"Horrors" Commited By the RCC

[Ianjo99]

While I do think that many of the charges brought against the Church have been blown out of proportion in order to defame Catholicism, don’t you think it seems a bit blind to argue for the impeccability of the Church’s members? Although we all agree that the Church (theologically and as a whole) is the “spotless bride” of Christ, it smacks of revisionist history to argue that all the problems (crusades, inquisition, murders of protestants) were blown up to hurt Catholicism. Part of sounding like a respectable institiution and a responsible leader of the world is owning up to past mistakes. Even if we killed one person during any of these events, that is still a mistake. We can’t equate life by the numbers.

Also, saying the Protestantism has done atrocious things doesn’t really matter, given that they don’t consider any of their leaders to hold infallibility in any way (regardless of their misunderstanding of our magistarium’s infallibility). And given their lack of a centralized authority, why would arguing their memebers have done terrible things have any impact?

Not to play devil’s advocate, but we need to recognize where we (by we I mean the Church’s members) have messed up in the past and avoid those mistakes in the future.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

ThisOne:

Martin Luther is no exemplar of Christianity – not by a long shot.

That’s odd, the Catholic hymnal in my wife’s parish has a song written by him: A Mighty Fortress is our God.

Peace to you,
Richard

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Peace be with you!

Richard_Hurtz:

You ought to get your ‘facts’ straight.

1. No one accused of witchcraft at Salem was ever burned. We can’t say that about the Crusades where Jews, Muslilms, and even other Christians were burned inside their houses of worship, by Crusaders. I have found no objective source documenting torture of accused witches in Salem. If you have one, please provide it.** They did not burn them, but they did hang them. I wrote a paper on the Salem witch trials a couple years ago but it’s at my parent’s computer and not at my apartment. If you like, I could try to find it again next time I’m over there and give you the sources I used.**

1a.) Most of those involved in the killing of those accused of witchcraft in this episode confessed that they were wrong and repented, themselves, in their own lifetime, they didn’t have someone else do it for them hundreds of years after the fact.

1b.) The Crusades lasted for over 200 years. The entire Salem witchcraft ‘episode’ lasted for approximately FOUR MONTHS.

1. Under most of the time of Muslim possession of the Holy Land (up until the First Crusade), pilgrims (and Jews) were left alone. In fact, Caliph Harun al-Rashid (763-809) allowed Charlemagne to endow a hostel in Jerusalem for the use by pilgrim traffic.
   Travel to the Holy Land became perilous under a particular Egyptian ruler of Palestine, Hakim (c.996-1021), who abandoned the tolerant practices of his predecessors, and began to persecute Christians and Jews. Also, the decline of Byzantine power and Turkish civil wars made travel to Palestine dangerous as well. The notion that Muslim control of the Holy Land was nothing more than ‘ransacking and raping’ is a gross oversimplification. I just studied the crusades for an entire term, reading almost exclusively primary sources. My instructor was not Catholic either, so there was no attempt to “whitewash” anything. As you pointed out, Christians and Jews began to be persecuted…no need to help them out? The Byzantine Empire was being overrun (I believe there had been two or three sieges of Constantinople) and there were threats of Muslim expansion into Western Europe from both Byzantium in the East and Spain in the West…no need to prevent that from happening? I agree that the notion that the Muslims were simply “ransacking and raping” is a misrepresentation. But the Muslims were not treated terribly when the Christians held Jerusalem. I read a source from an ARAB historian who was in a mosque in Jerusalem (I believe this may have even been the Al-aqsa Mosque) and saw a Frankish man come in and start yelling obsenities and threats at the Muslims. The Templars then forceably removed this man from the mosque so the Muslims could pray in peace. The Arab historian then goes on to say that the Templars often kept the peace and were stationed at the mosques to ensure that people like that were kept out.
2. Since when does conducting a war and killing ‘the accursed’ as Urban II termed the Muslim, merit an indulgence?** An indulgence was granted to those whom, after recieving absolution of all confessed sins, were killed in battle fighting to defend other Christians from their persecutors, who happened to be the Muslims (or heretics, if you were on crusade in northern Europe, sourthern France, or southern Italy). There were not given to someone for killing a Muslim.**
3. I find the attempt to distance the papacy from the the atrocities committed during the Crusades to be laughable. Urban II essentially instructs the faithful at Claremont to stop killing each other in Europe and go kill in the Holy Land. He knew they were ‘warring’, he knew of the damage that armies on the move caused. To claim that the actions of the ‘laity’ were somehow unforeseeable is disingenuous in the extreme especially after the First Crusade. Warfare is ugly business, especially medieval warfare. But as I briefly explained above, this was a necessary undertaking. It takes force of arms to stop invading armies and oftentimes force of arms equals war. And like I said, war is ugly.
4. Since when is the Kingdom of Christ advanced by the sword? It was not advanced, but protected. Read St. Augustines letter on just war and you’ll see, after a study of it and the events of the time period leading up to the crusades (which was the topic of a paper I wrote a few months ago) that the crusades (at least, the first three) do fall under the category of just war.

Protestants have ‘no room to talk’ because they need to repent of their own sins. The same can be said of Catholics as well. Pointing out another denominations’ failures to adhere to Christian behavior is not a defense. It’s a device to avoid admitting one’s own mistakes. Peace,
Richard

cont’d below

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

con’d

The case, however, often happens to be that Protestants make claims and assertions to Catholics on having a bloody and oppressive past while overlooking what Protestants have done. It is legitimate to point out that members of our faith are not the only ones that have made mistakes. Protestants often, when making these claims, portray Catholics as the ONLY ones who have made mistakes in the past. You said earlier that the people responsible for the killings in Salem apologized themselves and didn’t have people apologize for them hundreds of years later. Good for them…that is a good thing. But as far as Protestant oppression of Catholics, the English TO THIS DAY have not apologized to Irish Catholics for hundreds of years of oppression, theft, and murder because of their religion (and also race, but religion was a main thing too).

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Ianjo99]

Rand Al'Thor:

con’d

The case, however, often happens to be that Protestants make claims and assertions to Catholics on having a bloody and oppressive past while overlooking what Protestants have done. It is legitimate to point out that members of our faith are not the only ones that have made mistakes. Protestants often, when making these claims, portray Catholics as the ONLY ones who have made mistakes in the past. You said earlier that the people responsible for the killings in Salem apologized themselves and didn’t have people apologize for them hundreds of years later. Good for them…that is a good thing. But as far as Protestant oppression of Catholics, the English TO THIS DAY have not apologized to Irish Catholics for hundreds of years of oppression, theft, and murder because of their religion (and also race, but religion was a main thing too).

In Christ,
Rand

Shouldn’t we hold ourselves to higher standards than to say that we aren’t to blame for our mistakes because we were persecuted in the past? Turn the other cheek, something along those lines?

 

[JimmyV]

Richard_Hurtz:

You ought to get your ‘facts’ straight.

Three Cheers for the Crusades!!! A great effort on the part of of the Church, unfortunately, the Muslim won.

1b.) The Crusades lasted for over 200 years. The entire Salem witchcraft ‘episode’ lasted for approximately FOUR MONTHS.

1. Under most of the time of Muslim possession of the Holy Land (up until the First Crusade), pilgrims (and Jews) were left alone. In fact, Caliph Harun al-Rashid (763-809) allowed Charlemagne to endow a hostel in Jerusalem for the use by pilgrim traffic.
   Travel to the Holy Land became perilous under a particular Egyptian ruler of Palestine, Hakim (c.996-1021), who abandoned the tolerant practices of his predecessors, and began to persecute Christians and Jews. Also, the decline of Byzantine power and Turkish civil wars made travel to Palestine dangerous as well. The notion that Muslim control of the Holy Land was nothing more than ‘ransacking and raping’ is a gross oversimplification.
2. Since when does conducting a war and killing ‘the accursed’ as Urban II termed the Muslim, merit an indulgence?
3. I find the attempt to distance the papacy from the the atrocities committed during the Crusades to be laughable. Urban II essentially instructs the faithful at Claremont to stop killing each other in Europe and go kill in the Holy Land. He knew they were ‘warring’, he knew of the damage that armies on the move caused. To claim that the actions of the ‘laity’ were somehow unforeseeable is disingenuous in the extreme especially after the First Crusade.

Peace,
Richard

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

Rand Al'Thor:

But the Muslims were not treated terribly when the Christians held Jerusalem. I read a source from an ARAB historian who was in a mosque in Jerusalem (I believe this may have even been the Al-aqsa Mosque) and saw a Frankish man come in and start yelling obsenities and threats at the Muslims. The Templars then forceably removed this man from the mosque so the Muslims could pray in peace. The Arab historian then goes on to say that the Templars often kept the peace and were stationed at the mosques to ensure that people like that were kept out.

I think you should review this.

Runciman’s text makes the assertion that virtually all the Muslims and Jews were killed by the Crusaders upon the capture of Jerusalem. The notable exceptions were the ruling caliph(? forget name) and his immediate retinue which paid a vast ransom to be released. These were hold up in a tower (David’s Tower?). Those in the Al-aqsa mosque were all killed. In fact, when one of the leaders of the crusaders went into the mosque he had to step over the bodies of all of the dead with blood knee deep.

I don’t have the text here with me but will review it tonight.

I agree that a blow by blow of who did what to whom is only illustrative that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”

Peace to you,
Richard

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

JimmyV:

Three Cheers for the Crusades!!! A great effort on the part of of the Church, unfortunately, the Muslim won.

When you give three cheers for the Crusades, are any of those cheers allotted for the Fourth Crusade or the Children’s Crusade?

Which Crusades are you cheering for?

As far as a great effort on the part of the church. I’m assuming that the ‘great effort’ was in motivating the Crusaders to go on Crusade (i.e. in proclaiming that this was preferable to waging war against each other in Europe) but not in the actual training, outfitting, provisioning, or transporting of the Crusaders.

Did the ‘great effort’ include preventing the ransacking and looting of fellow Christians’ (Catholics) property on the way to the Holy Land?

Urban II gave one of history’s greatest ‘pep talks’ at Claremont. All of Europe was energized to go on Crusade. However, the Crusades produced no lasting gains either in retaining control of the Holy Land (the crusaders lost control of Jerusalem 88 years after capturing it) or of repairing the split with the Orthodox church (one Urban’s desires) or of keeping the Holy Land accessible to pilgrims (another of Urban’s goals). The relations both with the Orthodox church and the Muslims was far worse off after the Crusades than before.

But hey, if you find that worth cheering about - more power to ya’

Peace,
Richard

 

[DeusLeVolt]

Richard_Hurtz:

You ought to get your ‘facts’ straight.

1. No one accused of witchcraft at Salem was ever burned. We can’t say that about the Crusades where Jews, Muslilms, and even other Christians were burned inside their houses of worship, by Crusaders. I have found no objective source documenting torture of accused witches in Salem. If you have one, please provide it.

1b.) The Crusades lasted for over 200 years. The entire Salem witchcraft ‘episode’ lasted for approximately FOUR MONTHS.

1. Under most of the time of Muslim possession of the Holy Land (up until the First Crusade), pilgrims (and Jews) were left alone. In fact, Caliph Harun al-Rashid (763-809) allowed Charlemagne to endow a hostel in Jerusalem for the use by pilgrim traffic.
   Travel to the Holy Land became perilous under a particular Egyptian ruler of Palestine, Hakim (c.996-1021), who abandoned the tolerant practices of his predecessors, and began to persecute Christians and Jews. Also, the decline of Byzantine power and Turkish civil wars made travel to Palestine dangerous as well. The notion that Muslim control of the Holy Land was nothing more than ‘ransacking and raping’ is a gross oversimplification.
2. Since when does conducting a war and killing ‘the accursed’ as Urban II termed the Muslim, merit an indulgence?
3. I find the attempt to distance the papacy from the the atrocities committed during the Crusades to be laughable. Urban II essentially instructs the faithful at Claremont to stop killing each other in Europe and go kill in the Holy Land. He knew they were ‘warring’, he knew of the damage that armies on the move caused. To claim that the actions of the ‘laity’ were somehow unforeseeable is disingenuous in the extreme especially after the First Crusade.
4. Since when is the Kingdom of Christ advanced by the sword?

You are right that the accused at the Salem Witch Trials were not burned. They were all either hanged, or crushed by large stones.

Per the Crusades, they were for the most part a defensive measure. Islam was a religion of conquest, Christianity at the time was not. The land grab that the Muslims had made was unlike any seen since the hay-day of the Roman Empire. Most of the land that they plundered was actually Christian land, laced with many churches and the relics of saints. Funny thing is, people accuse the Church for not ever electing a pope from anywhere besides Europe. However, the RCC elected a number of popes from Asia and Africa prior to the Muslim conquest.

We descendents of Western and Northern Europe don’t like to admit it, but we have not always been the most technologically advanced society. During the Crusades, the Muslim weaponry, tactics, and leadership was superior to that of the Crusaders. Had the Crusaders not fought and stalled the Muslims as long as they did, Christendom may have been swallowed up, as it almost was in Spain in the 11-14 century, Constantinople in 1453, and even Southern Italy where the Turks launched a failed naval invasion in 1571. (thanks to Pope St. Pius V instituting the Feast of the Holy Rosary).

My question is, how long should the Christendom have waited before fighting the Muslims? It was a defensive measure. If capturing Jerusalem was so important to the Church don’t you think we’d still be trying to take it?

A priest I am good friends with recently received a letter from a disgruntled couple who decided that they were leaving the Church to go find the perfect and true church. The preist responded by saying, “Very well, and when you find this church, do not join it, because then it won’t be perfect anymore.”

Moral of the story: It’s not the Church that is the problem, it is we in the Church who are. The Church as Christ founded it was perfect. We (popes, bishops, priests, lay people. even saints) screwed it up. The Church is two institutions: both human and divine. The human institution may sin, but you cannot blame these sins on the divine institution.

Jesus did not gaurantee that his church would be without sin. He gauranteed it one thing and one thing only: final victory.

 

[ByzantineCatho]

Moral of the story: It’s not the Church that is the problem, it is we in the Church who are. The Church as Christ founded it was perfect. We (popes, bishops, priests, lay people. even saints) screwed it up. The Church is two institutions: both human and divine. The human institution may sin, but you cannot blame these sins on the divine institution.

Jesus did not gaurantee that his church would be without sin. He gauranteed it one thing and one thing only: final victory.

:yup:

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Richard_Hurtz:

I think you should review this.

Runciman’s text makes the assertion that virtually all the Muslims and Jews were killed by the Crusaders upon the capture of Jerusalem. The notable exceptions were the ruling caliph(? forget name) and his immediate retinue which paid a vast ransom to be released. These were hold up in a tower (David’s Tower?). Those in the Al-aqsa mosque were all killed. In fact, when one of the leaders of the crusaders went into the mosque he had to step over the bodies of all of the dead with blood knee deep.

I don’t have the text here with me but will review it tonight.

I agree that a blow by blow of who did what to whom is only illustrative that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”

Peace to you,
Richard

Peace be with you!

I haven’t read Runciman, but I am familiar with the fall of Jerusalem (I figured you would most likely mention it). Was it terrible? Certainly. Was it taken too far? Certainly. But, as I said earlier, medieval warfare was ugly business and that is how cities were taken in the Middle Ages (sacking). In fact, the surrender of Jerusalem to Saladin’s army was to avoid that happening if the Muslims had to take the city by force. And, contrary to the depiction of that event in Kingdom of Heaven, Saladin ordered every Christian symbol in the city torn down and destroyed.
Atrocities were committed by both sides, but then atrocities happen in every war. I think most everyone would agree that WWII was a just war, and the Allied troops certainly did some things that were not very honorable. Same with the crusades. Just because it was a war fought under religious symbols and beliefs, modern (often non-religious) historians cannot comprehend it and write it off as being “wrong” or “irrational”.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

DeusLeVolt:

Per the Crusades, they were for the most part a defensive measure. Islam was a religion of conquest, Christianity at the time was not. The land grab that the Muslims had made was unlike any seen since the hay-day of the Roman Empire. Most of the land that they plundered was actually Christian land, laced with many churches and the relics of saints. Funny thing is, people accuse the Church for not ever electing a pope from anywhere besides Europe. However, the RCC elected a number of popes from Asia and Africa prior to the Muslim conquest.

We descendents of Western and Northern Europe don’t like to admit it, but we have not always been the most technologically advanced society. During the Crusades, the Muslim weaponry, tactics, and leadership was superior to that of the Crusaders. Had the Crusaders not fought and stalled the Muslims as long as they did, Christendom may have been swallowed up, as it almost was in Spain in the 11-14 century, Constantinople in 1453, and even Southern Italy where the Turks launched a failed naval invasion in 1571. (thanks to Pope St. Pius V instituting the Feast of the Holy Rosary).

My question is, how long should the Christendom have waited before fighting the Muslims? It was a defensive measure. If capturing Jerusalem was so important to the Church don’t you think we’d still be trying to take it?

A priest I am good friends with recently received a letter from a disgruntled couple who decided that they were leaving the Church to go find the perfect and true church. The preist responded by saying, “Very well, and when you find this church, do not join it, because then it won’t be perfect anymore.”

Moral of the story: It’s not the Church that is the problem, it is we in the Church who are. The Church as Christ founded it was perfect. We (popes, bishops, priests, lay people. even saints) screwed it up. The Church is two institutions: both human and divine. The human institution may sin, but you cannot blame these sins on the divine institution.

Jesus did not gaurantee that his church would be without sin. He gauranteed it one thing and one thing only: final victory.

From your definition above as to the Crusades as a defensive war I get the idea that you are in favor of the principle of preemption. Very good.

However you are largely incorrect about your view of the Crusades being initiated as ‘for the most part’ a ‘defensive measure’ for Western Europe - it was not. It was initiated to aid the Byzantines (that CAN be considered defense, but only as a secondary effect, the defense of Constantinople being the primary defensive purpose), regain the Holy Land, and last but certainly not least was to provide opportunity to capture lands as a release for the second, third, etc…sons of the nobility who because of primogeniture were deprived of land through inheritence.

Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulcher-, wrest that land (Holy Land) from the wicked race, and subject it to yourselves. That land which, as the Scripture says, `floweth with milk and honey’ was given by God into the power of the children of Israel. Jerusalem is the center of the earth ; the land is fruitful above all others, like another paradise of delights. This spot the Redeemer of mankind has made illustrious by his advent, has beautified by his sojourn, has consecrated by his passion, has redeemed by his death, has glorified by his burial.

This royal city, however, situated at the center of the earth, is now held captive by the enemies of Christ and is subjected, by those who do not know God, to the worship the heathen. She seeks, therefore, and desires to be liberated and ceases not to implore you to come to her aid. From you especially she asks succor, because as we have already said, God has conferred upon you above all other nations great glory in arms. Accordingly, undertake this journey eagerly for the remission of your sins, with the assurance of the reward of imperishable glory in the kingdon of heaven…"

(Note to RandAl’Thor - nowhere does it say anything about confession, but “undertake this journey for the remission of your sins…”)

It looks like the ‘relief’ of Jerusalem was important enough to mention it. Furthermore, Jerusalem was always the strategic goal. The capture or destruction of every other city, fortress, or citadel was evaluated on whether or not it aided that very objective, in addition to whether or not the capturing Crusader could maintain possession of it in contravention of his oath to return the captured cities to Emperor Alexius.

Lastly, I have this question: What constitutes THE Church in your view?

It’s not the Church that is the problem, it is we in the Church who are.

If THE Church is not made up of those that are in it, what makes up THE Church?

Blessings,
Richard

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

Rand Al'Thor:

Saladin ordered every Christian symbol in the city torn down and destroyed.

Even the Crusaders admired Saladin for his ‘chivalry’. While he may have permitted the destruction of Christian symbols he did not permit the wholesale slaughter of Christians and Jews. As you point out, that was rather exceptional ‘back in the day’.

Peace,
Richard

 

[rwoehmke]

Apparently we have not yet learned that “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” One could go far back in History to the Greeks and Romans before the Catholic Church even started for a little blood letting. Maybe later the “rape” of the Western World by Mongols and Tarters. Protestant Americans wiping out the ignorant savages of North America at about the same time the Catholic Spaniards were doing a job on natives of South America. Or maybe Kaiser Bills anti-Catholic Prussia stirring up WW I. Would you try to say that the Church caused WW II ( I guess Hitler was a Catholic by birth but how to explain the Japanese or was it all set up by the Catholics under Mussolini?) The invasion of Korea by the Chinese. Seems like humanity has never needed the Church to shed a little blood. The numbers of folks killed in the Crusades, the Inquistionm etc. totally pales in light of the tallies rung up by the many other conflicts from very early history to our present day in Iraq. How stone ignorant can people be to lay all this violence at the foot of the Church? Give me a break!

 

[Alfie]

Thal59:

For the sake of fairness, you might want to look into a variety of Protestant atrocities. For instance…

1. During the reformation, several hundred churches and monestaries in England alone were plundered and priests and nuns were murdered. Thousands of the poorest of the poor, who could receive medical attention nowhere else but in these sites, where expelled and many died in the fields or by the roadsides. (We’re talking several hundred to a few thousand dead here all in all.)
2. Martin Luther incited the German princes to plunder the RCC in Germany the same way the English did in their country. It was assumed that the German princes would give a sizeable portion of the plunder to Luther for the purpose of funding the new German state church. When the German princes decided to keep the booty, Luther incited the peasantry to rebel against the princes who of course had the benefit of militias: hence the near 250,000 massacred peasants known as the “Peasant wars” I mentioned earlier. (Luther then distanced himself from the carnage with his writting he titled “Against thieving, murdering Peasants.”)
3. The vast majority, if not all, of the slave owners in America before, during, and after the war of Independence were Protestant. It was by the decision of the Baptist church in the early 18th century that, in order to show a black male slave who had escaped and been captured, that all he had or ever will have belongs to the white master - said slave would be castrated.
4. After the Stono Rebellion, the decision to execute all captured rebelling slaves, even those who surrendered peacefully, was instituted by the Presbyterian church who also established the practice of decapitating the victims and mounting the heads along the roadsides at the mile markers to discourage other slaves from rebelling.
5. The KKK, as we know it today, was a defunct society resurrected just before the first world war by a former Methodist minister. This society of white-anglo-saxon-protestants targeted blacks - Catholics - Jews - foreigners; in that order. There is no way to chronicle how many people from these four target groups were lynched/murdered but most scholars conservatively estimate several hundred.

Please note that these murders occured in the US in the 20th century.

I always find it amusing when a Protestant goes back several centuries to stir up dirt against the RCC.

Thal59

There have always been reformers who have opposed the RCC that have been killed by the Catholic Church long before Martin Luther came along. The RCC always managed to snuff out any descent by religious reformers who opposed the Church up until the time of Luther. The Czech Jan Huss is just one of many reformers who have been martyred. He was burned to death in 1415 by the Catholic Church along with many of his follows. The difference between other reformers and Luther was that Luther was able to succeed with the Reformation. Luther was influenced by the writings of Huss and the Bible. After the Reformation there were groups like the French Huguenots that were forced to flee France or they were killed.

Less than ten percent of Southern Protestants owned slaves. Protestant America also fought the Civil War to free the slaves. Close to a million people died in that war. There are also some cases of slaves being owned by Catholics in the South. The writer Margaret Mitchell wrote “Gone With the Wind”. In the book Scarlett O’Hara is a Catholic. Why? Because Mitchell came from a Catholic family that owned slaves. One of her grandfathers fought against the English in Ireland while he owned slaves in America. Ironic isn’t it? Don’t forget that the first slaves that were brought to the Americas were brought here by the Spanish and Portugese who were also Catholic. Catholics killed large numbers of Indians in South America.

Catholics like to bring up the fact that they have been discriminated against in the U.S. There is no doubt that some have been persecuted. But I have to ask myself why so many Catholics have chosen to immigrate to this country if it is so bad and why have Protestants allowed so many to come here. Why not choose a Catholic country in South America to live? As far as I know there are no South American countries that legally allow the Protestant faith to be practiced on an even footing with the Catholic religion.But that is OK. the more persecution against the Pentecostals and other Protestants the better. It has only caused those churchs to grow larger and stronger.Protestantism has always grown anywhere in the world when it faces persecution.

You must find it particularly amusing to know that Pope John Paul apologized for what the RCC did to Protestants years ago.

 

[FCEGM]

You must find it particularly amusing to know that Pope John Paul apologized for what the RCC did to Protestants years ago.

Correction: The Holy Father did not apologize “for what the RCC did to Protestants”. He did, however, apologize for the actions of some Catholics.

 

[StCsDavid]

jay29:

First let me say to everyone I am a strong Catholic. However, I hear some people say that the RCC has a bloody past. I know about the Crusades. What other “horrible” things has the RCC done in history? I have no other idea, except the crusades, which somehow people just can’t get over espescially the muslims of course. I know the Reformation was bloody in England. The killing of RC priests was wonton. So the Protestants have no room to talk…

What do you really know about the Crusades and how would the world have changed had the church not embarked on halting the Islamic push into Europe? Also, it’s interesting that much of the history of the Spanish Iquisition was written by Protestant historians. This isn’t to deny that abuses happened. They did. But there is more to the story than what often gets told in history books written by folks with an agenda. There was a, for lack of a better term, their own version of media bias of that day as well. There are some good tracks on this website about the Crusades.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

(Note to RandAl’Thor - nowhere does it say anything about confession, but “undertake this journey for the remission of your sins…”)

Peace be with you!

There are many letters from popes during the time period that talk about indulgences. Most of them mention confession of sins. I don’t have them with me now (they are at my parents’ house), but I will get them this weekend.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[twf]

Yes, the Church does claim to be “always the same”. The deposit of Faith that has been entrusted to her shall always be the same. The grace administered through the sacraments shall always be the same. The path of salvation and the message of the Gospel shall always be the same. In short, the head and soul of the Church, Christ and the Holy Spirit, shall always be the same, while the individual sinners within it shall not.

Opponents of the Church can point out various atrocities and sins committed by the popes and bishops. This is true. This does not, however, qualify as an argument against the validity of the office they hold. Christ promised that the gates of Hades will never prevail against the Church, and they have not. Despite terrible and sinful leadership at various points in history, Christ has held His Church and the Gospel it proclaims in tact. The Church does not depend upon the holiness of its leaders to survive; the Church depends upon the holiness of Christ.

All Christians would agree that the High Priesthood of the Old Testament was a valid office instituted by God. Yet many of the high priests were great sinners. In fact Caiaphas wanted to put the Son of God to death! Yet he was a true high priest of God. His personal sinfulness did not take away from the validity and objective holiness of the office. He even prophesied ((Jn 11:49-51). Or remember the Pharisees. They fell short of the office God had entrusted them with…yet they held it just the same. Christ criticizes them extensively, yet in Matthew 23:1-2, he commands his followers to obey the Pharisees, by virtue of the fact that they “sat in the chair of Moses”. The same is true for the office of bishop and for the papacy. The sins and shortcomings of Church leaders does not undermine the apostolic authority of their office.

The same is true for the sins of the laity. The Church is a hospital for sinners. Christ says that there are both ‘good and bad’ fish in the Kingdom of Heaven, who shall be sorted out on Judgement Day (Mt. 13:46-48).

God bless.
In Christ,
Tyler

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Alfie:

There have always been reformers who have opposed the RCC that have been killed by the Catholic Church long before Martin Luther came along. The RCC always managed to snuff out any descent by religious reformers who opposed the Church up until the time of Luther. The Czech Jan Huss is just one of many reformers who have been martyred. He was burned to death in 1415 by the Catholic Church along with many of his follows. The difference between other reformers and Luther was that Luther was able to succeed with the Reformation. Luther was influenced by the writings of Huss and the Bible. After the Reformation there were groups like the French Huguenots that were forced to flee France or they were killed.** “The Church” did not burn anyone. Any “reformers” that were killed by individuals who happened to be Catholic (proving nothing about the Church herself, by the way) were not reformers at all–they were heretics. St. Francis of Assisi was a reformer. The Gnostics were heretics. The Nestorians were heretics. The Arians were heretics. The Albagensians were heretics. Luther and Calvin were heretics.**

Less than ten percent of Southern Protestants owned slaves. Protestant America also fought the Civil War to free the slaves. Close to a million people died in that war. There are also some cases of slaves being owned by Catholics in the South. The writer Margaret Mitchell wrote “Gone With the Wind”. In the book Scarlett O’Hara is a Catholic. Why? Because Mitchell came from a Catholic family that owned slaves. One of her grandfathers fought against the English in Ireland while he owned slaves in America. Ironic isn’t it? Don’t forget that the first slaves that were brought to the Americas were brought here by the Spanish and Portugese who were also Catholic. Catholics killed large numbers of Indians in South America. America has always been a predominately Protestant country. So what? It’s good that they fought against slavery…as Christians they darn well should have! Every person in Spain and Portugal was not Catholic. Some of these slave traders certainly claimed to be Catholic, to be sure, but that proves absolutely NOTHING except that they were not truly Catholic because the Catholic Church does not condone slavery based on someone’s race, nor has she ever.

Catholics like to bring up the fact that they have been discriminated against in the U.S. There is no doubt that some have been persecuted. But I have to ask myself why so many Catholics have chosen to immigrate to this country if it is so bad and why have Protestants allowed so many to come here. Why not choose a Catholic country in South America to live? As far as I know there are no South American countries that legally allow the Protestant faith to be practiced on an even footing with the Catholic religion.But that is OK. the more persecution against the Pentecostals and other Protestants the better. It has only caused those churchs to grow larger and stronger.Protestantism has always grown anywhere in the world when it faces persecution. What kinds of things have you been reading about South America? This is the first I’ve ever heard about Protestant “oppression” there. You sure do buy into the anti-Catholic propaganda. I bet you’re the kind of person that will only read something about the Catholic Church if it’s written by a Protestant, aren’t you?

You must find it particularly amusing to know that Pope John Paul apologized for what the RCC did to Protestants years ago.** See the post below you. And I have yet to hear any kind of apology from the Lutherans for the slaughter in the Peasants War and from the Anglicans in the slaughter of the Irish and stealing their land (which they still are in possession of to this day). And why is this apology a bad thing, anyway??? You Protestants love to point this out. At least the pope was a big enough man to admit that people who were Catholic had made mistakes in the past. That’s more than I can say for any anti-Catholic Protestant out there.**