"Horrors" Commited By the RCC

[levi86]

First off let me say that I’m not anti American,

But ask an American protestant whether God was with the continental armies during the revolution. They will most certainly say YES, after all “God Bless America”, it may have been for the sake of “freedom” but it was still an extremely bloody and hateful war.

If they can somehow justify the revolution then they have no basis for questioning the anything the RCC has ever done.

 

[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.<<

To the best of my knowledge, only Huss was executed. We could argue about the Wycliff and Huss heresies endlessly, but one thing is sure, their heresies were certainly incompatible with both the ecclesiastical and the civil order of the time, and would have caused both religious and civil anarchy, had they been put into practice.

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.<<

Luther never reformed anything. Luther only created schism. Luther was indeed influenced by the writings of the heretic Huss but not necessarily by the bible as it did not stop him from re-writing the bible in German with whatever verse additions, deletions, or misinterpretations as he pleased.

After the Reformation there were groups like the French Huguenots that were forced to flee France or they were killed.<<

The French Huegenots were a political group that used religion as an excuse to wrest civil power from the king. Thier political gambits were instrumental in plunging France into 5 civil wars that almost destroyed the nation.

Less than ten percent of Southern Protestants owned slaves.<<

Nice way to skirt the issue since many people in the south did not have the wealth to be able to own slaves. The question should be… How many “slave-owners” or plantation owners were Protestant?

Protestant America also fought the Civil War to free the slaves.<<

After the edict of Quebec, in which the English allowed the French in Canada (mostly Catholic) open access to the colonies, Protestant America decided the time was ripe to declare independence from England in a panic stricken attempt to keep Catholics out of the colonies. When they realized they could not defeat the English by themselves, Protestant America turned to Spain and France for aid. This in turn, over the next 80 years, caused an imbalance in the American population such that by the time of the civil war, America had more Catholics than Protestants. While it is true that there were some Protestants among the Union forces, the vast majority of the Southern aristocrisy that caused the civil war were Protestant.

Close to a million people died in that war.<<

Actually only 600,000.

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.<<

My statement stands… not that there were NO Catholic slave-owners, but simply that the majority were Protestant. This is why “Protestant America” in the middle 18th century - just before the war of Independence - was so adamant about keeping the French Catholics out of the colonies; they were predominately abolishionists.

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.<<

Protestants allowed so many to come here??? Protestants have fought tooth and nail to keep Catholics out. I am writing this from a place called Hoffman Estates Illinois which borders Schaumburg. When these two villages were first settled a little over 100 years ago, only German Lutherans could live here. All others, even non-German Lutherans, could not live here.

Thal59

 

[jay29]

I want to thank you all for giving me such a history lesson!!! I really know how to arm myself in an anti-Catholic argument. Thanks and God Bless.

 

[adnauseum]

More on the unconscienable sell-out of protestant churches to Margaret Sanger, the self-proclaimed eugenecist, and leading architect of the culture of death:

From Catholicism and American Freedom, by John McGreevy:

Quick to define the contest as Catholics versus the enlightened, Sanger immediately informed readers of the Birth Control Review, “you can no longer remain neutral. You must make a declaration of independence and self-reliance, or submit to the dictatorship of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.” “The R.C.'s are certainly taking their stand against this subject & me,” Sanger wrote to a friend, “…but it may serve to awaken the Protestant element, in time to save the country later on.”

In 1931, The Federal Council of Churches, the most prominent umbrella group for mainline Protestants, gave its blessing to Sanger’s agenda. The act was denounced by Catholic editors of Commonweal as “the liquidation of historical Protestantism by its own trustees.”

Can protestants ever give back the lives of the million babies every year who are aborted, and whose death warrant they signed in 1931?

How dare any protestant stand in judgment of the Catholic Church.

 

[Photini]

twf:

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.

WOW!!! This was all SO helpful to me. Thank you for this!!! :clapping: (I’m a recent revert, and I am learning SO MUCH from these forums!)

 

[malachi_a_serva]

The historical atrocities of the RCC were one of the things that lead me away. Does not Jesus tell us, “Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them”? “For the tree is known by his fruit”. I think that speaks mountains. I wonder if Jesus were standing here right now, what his take on these issues would be? I can only surmise.

 

[Church_Militant]

I want to point out that I see virtually no primary sources linked by any of the non-Catholics in support of their allegations.

It is very easy to assert something, but if you cannot provide a link that proves the accuracy of your allegations then I suggest that you may have been misled by people who are either misinformed themselves, or perhaps even have some sort of agenda to discredit the Catholic Church, and therefore have borne false witness.

So show us where you get your info and we Catholics will be more than happy to discuss this issue with you, but it has been my experience that upon closer checking of sources, the allegations fall apart or at least come into a better perspective.

I would love to see links to where Alfie, Malachi, and any other n-Cs got your info because I bet dollars to donuts that it’s gonna turn out to be stuff that there is no unbiased historical support for, like the trash alleged in the SDA book “The Great Controversy” which I filled the margins with notes on the misinformation, inaccuracies, and outright lies before I threw it in the garbage.

I have even e-mailed one supposedly reputable preacher about his allegations of a particular “massacre” that I couldn’t find in any histories, only to be told that it was word of mouth from some other preacher he had talked to. I still have the e-mail.

So as they say in poker. “Put up or shut up.”
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

adnauseum:

More on the unconscienable sell-out of protestant churches to Margaret Sanger, the self-proclaimed eugenecist, and leading architect of the culture of death:

From Catholicism and American Freedom, by John McGreevy:

Quick to define the contest as Catholics versus the enlightened, Sanger immediately informed readers of the Birth Control Review, “you can no longer remain neutral. You must make a declaration of independence and self-reliance, or submit to the dictatorship of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.” “The R.C.'s are certainly taking their stand against this subject & me,” Sanger wrote to a friend, “…but it may serve to awaken the Protestant element, in time to save the country later on.”

In 1931, The Federal Council of Churches, the most prominent umbrella group for mainline Protestants, gave its blessing to Sanger’s agenda. The act was denounced by Catholic editors of Commonweal as “the liquidation of historical Protestantism by its own trustees.”

Can protestants ever give back the lives of the million babies every year who are aborted, and whose death warrant they signed in 1931?

How dare any protestant stand in judgment of the Catholic Church.

This is poor reasoning.

What is the operative principle at work in your thinking?

That a sin committed by a member of any group or church renders any other member of that same group incapable of identifying sin?

Is that really what you mean?

I can point to many Catholic legislators who support a pro-abortion agenda. So what?

I don’t draw the conclusion that Catholics as a group or a church shouldn’t speak out on moral issues. That is exactly what you are implying.

Peace to you,
Richard

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

Church Militant:

I want to point out that I see virtually no primary sources linked by any of the non-Catholics in support of their allegations.

I would say this is true of most posts Catholic and non-Catholic.

Blessings,
Richard

 

[BrianH]

adnauseum:

More on the unconscienable sell-out

Can protestants ever give back the lives of the million babies every year who are aborted, and whose death warrant they signed in 1931?

How dare any protestant stand in judgment of the Catholic Church.

Protestants are criticized on this board for being 25,000 different denominations but can be collectively indicted for this?

 

[Church_Militant]

Richard_Hurtz:

I would say this is true of most posts Catholic and non-Catholic.

Blessings,
Richard

Since the allegation of this thread is

“Horrors” Commited By the RCC

the burden of proof lies with those who hold this position to support it with verifiable facts, and unless such proofs are provided there is nothing to discuss, which means that said allegations are without merit.

This thread topic is not about “Horrors” Commited By the Protestants or other non-Catholics and so I offer no comments either way.

I suggest that all of us stay on topic or you can best believe that the Moderators will close and/or pull this thread.

So…again I ask. Where is your proof and what are your sources?

Pax vobiscum,

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

Church Militant:

Since the allegation of this thread is the burden of proof lies with those who hold this position to support it with verifiable facts, and unless such proofs are provided there is nothing to discuss, which means that said allegations are without merit.

You may review my posts on this thread, I believe that I am even-handed and provide links where appropriate.

Peace,
Richard

 

[Church_Militant]

Richard_Hurtz:

You may review my posts on this thread, I believe that I am even-handed and provide links where appropriate.

Peace,
Richard

Yet I see little purpose to your posts and links.
All war is horror. Nothing new there.

As you said earlier, there are sins on both sides, but I see nothing new here that qualifies as a uniquely Catholic “horror”, and quite frankly given the reaction of a great many of the non-Catholics that I see both here and in the news, I see little difference between the attitudes of the Crusaders and the Americans today.

Ancient warfare was always a matter of slaughtering not only the enemy’s soldiers, but of his civilian populations as well. Warfare is a display of mankind at his worst.

To waste time debating the Crusades and Salem witch trials, is just that, a waste of time.

If someone has evidence of a specifically Catholic “horror”, then perhaps they should offer their links and evidence instead of rhetorical remarks about things that may or may not have really happened.

I (and most of the rest of the Catholics here) welcome the opportunity to refute any and all inaccurate allegations because it then throws into question the veracity of those supposed “sources”.

I am particularly challenging Alfie and Malachi to offer their evidence, which they have not done. I have no doubt Mr. Hurst that you will be interested in examining the veracity of any evidence that they may offer in the same way that you have so far stated your cases.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

Church Militant:

Yet I see little purpose to your posts and links.
All war is horror. Nothing new there.

As you said earlier, there are sins on both sides, but I see nothing new here that qualifies as a uniquely Catholic “horror”, and quite frankly given the reaction of a great many of the non-Catholics that I see both here and in the news, I see little difference between the attitudes of the Crusaders and the Americans today.

Ancient warfare was always a matter of slaughtering not only the enemy’s soldiers, but of his civilian populations as well. Warfare is a display of mankind at his worst.

To waste time debating the Crusades and Salem witch trials, is just that, a waste of time.

If someone has evidence of a specifically Catholic “horror”, then perhaps they should offer their links and evidence instead of rhetorical remarks about things that may or may not have really happened.

I (and most of the rest of the Catholics here) welcome the opportunity to refute any and all inaccurate allegations because it then throws into question the veracity of those supposed “sources”.

I am particularly challenging Alfie and Malachi to offer their evidence, which they have not done. I have no doubt Mr. Hurst that you will be interested in examining the veracity of any evidence that they may offer in the same way that you have so far stated your cases.
Pax vobiscum,

First off, it’s Hurtz, not Hurst.

Secondly, my main motivation on this thread which has now been stated at least three times was to correct the historical inaccuracies that were being bandied about. I cannot obviously speak for others, but I would urge all to present evidence, if they have it, and be as charitable as possible.

Thirdly, you are correct in that I am interested in examining all types of evidence and analysis for veracity and bias.

Peace to you,
Richard

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Church Militant:

I am particularly challenging Alfie and Malachi to offer their evidence, which they have not done.

Hello Church Militant, forgive me if I am in error. Is it your position or the position of the RCC that no atrocities were commited by the RCC?

My only backing is what I was taught (many years ago), that the RCC tortured peole during the Inquisitions, burnt people at the stake for various reasons (heresy, bible reading, bible making or even for being baptized twice). I believe I am familiar with the witch burnings that were done by Protestants. That is stuff I was taught. Grade 11 social 20 history class - Catholic High School. I am not saying any of it is true, just that I was taught it, saw some videos on it and took it as truth. I always thought this was “accepted” historical fact but I may be mistaken. Please let me know if I am wrong.

 

[Church_Militant]

malachi_a_serva:

Hello Church Militant, forgive me if I am in error. Is it your position or the position of the RCC that no atrocities were commited by the RCC?

My only backing is what I was taught (many years ago), that the RCC tortured peole during the Inquisitions, burnt people at the stake for various reasons (heresy, bible reading, bible making or even for being baptized twice).

I believe I am familiar with the witch burnings that were done by Protestants. That is stuff I was taught. Grade 11 social 20 history class - Catholic High School. I am not saying any of it is true, just that I was taught it, saw some videos on it and took it as truth. I always thought this was “accepted” historical fact but I may be mistaken. Please let me know if I am wrong.Hey M_A_S,
What I am getting at is that if you will give me specific cases with dates and places, we can then discuss this and see if there really is evidence of these actions.

So far as the Inquisition is concerned let’s get have a look at that. The Real Inquisition.

If you can produce evidence from secular history of the accuracy of these allegations then I’ll look at them and we’ll see what is true and what isn’t. But to say you were taught something means little because you have clearly been taught wrongly about the Catholic Church from the pulpit of whatever churches you have been attending.

And that is my point…if you believe everything you have been told about the Catholic Church, then it is entirely possible that you have been either misinformed, or outright misled.
Pax tecum,

 

[malachi_a_serva]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Inquisition

"Torture

Torture was used after 1252. On May 15, Pope Innocent IV issued a papal bull entitled Ad exstirpanda, which authorized the use of torture by inquisitors. It was a common part of the medieval judicial system and not particular to the inquisition. The torture methods used by inquisitors were mild compared to secular courts, as they were forbidden to use methods that resulted in bloodshed, mutilation or death. One of the more common forms of medieval inquisition torture was known as strappado. The hands were bound behind the back with a rope, and the accused was suspended this way, dislocating the joints painfully in both arms. Weights could be added to the legs dislocating those joints as well."

I guess like everything, there are writings that say the church was apart of it, and other writings that say they were not. I do not think anyone can find “on this date, this was done” etc.

Lets just say the church did not do any of it but turned over individuals to secular athorities that executed these atrocities. Does that make the church any less responsible? Just asking because I need to know if the CC is the one True Church.

On a side note, if the above is true about the Pope authorizing toture, would Jesus have ordered torture. Would a “Vicar of Christ” order torture? and if so COULD a “Vicar of Christ” order torture? Thanks for your time and comments.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Malachi, did you know that wikipedia is NOT a reliable source? It is my understanding that all articles in wikipedia are “edited”, not by a group of scholars, but by individuals. IOW, Joe Schmo can send in an article on “the Inquisition”, even provide a footnote here and there, but nobody checks on what the information in that article is correct, or if there are proper primary sources. As a “source” to substantiate an article, wikipedia is no more reliable than somebody’s great aunt Gertrude who, according to family tradition, once worked for a man who worked for a man whose cousin’s sister-in-law’s best friend in 1895 was “said” to have sneaked into the Vatican and seen that the Pope had a GOLD toilet, thereby proving once and for all that, despite denials from the Vatican, despite any evidence of there ever being a gold toilet, great aunt Gertrude 'proved" the existence of that gold toilet. . .

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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…

“They’re as bad as us” is the sort of argument that simply recoils on those who make it:​

1. The CC used bloody methods before the Reformation, so its practice may have been an evil example to Protestants
2. To draw attention to the failings of others is an unChristian attitude
3. Doing so, in no way relieves the CC of her blood-guilt - she still has oceans of the stuff on her hands. Christianity generally is a very bloody & cruel religion.

It was the Church that sharpened Classical anti-Judaism, by accusing the Jews as a race of Deicide. Quoting early Protestant remarks is no good - the tradition of Protestant anti-Judaism has its roots in the CC. Roman religion had its weaknesses - but at least it did not persecute a whole people for over a thousand years, as the Church has the Jews. It was not a persecuting religion - unlike Catholicism.

Catholicism did nothing to alleviate the ferocious severity of capital punishment: it was a Catholic king who introduced the penalty of hanging, disembowelling, castration, followed by decapitation, that a lot of the English martyrs suffered: it was introduced in 1283, long before the Reformation. Catholicism did not prevent criminals being broken on the wheel, torn apart by horses, or boiled alive. Catholicism did not prevent tongues being ripped out, ears cut off, eyes put out, hands cut off, feet being crushed, and the like.

As for the massacre of the Waldensians in 1655, the persecution of the Bohemian Protestants after 1620, the massacres of the Rhineland Jews during the First Crusade, and the “blood libel” against the Jews, which cost many of them their lives: if these are not “horrors”, what is ? When a Church commits evil, there is something truly horrific about it, something genuinely diabolical. Or do these evils not matter, because they are not recent ?

Recent evils include the satanically cruel treatment dealt out to the Orthodox in Croatia between 1941 and 1945, and the massacres by “Christian Falangists” at Sabra & Chatila in the Lebanon in (IIRC) 1982. What the Orthodox suffered under a supposedly Catholic regime is unspeakable. Not surprisingly, the Orthodox have neither forgotten or forgiven it.

If Christ could have dealings with demoniacs - why should He not have dealings with a demoniac Church ? If the CC is the Church of Christ in any sense, it is certainly not because the Church can avoid evil without Him. The reverse is true; as these examples show. Personally, I prefer to dwell on less depressing subjects ##

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Tantum ergo:

Malachi, did you know that wikipedia is NOT a reliable source?

I did see a thread about this and noted the following:

BrianH BrianH is offline
Regular Member

Join Date: December 16, 2005
Posts: 98
Default Re: Wikipedia Is Unreliable
"In mid-December, Wikipedia won an endorsement from a prominent source, however. An analysis conducted by the journal Nature showed that on scientific topics, an average Wikipedia article had about four “inaccuracies” (factual errors, critical omissions, or misleading statements), compared with about three inaccuracies per article in the Encyclopedia Britannica. The similarity in quality seemed remarkable given that Wikipedia is thought to be written by thousands of “amateur” enthusiasts and Britannica by carefully chosen – and paid – experts. "
I quote Wikipedia, it is sometimes…a very good yet brief synopsis of very complicated topics.

I figured those were pretty good stats. However, yes because of the nature of it, it could or may be misleading and or untruthful.

However, that being said. Is that information I presented, incorrect?