How do I answer this one?

[jericho777]

Good morning (well, it is morning here, at least)!

Ah, I knew the Crusades and the Inquisitions (yes, there was not a single one) would be brought up.
So the thread won’t be derailed, I invite you to send a PM to me detailing your grieviances for these events, and then we’ll talk about it in detail. Okay?

Now, for laymen reading the Bible: yes, by all means. In this day and age when many people can read and write, and where Bibles are not so scarce, yes.

Did you know? A special indulgence is granted to ANYONE who reads the Bible on a daily basis. Pope Benedict XV wrote in his encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus of 1920: “A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful who, with the veneration due the divine Word, make a spiritual reading from the Sacred Scriptures. A plenary indulgence is granted if this reading is continued for at least one half an hour.” The indulgence issue might be something you might want to question.

Now, why would the Church grant indulgences for Bible reading if she doesn’t want her flock to read it? That’s rather weird, don’t you think?

And, to close this post, the opening words of Spiritus Paraclitus:

Since the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, had bestowed the Scriptures on the human race for their instruction in Divine things, He also raised up in successive ages saintly and learned men whose task it should be to develop that treasure and so provide for the and so provide for the faithful plenteous “consolation from the Scriptures.”[1] Foremost among these teachers stands St. Jerome. Him the Catholic Church acclaims and reveres as her “Greatest Doctor,” divinely given her for the understanding of the Bible. And now that the fifteenth centenary of his death is approaching we would not willingly let pass so favorable an opportunity of addressing you on the debt we owe him. For the responsibility of our Apostolic office impels us to set before you his wonderful wonderful example and so promote the study of Holy Scripture in accordance with the teaching of our predecessors, Leo XIII and Pius X, which we desire to apply more precisely still to the present needs of the Church. For St. Jerome - “strenuous Catholic, learned in the Scriptures,”[2] “teacher of Catholics,”[3] “model of virtue, world’s teacher”[4] - has by his earnest and illuminative defense of Catholic doctrine on Holy Scripture left us most precious instructions. These we propose to set before you and so promote among the children of the Church, and especially among the clergy, assiduous and reverent study of the Bible.

Good evening and it’s cold here
To me it seems the church looks at anything it does as incidental to their view of the bigger picture. It’s not my intent to derail this thread or debate the inquisition or crusades. I mentioned it because people seem numb to historical facts. They will not ever criticize any thing the church does wrong. It’s always someone else’s fault for what happened.

I don’t know why the church does what it does they seem conflicted in their vision. Indulgences serve no purpose to get into or out of something. They are man made rules and have nothing to do with the promises of God.

Why is it people don’t think the mass is the mass unless it is in Latin? My bottom line hope is that people can read the bible in their own tongue and be set free by the words of scripture. To know their Savior.

 

[patrick457]

Good evening and it’s cold here
To me it seems the church looks at anything it does as incidental to their view of the bigger picture. It’s not my intent to derail this thread or debate the inquisition or crusades. I mentioned it because people seem numb to historical facts. They will not ever criticize any thing the church does wrong. It’s always someone else’s fault for what happened.

Down to six degrees Celsius here. Getting colder by the day!

I can symphatize with this concern. Often, some people - in an attempt to dispel old notions toward the Church - often end up too far off to the point that it would look like they insinuate that Catholics in certain points of history were all a bunch of sinless people who never did anything wrong.

Of course, there are quite a lot of misconceptions about certain elements in some points of Catholic history such as the Crusades or the Inquisition, but I do not deny that there were some atrocities. Such is human nature, after all.

I don’t know why the church does what it does they seem conflicted in their vision. Indulgences serve no purpose to get into or out of something. They are man made rules and have nothing to do with the promises of God.

First of all, let’s review what an indulgence is. An indulgence is not a ‘get-out-of-Hell-free’ pass. What it is is a remittance of temporal punishment due for sins which have already been committed and forgiven (so, you can’t receive an ‘advance’ indulgence, nor do indulgences forgive one’s sins). Indulgences only relieve the punishment due because of the sins.

To remove the eternal punishment of hell, a person must confess their sins and be forgiven. Still, the temporal punishment remains. To remove the temporal punishment a person can receive an indulgence, in which the temporal punishment for sin is removed if a person performs a special act such as doing good deeds or reading certain prayers.

So, yes, in Catholic thought, indulgences do have some important purpose. I won’t deny that there were abuses of it, especially in the Middle Ages (say, the all-too familiar selling of indulgences that many, like Luther, railed about).

 

[patrick457]

Why is it people don’t think the mass is the mass unless it is in Latin?

Ah, the controversy that is raging inside the walls of the Church for thirty years.

You of course know that for like 1800 years of its history, the Church of Rome has used the Latin language in the liturgy - before that, it used Greek for at least a two centuries. As it commonly happens, a conservative instinct arises, in which things which were once mundane became connected with sacred things, hallowed by association in people’s minds. These were kept unaltered, while fashions of secular life gradually changed.

Language is not the only issue in which the Church of Rome, or for that matter, all ancient Churches, has kept the old ways. The vestments that the clergy wear are themselves traceable to ancient Roman clothing. While everyday fashions changed, priests still stuck to wearing the clothing that was once commonplace throughout the Empire: a long tunic with a belt and a poncho-like cloak that was worn as an overall. Eventually, people forgot the simple origins of what they saw in church; it had become strange to them, and they came up with mystic reasons for it, just as they found mystic reasons for the simplest coincidences in the Bible.

So we come to the late 1960’s, at the time when the order of the Mass was being revised, ostensibly purifying it from ‘accretions’. Bishops’ Conferences from all over the world soon voted to expand the use of the vernacular, and requested confirmation of this choice from Rome. In response, from 1964 onwards, a series of documents from Rome granted general authorization for steadily greater proportions of the Mass to be said in the vernacular - an exception to what was by then a rule. By the time the revised Missal was published in 1970, priests were no longer obliged to use Latin in any part of the Mass. Eventually, liturgical use of the vernacular has predominated - some even (mistakenly) think that the Church forbade Latin!

A number of people object to the abandonment of Latin for various reasons, some of which are:

-The abandonment of Latin represents a sort of break with the old custom; i.e. the whole idea of “discontinuity and rupture”.
-Vatican II itself (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36) envisioned that Latin and Gregorian Chant are still to retain a “pride of place” within the Church.
-Whereas in the old days, no matter where you are, Mass was celebrated in pretty much in the same language (all over the world), today someone who does not know, say, Swahili or French or Spanish will find it difficult to follow a Mass held in said languages. So the use of Latin, according to such people, hasan advantage of showing the Catholic Church’s universality in a visible way.
-Using the vernacular increases the risk that some priest might avoid following the prescribed words and rules and make up his own as he goes; and we indeed have examples of such ‘liturgical abuses’ occuring.
-Living languages often change through the years; certain words might not have the same meaning as it did back then. For example, Bibles translated in ‘contemporary’ English today might be considered to be archaic after about a hundred or so years. Latin, as a ‘dead’ language, has the advantage of being ‘frozen’; i.e. a word would still have the same meaning today as it did back then. So we are saved the trouble of having to update prayers as languages change.

Which brings us to the various shades of traditionalist Catholics, who generally believe that there should be a restoration or at least a recognition of many or all of the liturgical forms, public and private devotions and presentations of Catholic teachings which prevailed within the Church before Vatican II.

Now, those in the more radical side of the spectrum, those literally beyond the pale, are those who claim that Mass as said today in most Catholic churches in the world is not an actual Mass. Generally, these people are also the ones who believe that Vatican II is an instrument of the Devil, that the “smoke of Satan has entered the church of God”. Some within this category might consider the Pope and bishops today as having fallen into heresy and having therefore forfeited their authority. These are the Sedevacantists, who believe that the See of Peter is now actually vacant.

My bottom line hope is that people can read the bible in their own tongue and be set free by the words of scripture. To know their Savior.

Well, thank God for the printing press.

…Wow, I’ve just drifted off-topic. I’m so sorry about that.
Now, let’s continue the topic.

 

[inkaneer]

Hi patrick are the crusades and inquisition are those red herrings too?

Like I said at the beginning of this post I am concerned because people were fawning all over themselves how the church was justified in their actions.

Yes, the crusades and the inquisitions are indeed red herrings. The Church has always had the duty of protecting the faith. This, by the way, is something that protestants are a complete failure at doing. That is why they have the thousands of denominations that they do.

But back to the subject. When people mention the inquisitions they are usually speaking of the Spanish Inquisition. In vilifying the church in these two areas, the crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, they want to paint the church as being the oppressor of peoples. In fact, the opposite is true. Both the crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were reactions to the aggression of Islam. The Islamic forces had moved out of the Arabian penisula and had conquered all of North Africa which was once heavily christian and had produced several noted christian theologians such as Cyril and Augustine, among others. Now the Islamic forces moved into new areas. First in the East where they occupied the holy land and moved north into present day Syria and Turkey and ultimately overrunning the city of Constantinople which they renamed Instanbul. The great church of the Holy Spirit the Haggia Sophia was sacked and made into an Islamic mosque. The crusades, which were meant to win back the holy land, failed in that attempt but were successful in stopping the advance of Islam from the east into Europe. In the west Islam crossed the Straits of Gibralter from Morocco to Spain and Portugal. Here there were two attacks. The first one resulted in a war but the second attack was more subtle. Islamists moved into positions of power in government and business hoping to win by peaceful means what more agressive means had previously not been successful in accomplishing. The Spanish Inquisition was instituted for and successful in rooting out the Islamic fifth column that was subverting the country. King Ferdinand requested this be done with church personnel because his government was so infiltrated with Islamists that he could not trust them so he turned to the only ones he knew he could trust. That Islam was a threat and actually gained a foothold in Spain and Portugal is attested to by the fact that there are towns on the Iberian peninsula that are Arabic names not Spanish or Portugese. The town of Fatima, scene of the Marian visions, is an Arabic name. Fatima was the name of Mohammed’s daughter. The same is true of the city of Seville [previously known as Hispalia], The city of Granada was formerly Illiberis. Had it not been for the crusades and the Spanish Inquisition Islam would have advanced into Europe and the protestant revolution would have never occurred because protestantism could only occur in a christian society not an Islamic one.

 

[I_kilt_Gawd]

montecarlense:

I have doubts about the “free Will”…I really don’t think such thing exists…

You are correct, please proceed to kill yourself. Everyone else here should follow suit.

http://www.halloweenonlinemagazine.com/sfx/skeleton10-3.jpg

On the other hand, you could accept overwhelming evidence that quantum uncertainty states that the future is not set in stone, and can be affected by your observations.(ie quantum mechanics says what you do changes the future in somewhat controllable fashion). You can’t prove anything about gods, I say one must be ignorant to be anything but agnostic. But sound science says, with 99.9% certainty, now that we’re here, we determine our own fate. If you are sound of mind enough to take my advice you’ll see that you don’t have to stop believing in God, you can just start believing in things that are demonstrably true (ie science).

For any that are not so sound of mind, I suggest the following.

Just like your god fearing ancestors did to this guy:
You should try it out for yourselves.

 

[fbl9]

You are correct, please proceed to kill yourself. Everyone else here should follow suit.

http://www.halloweenonlinemagazine.com/sfx/skeleton10-3.jpg

On the other hand, you could accept overwhelming evidence that quantum uncertainty states that the future is not set in stone, and can be affected by your observations.(ie quantum mechanics says what you do changes the future in somewhat controllable fashion). You can’t prove anything about gods, I say one must be ignorant to be anything but agnostic. But sound science says, with 99.9% certainty, now that we’re here, we determine our own fate. If you are sound of mind enough to take my advice you’ll see that you don’t have to stop believing in God, you can just start believing in things that are demonstrably true (ie science).

For any that are not so sound of mind, I suggest the following.

Just like your god fearing ancestors did to this guy:
You should try it out for yourselves.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Lynching-1889.jpg

this one is being reported to the moderators for it’s vulgar attack on christianity.

 

[jericho777]

Yes, the crusades and the inquisitions are indeed red herrings. The Church has always had the duty of protecting the faith. This, by the way, is something that protestants are a complete failure at doing. That is why they have the thousands of denominations that they do.

But back to the subject. When people mention the inquisitions they are usually speaking of the Spanish Inquisition. In vilifying the church in these two areas, the crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, they want to paint the church as being the oppressor of peoples. In fact, the opposite is true. Both the crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were reactions to the aggression of Islam. The Islamic forces had moved out of the Arabian penisula and had conquered all of North Africa which was once heavily christian and had produced several noted christian theologians such as Cyril and Augustine, among others. Now the Islamic forces moved into new areas. First in the East where they occupied the holy land and moved north into present day Syria and Turkey and ultimately overrunning the city of Constantinople which they renamed Instanbul. The great church of the Holy Spirit the Haggia Sophia was sacked and made into an Islamic mosque. The crusades, which were meant to win back the holy land, failed in that attempt but were successful in stopping the advance of Islam from the east into Europe. In the west Islam crossed the Straits of Gibralter from Morocco to Spain and Portugal. Here there were two attacks. The first one resulted in a war but the second attack was more subtle. Islamists moved into positions of power in government and business hoping to win by peaceful means what more agressive means had previously not been successful in accomplishing. The Spanish Inquisition was instituted for and successful in rooting out the Islamic fifth column that was subverting the country. King Ferdinand requested this be done with church personnel because his government was so infiltrated with Islamists that he could not trust them so he turned to the only ones he knew he could trust. That Islam was a threat and actually gained a foothold in Spain and Portugal is attested to by the fact that there are towns on the Iberian peninsula that are Arabic names not Spanish or Portugese. The town of Fatima, scene of the Marian visions, is an Arabic name. Fatima was the name of Mohammed’s daughter. The same is true of the city of Seville [previously known as Hispalia], The city of Granada was formerly Illiberis. Had it not been for the crusades and the Spanish Inquisition Islam would have advanced into Europe and the protestant revolution would have never occurred because protestantism could only occur in a christian society not an Islamic one.

Innocent people were killed by the good intentions of the church. Jews were burned alive because they were Christ killers. Innocent people were tortured to save their souls in the inquisition. Islam is on the rise now, do you suggest we have another crusade? They are obviously an even greater threat as they were then.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Innocent people were killed by the good intentions of the church. Jews were burned alive because they were Christ killers. Innocent people were tortured to save their souls in the inquisition. Islam is on the rise now, do you suggest we have another crusade? They are obviously an even greater threat as they were then.

But it was not specifically the Church that killed anyone.

If you research the Inquisitions, you will see that it was Government that was doing the killing. The Church interceded as a mediator in an attempt to save lives. (Of course, if the Church had sat back and not got involved, it would have been accused of not protecting people, Catch 22 really).

Have people, who claimed to be following the Church, gotten out of hand and done horrible things? Yes. We are sinners and make mistakes. But if you do the research, you will find the Church to not be the villain it has been made out to be.

 

[jericho777]

Down to six degrees Celsius here. Getting colder by the day!

I can symphatize with this concern. Often, some people - in an attempt to dispel old notions toward the Church - often end up too far off to the point that it would look like they insinuate that Catholics in certain points of history were all a bunch of sinless people who never did anything wrong.

Of course, there are quite a lot of misconceptions about certain elements in some points of Catholic history such as the Crusades or the Inquisition, but I do not deny that there were some atrocities. Such is human nature, after all.

First of all, let’s review what an indulgence is. An indulgence is not a ‘get-out-of-Hell-free’ pass. What it is is a remittance of temporal punishment due for sins which have already been committed and forgiven (so, you can’t receive an ‘advance’ indulgence, nor do indulgences forgive one’s sins). Indulgences only relieve the punishment due because of the sins.

To remove the eternal punishment of hell, a person must confess their sins and be forgiven. Still, the temporal punishment remains. To remove the temporal punishment a person can receive an indulgence, in which the temporal punishment for sin is removed if a person performs a special act such as doing good deeds or reading certain prayers.

So, yes, in Catholic thought, indulgences do have some important purpose. I won’t deny that there were abuses of it, especially in the Middle Ages (say, the all-too familiar selling of indulgences that many, like Luther, railed about).

Hi patrick its finally up to lower 40’sF but it’s been single digits at night.

It seems to me if the church had been open about what it did a long time ago and tried to repent for what they did it would go a long way to its creditability. But if some one is claiming infallibility in faith and morals and makes mistakes it would lead people to question that statement. The church has a hard record to defend historically.

Indulgences are not even found in the bible no matter what Martin Luther thought about them. Jesus has paid in full our penalty and canceled all our debt to God. So there is nothing we can do to satisfy the heavenly requirements. It’s Christ’s imputed righteousness that satisfies the Law.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Hi patrick its finally up to lower 40’sF but it’s been single digits at night.

It seems to me if the church had been open about what it did a long time ago and tried to repent for what they did it would go a long way to its creditability. But if some one is claiming infallibility in faith and morals and makes mistakes it would lead people to question that statement. The church has a hard record to defend historically.

Indulgences are not even found in the bible no matter what Martin Luther thought about them. Jesus has paid in full our penalty and canceled all our debt to God. So there is nothing we can do to satisfy the heavenly requirements. It’s Christ’s imputed righteousness that satisfies the Law.

When has the Church been wrong in an issue of Faith and Morals?

The Church has a hard time defending false history. IMO the Church should do more to educate people on what really happened in the past, but I guess everyone is too busy helping the poor and starving people of this world

Indulgences have nothing to do with going to Heaven instead of Hell. Indulgences are for people that are already going to Heaven (because of Christ dying on the cross) but are in purgatory.

 

[rep140]

Hi patrick are the crusades and inquisition are those red herrings too?

Like I said at the beginning of this post I am concerned because people were fawning all over themselves how the church was justified in their actions.

Do you think any non clergy should read scriptures today?

I can’t justify some Church actions, but I think that Non Catholics should take a look in the mirror. I can’t justify the Spanish Inquisition. Neither could I justify Calvin’s actions in
Switzerland, Bloody Mary in England, then her sister Elizabeth (hope I’ve got my history right). Whether it was Catholics or Protestants this was a period when a wrong belief was
punished by torture or death.

How did Islam expand? By the sword. For many years Moslems controlled The Holy Land and Christians could visit it as they liked. Then Moslems restricted visits and harrased visitors. Christianity responded via the crusades. I can’t see anything wrong with this. The problem with the crusades is the crusaders themselves. They went on rampages that the pope never intended. The classic is sacking Constantinople. The Pope never directed that.

I agree that I can’t stand apologists that manipulate things to show that the Church was always right. Fortunately, most appear on forums like this and EWTN and not the people in the pews or on the pulpit.

Does anyone question non Catholics to the extent that Catholics are questioned here?

 

[jericho777]

But it was not specifically the Church that killed anyone.

If you research the Inquisitions, you will see that it was Government that was doing the killing. The Church interceded as a mediator in an attempt to save lives. (Of course, if the Church had sat back and not got involved, it would have been accused of not protecting people, Catch 22 really).

Have people, who claimed to be following the Church, gotten out of hand and done horrible things? Yes. We are sinners and make mistakes. But if you do the research, you will find the Church to not be the villain it has been made out to be.

The crusades were authorized by the church. It wasn’t until recently that Jews were not charged as Christ killers. There were different inquisitions some were church sponsored. If the church wanted to intercede they really could have . Don’t forget Spain was catholic and allied with the pope. The church wielded enormous power there. Papal threat would have put an immediate end to the suffering.

It’s one thing for an individual to do evil in the churches name but when the organization itself leads the way it’s a different story.

 

[chessmane4e5]

The crusades were authorized by the church. It wasn’t until recently that Jews were not charged as Christ killers. There were different inquisitions some were church sponsored. If the church wanted to intercede they really could have . Don’t forget Spain was catholic and allied with the pope. The church wielded enormous power there. Papal threat would have put an immediate end to the suffering.

It’s one thing for an individual to do evil in the churches name but when the organization itself leads the way it’s a different story.

In reply I will quote from the poster above me

How did Islam expand? By the sword. For many years Moslems controlled The Holy Land and Christians could visit it as they liked. Then Moslems restricted visits and harrased visitors. Christianity responded via the crusades. I can’t see anything wrong with this. The problem with the crusades is the crusaders themselves. They went on rampages that the pope never intended. The classic is sacking Constantinople. The Pope never directed that.

We do have a Just War Doctrine.

 

[rdscheirer]

The first time the Bible was published and printed was 1455- the Gutenberg Bible- this was before the Protestant schism. Anything said about the interpretation of the Bible before this was directed to the upper class who could afford hand copied Bibles.

I am taking a study course on the Gospel of Matthew and would never have known how you need to know why it was written.

I have read the Bible several times cover to cover growing up- try to do it every 3 yrs- but until I started taking the study courses I really didn’t understand.

The symbolism and anology wil be lost on anyone reading today. The very difficult passages for us in 2010 are very clear to the Christian/Jews of Jesus’s time

 

[Abu]

The right Catholic Bible Study is good.

Although many homilies may be relatively poor, some priests deliver great homilies, and listening to the Scripture readings attentively at Mass will help enormously.

With the confusion among Protestants, many dissenting Catholics, and relativism and secularism rife, limited time is best spent in becoming knowledgeable with the teaching of the Catholic Church and being able to explain and defend the faith.

This is especially true as Catholic formation at school and in the home is often lacking.

 

[inkaneer]

The crusades were authorized by the church. It wasn’t until recently that Jews were not charged as Christ killers. There were different inquisitions some were church sponsored. If the church wanted to intercede they really could have . Don’t forget Spain was catholic and allied with the pope. The church wielded enormous power there. Papal threat would have put an immediate end to the suffering.

It’s one thing for an individual to do evil in the churches name but when the organization itself leads the way it’s a different story.

And what did Martin Luther think of Jews??? Where is the outrage directed against Lutherans??? Luther’s 1543 book, “On the Jews and their lies” took Jewish hatred to a new level when he proposed to set fire to their synagogues and schools, to take away their homes, forbad them to pray or teach, or even to utter God’s name. Luther wanted to “be rid of them” and requested that the government and ministers deal with the problem. He requested pastors and preachers to follow his example of issuing warnings against the Jews. He goes so far as to claim that “We are at fault in not slaying them” for avenging the death of Jesus Christ. Hitler’s Nazi government in the 1930s and 40s fit Luther’s desires to a tee. Luther’s Jewish eliminationist rhetoric virtually matches the beliefs held by Hitler and much of the German populace in the 1930s. Yet where is the outrage? No Catholic ever voiced as much venom as Luther committed to writing. But you will not find any protestant who will admit to his antisemitism. Rather protestant Christians so admire Martin Luther that he stands as a respected “Patron Saint” to their beliefs and morals, the “Father of Sola Scriptura”. And where is the outrage against the protestants who enslaved black people. Those weren’t Catholics who were growing cotton and sipping mint julips on the plantations across the South. The heirarchy of the Klu Klux Klan were none other than Southern Baptist church ministers. Good Baptists went to church in the morning and a lynching in the afternoon. And who did they hate besides Blacks? Jews and Catholics. But we don’t talk about that, do we? Instead we like to point the finger at those “bad Catholics” whom, when the real truth is told were not that bad in comparison. The records of the Spanish Inquisition are intact. They are available for researchers to check and if one takes the time to check here is what they would find. They will find that deaths during the Inquisition numbered between 1,000 and 2,000. Whereas the number of deaths of Catholics in England at the hands of protestants numbered 30,000. In Germany Catholic deaths at the hands of protestants numbered over 100,000. Just a little different perspective on protestant bigotry being spewed on this forum.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Amen, Inkaneer.

It seems because the Church tries to take the moral high road, we end up being painted as villains.

When I researched the Crusades and the Inquisitions, I was shocked and amazed by the truth. Every Catholic needs to learn more about Church history so we can properly defend it, else we have no reply and look guilty of whatever we are accused of.

I was also baffled when I read up a little on Martin Luther to learn that he was not the hero that he is made out to be by Protestants.

Misinformation seems to be the Devil’s favorite tool these days.

 

[jericho777]

And what did Martin Luther think of Jews??? Where is the outrage directed against Lutherans??? Luther’s 1543 book, “On the Jews and their lies” took Jewish hatred to a new level when he proposed to set fire to their synagogues and schools, to take away their homes, forbad them to pray or teach, or even to utter God’s name. Luther wanted to “be rid of them” and requested that the government and ministers deal with the problem. He requested pastors and preachers to follow his example of issuing warnings against the Jews. He goes so far as to claim that “We are at fault in not slaying them” for avenging the death of Jesus Christ. Hitler’s Nazi government in the 1930s and 40s fit Luther’s desires to a tee. Luther’s Jewish eliminationist rhetoric virtually matches the beliefs held by Hitler and much of the German populace in the 1930s. Yet where is the outrage? No Catholic ever voiced as much venom as Luther committed to writing. But you will not find any protestant who will admit to his antisemitism. Rather protestant Christians so admire Martin Luther that he stands as a respected “Patron Saint” to their beliefs and morals, the “Father of Sola Scriptura”. And where is the outrage against the protestants who enslaved black people. Those weren’t Catholics who were growing cotton and sipping mint julips on the plantations across the South. The heirarchy of the Klu Klux Klan were none other than Southern Baptist church ministers. Good Baptists went to church in the morning and a lynching in the afternoon. And who did they hate besides Blacks? Jews and Catholics. But we don’t talk about that, do we? Instead we like to point the finger at those “bad Catholics” whom, when the real truth is told were not that bad in comparison. The records of the Spanish Inquisition are intact. They are available for researchers to check and if one takes the time to check here is what they would find. They will find that deaths during the Inquisition numbered between 1,000 and 2,000. Whereas the number of deaths of Catholics in England at the hands of protestants numbered 30,000. In Germany Catholic deaths at the hands of protestants numbered over 100,000. Just a little different perspective on protestant bigotry being spewed on this forum.

Where do you think Luyher got his original ideas about the Jews from? The Churches doctrine calling them Christ killers. R C Sproul has addressed Luther’s issues and has denounced them.

There were Catholics who owned slaves as well as Jews and native Americans. It still does not make it right.

It’s funny you try to justify the churches bad actions by saying other people were bad too. So you are telling me because only 1000 to 2000 died it’s OK. There is blame on both sides.

Personally I don’t like the Protestant tag as I’m not protesting any thing. I want to go the restoration route. To restore the purity of first century faith and bypass all man made tradition as being necessary for salvation. I think that’s the thrust of non denominational churches.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Where do you think Luyher got his original ideas about the Jews from? The Churches doctrine calling them Christ killers. R C Sproul has addressed Luther’s issues and has denounced them.

There were Catholics who owned slaves as well as Jews and native Americans. It still does not make it right.

No one said it was right.

It’s funny you try to justify the churches bad actions by saying other people were bad too. So you are telling me because only 1000 to 2000 died it’s OK. There is blame on both sides.

No one is trying to justify anything. Maybe put into perspective.

Personally I don’t like the Protestant tag as I’m not protesting any thing. I want to go the restoration route. To restore the purity of first century faith and bypass all man made tradition as being necessary for salvation. I think that’s the thrust of non denominational churches.

Then you will have to submit to the Pope, as this was an important teaching of Jesus, and all the Apostles of the first century submitted to Peter, Linus, Anacletus, and Clement I. Or do you intend to follow only some of what Jesus wanted?

 

[inkaneer]

Innocent people were killed by the good intentions of the church. Jews were burned alive because they were Christ killers. Innocent people were tortured to save their souls in the inquisition. Islam is on the rise now, do you suggest we have another crusade? They are obviously an even greater threat as they were then.

First of all I have not seen any official record of any Jews being burnt alive for being Jewish. I have seen the allegations made by some protestant groups to this effect but they have made allegations only and submitted no proof what so ever. Anyone can make allegations but proving them is another matter. Second, how do you know that people were tortured for the purpose of saving their souls? How do you know they were innocent people? These are the allegations made by protestants and I have yet to see any proofpresented to support these allegations.

As far as Islam today is concerned, They believe they are involved in a"jihad" against us who they call the “crusaders”. Unless something is done you will live to see what happened in North Africa over a thousand years ago happen again in Europe. Already the alarms are being sounded in France.