church means, not to accept a given body of doctrine, but to accept in advance any doctrine your Church hereafter produces. It is like being asked to agree not only to what a man has said but to what he’s going to say.

To you the real vice of Protestantism is the formless drift which seems unable to retain the Catholic truths, which loses them one by one and ends in a “modernism” which cannot be classified as Christian by any tolerable stretch of the word. To us the terrible thing about Rome is the recklessness (as we hold) with which she has added to the depositum fidei - the tropical fertility, the proliferation, of credenda. You see in Protestantism the Faith dying out in a desert: we see in Rome the Faith smothered in a jungle.

I know no way of bridging this gulf.

Right or wrong, this problem that C.S. Lewis addresses is precisely the internal battle I have with myself on these matters. It’s the same one G.K. Chesterton had as well…except he ended up on the opposite side of Lewis.

 

[mardukm]

Should someone who is about to murder my daughter be stopped even if it means his life? Yes, I believe so. Should he be murdered for trying to change my daughters beliefs? No.

This evidently is the crux of your opinion. You claim that people were being killed, with the approval of the Church, because they were “trying to change someone’s belief.” But brother Dmar’s post revealed that death, according to the directives of the Church, was to be accorded only to those who were violent. The Church did not approve of burning someone simply because he/she was “trying to change someone’s belief.”

Someone brings you solid historical proof that the Catholic Church did not teach what you think it taught, and your reaction is simply to ignore it, throwing aside this historical proof as merely an “excuse” to justify the killings.

I would think the close-mindedness you display is more similar to the close-mindedness of certain Muslims who kill simply because someone is “trying to change someone’s belief.”

Blessings

 

[frobert]

I would love to see the whole of Christianity united again, but it will never happen so long as the Church demands nearly absolute obedience and fails to fully live up to its mistakes in the past.

This is the Church’s double bind. If the CC were to relinquish the veil of infallibility it also gives up being the sole guardian of our spirituality. In effect the CC would be equivalent to Protestant denominations.

 

[dronald]

This evidently is the crux of your opinion. You claim that people were being killed, with the approval of the Church, because they were “trying to change someone’s belief.” But brother Dmar’s post revealed that death, according to the directives of the Church, was to be accorded only to those who were violent. The Church did not approve of burning someone simply because he/she was “trying to change someone’s belief.”

Someone brings you solid historical proof that the Catholic Church did not teach what you think it taught, and your reaction is simply to ignore it, throwing aside this historical proof as merely an “excuse” to justify the killings.

I would think the close-mindedness you display is more similar to the close-mindedness of certain Muslims who kill simply because someone is “trying to change someone’s belief.”

Blessings

Waldo… Wycliffe… Hus, and all their followers.

Luther never felt safe either, and you’ve defended the burning of heretics citing Christ’s “milestone around neck” so if you’ve changed your position in that Christ never called for harm to those who reject Him, then wonderful.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

This is such a tired argument. “EXTERMINATION” could mean either expulsion or death…

It’s a fact in the Middle Ages that when heretics were excommunicated, they were often killed…so “excommunication” was, in many cases, synonomous with executing.

I feel like Alice:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

 

[dmar198]

First,

I greatly appreciate your very long and detailed response. You have, by far, provided the most logical, intelligent, and insightful responses to these issues. I am very thankful for your efforts.

…

Third,
The primary problem I have with your argument is that at the moment these events occur, the Church IS ARGUING that their teachings are moral. And that to me is the most difficult aspect of this. You suggest that we should ignore immoral commands, but who decides what is immoral and what is moral in a church where the hierarchy has the monopoly on those decisions? The laity are required by canon law to follow all moral commands…but the Church is never going to command the laity or other members of the Church to do something it says is immoral. In other words, because the laity have no control over what is and what is not moral, does it matter if there are provisions that say we don’t have to follow immoral teachings? In the case of the Fourth Lateran Council, for instance, the Church warned that ignoring the command to “exterminate” or “expel” meant that a secular authority would lose his or her authority and be excommunicated. So how can you even argue that a choice exists?

…

I also don’t know how you can argue that the immoral and official commands of the Church are somehow separate from the Church itself. It just seems like a lot of unreasonable mental gymnastics. Why isn’t it more reasonable to say: The Catholic Church made mistakes by arguing that it was morally acceptable to “expel” or “exterminate” people just for thinking differently on religious matters. Why isn’t it more reasonable to just admit that the Church can teach things that are wrong? The Church undermines itself by trying so hard to balance demands of absolute obedience with a clear historical record of making immoral demands.

In addition to what I’ve posted before on this thread, I wanted you to know that I’ve been giving your questions a lot of thought in and out of my classes lately, and I had some additional thoughts that I thought you might find helpful.

It is my understanding of Church teaching that the Anathema of the Church falls under the protection of papal infallibility only when it is attached to an ex cathedra papal declaration or a decree of an ecumenical council about faith or morality. Because of this, the threat of excommunication for doing X (or refusing to do Y) doesn’t imply that the X is morally wrong or that Y is morally right. Therefore, if you were excommunicated for disobeying a cleric who told you to do something (e.g. execute a heretic), no matter what order he had given you, even if he was the pope himself, it would not imply that there was any Church teaching declaring that the action commanded of you was morally right. The only thing that could declare the teaching of the Church on the matter infallibly would be if there was an ex cathedra statement, or a decree from a council, that identified the action under question and declared it to be morally right.

If my analysis is correct, then, if you were told by a bishop that, under the authority vested in him by Canon 3 of the 4th Lateran Council, he hereby commanded you to execute a certain heretic; and if you then appealed to the pope, arguing that he had requested his death without good reason; and even if the pope then overruled you and commanded you to execute the heretic, and said that you would be excommunicated unless you did, all of this put together would still not mean that this was okay according to the teaching of the Church. To determine the morality of the command, a Council (or the pope in an ex cathedra statement) would have to decree that it is okay for a heretic to be executed even if he is not an unstoppable violent criminal. That is not what the Fourth Lateran Council decreed, and it is not what Exsurge Domine decreed; therefore, nothing about the Church’s teaching then was contrary to what it is now, even though it is possible that some commands of the Church’s hierarchy were immoral.

Could you consider this analysis thoughtfully and get back to me? I’d also like to see if a Canon Lawyer could verify it; it seems sound to me, but I’m not an expert in Canon Law.

P.S. :: After re-reading parts of the documents of Pope John Paul II I referred you to last time, it appears I oversimplified his teaching. Although he maintains a distinction, it is not quite the “in the Church”/“of the Church” distinction that I mentioned before. He seems to maintain that there is a distinction between the Church in its earthly members and in its heavenly protection that is similar in some ways to the distinction between Christ’s divine and human natures; only with this important difference (among others), that the Church’s heavenly and human elements are not perfectly united.

As a result, it is not false to refer to sins of the Church considered in its human imperfection; but the moral teachings of the Church are part of the heavenly element of the Church, and therefore are not capable of having sin in them, even if the earthly hierarchy of the Church sometimes does not follow them. From this perspective, it would appear possible that the earthly hierarchy of the Church could theoretically command people to do evil, and, if we were convinced in conscience that they were not in keeping with the Church’s teaching, these commands would not oblige us in conscience, and in such cases what the faithful ought to do is ask for a conciliar or ex cathedra declaration to be given about the morality of the command, knowing that that declaration would be protected by the charism of infallibility.

 

[steve_b]

Waldo… Wycliffe… Hus, and all their followers.

Luther never felt safe either,

This is a subject that comes up over and over again. Here’s how I responded to that 2 years ago. 486

If the Catholic Church was guilty of doing what you suggest, why did the Church even bother spending all that time trying to dialogue with this heretic? What made him any different than any other heretic? Why even bother excommunicating him if they were going to burn him at the stake anyway? (see documents below) Why bother promising him a gurantee of safe passage to and from Rome to dialogue with the pope if the Church had plans to do with Luther what they are being accused of doing to ALL heretics anyway? The guy died in his bed. How did THAT happen? The reason is, the Church doesn’t murder, kill, burn people at the stake yada yada and you saw the canons (i.e. Church laws) as evidence writing against such activities…

Do individuals mob up and do bad stuff? Yeah.

example

Joe Biden, Catherine Sabillius, Nancy Palosi, the Cuomo’s, etc etc call themselves “Catholics”. They are hugely pro choice i.e. (do what you want when it comes to life issues) and because they are high up in government, they can and do throw tons of money at the the abortion industry to support it and their work, not only here but around the world. They effect then, in a huge way, public policy in this country on life issues. Now they are not the only ones of course. Protestants do the same thing. But on policy, you can’t tell the difference between pro choice people. However, Re: the flow of the topic at hand, this would translate to, in the mind of the anti Catholic, that the Catholic Church is into baby killing and infanticide worldwide etc etc. Ignoring the fact the Catholic Church condemns what those “Catholics” do. And the Church writes clearly on what is and what is not proper behavior for a Catholic. That doesn’t mean a Catholic or group of Catholics won’t go rogue.

Think about it in another context. God made everything. Do you blame God then for everything that goes wrong?

The Church writing to Luther

Luther, Exsurge Domine, Bull of Leo X

then came
Decet Romanum Pontificem

 

[Isaiah45_9]

If you know the truth, would you deny it?

I mean, do the sins of some deny the good works of many?

We can’t cover the sun with the palm of our hands and pretend it’s not there.

At the same time, I think it is a bit hypocritical to claim not to join a Church because of the sinful acts of some.

I mean, would you like to go into the past history of your family and discover atrocities made by some of you family members?

Would those atrocities make you any less the person you are today?

Would those atrocities mean that you have no room to grow and become better?

Would those atrocities mean that you are bound to make them over and over again?

Is it fair for others to point at the sins of your fathers every single day for the rest of your life?

Would you deny your heritage and your family and make a new last name and start a new?

Those are important questions to consider.

[bibledrb]1 Thessalonians 5:21[/bibledrb]

Have you read into these things that you don’t like?

Have you examined the sources, both for and against?

There is no need to try and justify criminal acts and wrongful acts.

There is no need to admit to criminal and wrongful acts that are inaccurate and/or exaggerated.

[bibledrb]1 Thessalonians 5:21[/bibledrb]

Is it better to consciously join a body that has its roots in dissension and ignore the truth that has been made known to you and risk you soul in the process?

Or is it better to be humble and when proven wrong to apologize and make a conscious effort to correct our actions?

Is it not better to submit oneself to the revelation of truth given to us?

If there is one thing we should learn from the Reformation is Luther’s own prayer:

Because acting against one’s conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen.

I wonder if Luther stayed true to his prayer throughout the mess. Once he realized the political mess that followed and the religious anarchy that was born.

If you know and understand the Catholic Church and Her origins, there should be no doubt on what do do next. You take the good and you take the bad.

[bibledrb]Matthew 5:43-48[/bibledrb]

We have had really bad Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests and Laity - and we will probably have many more.

But we have had really good Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests and Laity - and we will probably have many more.

Are not basing our theology based on works if we only belong to a Church that has no sinners? Like there is such a thing…

 

[mardukm]

Waldo… Wycliffe… Hus, and all their followers.

And Catholics never felt safe in Protestant-ruled lands during those times either. Should that be used as an argument to reject Protestantism? Please respond.

and you’ve defended the burning of heretics citing Christ’s “milestone around neck”

I did not defend the burning of heretics. I was contending the idea that the Pope saying (not infallibly, mind you, though there are some misguided Catholics who would say so) it is not an error to burn heretics “denies Christ’s teachings” and that Christ “never taught such things.” Do you understand the difference? If not, I’ll try to explain it more when I come back tomorrow (and I’ll also give a more detailed response to one of your earlier posts).

so if you’ve changed your position in that Christ never called for harm to those who reject Him, then wonderful.

I haven’t changed my position because I never held the position of which you accuse me. On the other hand, it seems you blithely slough off any attempt to try to understand what actually went on during those harsh times as a “defense of burning heretics.” Close-mindedness is a root cause of violence, so I hope you will relax a bit on the matter.

Blessings

[/QUOTE]

 

[dronald]

This is a subject that comes up over and over again. Here’s how I responded to that 2 years ago. 486

If the Catholic Church was guilty of doing what you suggest, why did the Church even bother spending all that time trying to dialogue with this heretic? What made him any different than any other heretic? Why even bother excommunicating him if they were going to burn him at the stake anyway? (see documents below) Why bother promising him a gurantee of safe passage to and from Rome to dialogue with the pope if the Church had plans to do with Luther what they are being accused of doing to ALL heretics anyway? The guy died in his bed. How did THAT happen? The reason is, the Church doesn’t murder, kill, burn people at the stake yada yada and you saw the canons (i.e. Church laws) as evidence writing against such activities…

Do individuals mob up and do bad stuff? Yeah.

example

Joe Biden, Catherine Sabillius, Nancy Palosi, the Cuomo’s, etc etc call themselves “Catholics”. They are hugely pro choice i.e. (do what you want when it comes to life issues) and because they are high up in government, they can and do throw tons of money at the the abortion industry to support it and their work, not only here but around the world. They effect then, in a huge way, public policy in this country on life issues. Now they are not the only ones of course. Protestants do the same thing. But on policy, you can’t tell the difference between pro choice people. However, Re: the flow of the topic at hand, this would translate to, in the mind of the anti Catholic, that the Catholic Church is into baby killing and infanticide worldwide etc etc. Ignoring the fact the Catholic Church condemns what those “Catholics” do. And the Church writes clearly on what is and what is not proper behavior for a Catholic. That doesn’t mean a Catholic or group of Catholics won’t go rogue.

Think about it in another context. God made everything. Do you blame God then for everything that goes wrong?

The Church writing to Luther

Luther, Exsurge Domine, Bull of Leo X

then came
Decet Romanum Pontificem

I don’t mind the Church now, I think I have been consistent with this point. The issue is the time and the place, and the people who peacefully stood against tyranny. When a Pope thinks he has the authority to dig up the remains of a dead person who committed no crime other than speak out against Catholicism, give a mock execution and burn the remains, throwing them into water; perhaps one ought to rethink their position whether or not they want to be in that Church at that time?

For me to stand with the apostate and say, “Yeah, you can’t do that, you’re being evil!” Then likewise be burned at a stake, again, perhaps there’s a group of Christians who really do believe in giving everything to the poor, preaching Christ, the Bible, etc that won’t murder me if I disagree. Waldo tried, Hus tried, Wycliffe tried, Luther succeeded. And how has the Catholic Church been ever since? Yes, perhaps there is an English Church, a “Evangelical Catholic” Church, or Evangelicals who follow much of what Hus and Waldo taught, but we’re needed to stop one Church to claim absolute authority and begin murdering others.

The CC is doing well now, and I’m happy for them.

 

[dronald]

And Catholics never felt safe in Protestant-ruled lands during those times either. Should that be used as an argument to reject Protestantism? Please respond.

Yes. If Protestants threatened to murder me if I became Catholic and the Catholic Church was seeking to give me refuge and love, not repaying evil with evil of course I would see Catholicism as the right Church.

I did not defend the burning of heretics. I was contending the idea that the Pope saying (not infallibly, mind you, though there are some misguided Catholics who would say so) it is not an error to burn heretics “denies Christ’s teachings” and that Christ “never taught such things.” Do you understand the difference? If not, I’ll try to explain it more when I come back tomorrow (and I’ll also give a more detailed response to one of your earlier posts).

Christ never taught such things, He did teach such things, or He was silent on such issues? Can you let me know what your position is then? Because I still disagree with you.

I haven’t changed my position because I never held the position of which you accuse me. On the other hand, it seems you blithely slough off any attempt to try to understand what actually went on during those harsh times as a “defense of burning heretics.” Close-mindedness is a root cause of violence, so I hope you will relax a bit on the matter.

I haven’t ignored any of your points, if there’s another you want me to touch on that you think I intentionally ignored then I’ll do my best to touch on it.

Also, being firmly against your belief does not make me close-minded. I am not open to the idea of burning heretics ever being okay for the crime of being a heretic or bringing others into heresy. Perhaps that’s why I’m close minded?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

dronald:

Yes. If Protestants threatened to murder me if I became Catholic and the Catholic Church was seeking to give me refuge and love, not repaying evil with evil of course I would see Catholicism as the right Church.

You would have made a fine Catholic in Elizabethan England then.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Yes. If Protestants threatened to murder me if I became Catholic and the Catholic Church was seeking to give me refuge and love, not repaying evil with evil of course I would see Catholicism as the right Church.

That’s a 2-way street dronald. And on bad act does not justify another bad act, but for you to come here all judging and righteous makes you sound like the Pharisee in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. “Oh I can’t be Catholic and associate with those sinners and like” or “I can’t associate myself with the Orthodox, they are sinners and like”, or “I can’t associate with the major Protestant denominations like Lutherans and Calvin and others, they too have a muddy history”, I’ll just join a bunch of happy good people with no history or a history that I don’t have to worry about what others think… That is until a Pastor from whatever branch you decide on, gets arrested for something or is accused of something… Then I’ll join another Church of happy good people with no history or a history that I don’t have to worry about what others think…

I mean, come on!!! How much secular can you be!?

We can’t pretend to live in a bubble free of sinners that will make mistakes and atrocities… Try a career in law enforcement to see what your expectations for humanity in general is shaken to the ground… It doesn’t matter the denomination, affiliation, politics, economical status, race, background, education, whatever else you want to think about… We sin and we are very dam good about it. To our own detriment…

Get off you High Pony Horse and stop pointing the finger at your brother’s speck and work on the log in your own eye.

 

[dronald]

That’s a 2-way street dronald. And on bad act does not justify another bad act, but for you to come here all judging and righteous makes you sound like the Pharisee in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. “Oh I can’t be Catholic and associate with those sinners and like” or “I can’t associate myself with the Orthodox, they are sinners and like”, or “I can’t associate with the major Protestant denominations like Lutherans and Calvin and others, they too have a muddy history”, I’ll just join a bunch of happy good people with no history or a history that I don’t have to worry about what others think… That is until a Pastor from whatever branch you decide on, gets arrested for something or is accused of something… Then I’ll join another Church of happy good people with no history or a history that I don’t have to worry about what others think…

I mean, come on!!! How much secular can you be!?

We can’t pretend to live in a bubble free of sinners that will make mistakes and atrocities… Try a career in law enforcement to see what your expectations for humanity in general is shaken to the ground… It doesn’t matter the denomination, affiliation, politics, economical status, race, background, education, whatever else you want to think about… We sin and we are very dam good about it. To our own detriment…

Get off you High Pony Horse and stop pointing the finger at your brother’s speck and work on the log in your own eye.

You’re way off in what I’m getting at.

So you would support your Church if it’s killing the innocent out of fear that you may be killed as well? Or would you be killed? Or what if a Christian group is being murdered, you wouldn’t support them?

 

[TRH1292]

I believe what dronald is trying to get at here, is that although several protestant reformers did some pretty bad things, he doesn’t support that or associate himself with it. Unlike Catholics, who(in his view) have to stand by and defend a corrupt and dictatorial Church, because the Catholic Church is always the true Church and the Pope always has authority.

 

[dronald]

I believe what dronald is trying to get at here, is that although several protestant reformers did some pretty bad things, he doesn’t support that or associate himself with it. Unlike Catholics, who(in his view) have to stand by and defend a corrupt and dictatorial Church, because the Catholic Church is always the true Church and the Pope always has authority.

Thanks, I like how you articulated this well; perhaps I need to work on the way I do because I seem to get misunderstood?

I will add “at that time” to what you say though. Pretend that my pastor tells the congregation we must start killing Catholics because they’re worshiping Mary or something. Now, if my whole Church supported him, and then the police supported him, and then everyone except for the CC supported him, I could easily pick up my Bible and go with those who are acting in Christ’s nature. Perhaps I could stand up and say, “You guys are wrong!” but that will only get me killed. Should I just play along with my Church?

Therefore I see no harm in what, let’s say Peter Waldo did; and then his followers were hunted down and murdered as well.

I’m not “holier than thou” I just wouldn’t support my Church if it was killing people, and I would choose a Church that is Christ centered if it was a choice of running to them, or my life. And even those who found refuge in other Church’s were not safe from the CC.