S
Sir_Knight
Guest
How to respond to these accusations …
*** Continued in NEXT Post ***
- Status
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
*** Continued from PREVIOUS Post ***
Thanks in advance for your replies.
D
DeFide
Guest
Sir Knight said:
Really, you have a bunch of issues rolled up that need to be taken one at a time. Don’t fall prey to the “shotgun” assault, OK?
Perhaps it’d be best to split these questions into separate threads.
However, a few random thoughts:
- The Church is spotless, but her members can sin and do not lose their free will. The members can reject or accept the perfect holiness of Christ’s Mystical Body to various degrees.
- Jesus commands us to listen to sinful humans, including Peter (Mt 16:19), the Church hierarchy (Mt 18:15ff), and at the time, even those sinful people who occupied the chair of Moses, even though he warned against doing what sins they themselves committed:
Remember that even the writers of the books of the Bible were sinners.
More:
catholic.com/library/A_Crisis_of_Saints.asp
catholic.com/library/HOW_Pius_XII_PROTECTED_JEWS.asp
turrisfortis.com/history.html
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
A
Axion
Guest
We have a scattergun ranter here:
In any event the Inquisition killed fewer people in 400 years than the protestant Cromwell killed Catholics in **one week ** in Ireland. Is he denying Protestantisms complicity in that?
The Spanish Inquisition was run by the Spanish Government, and Pope Sixtus protested its excesses. He was told to keep his nose out!
In any event the Inquisition killed fewer people in 400 years than the protestant Cromwell killed Catholics in **one week ** in Ireland. Is he denying Protestantisms complicity in that?
Does he not have prohibited books? Manuals of Jehovah’s winess doctrine, Witchcraft manuals, pornography? Is that censorship?
Conspiracy theories. No doubt he believes in Area 51 too?
Church Apologies are part of a mutual reconciliation process. They are a christian gesture of good will. They are not “confessions” of “guilt” as your friend wishes to hurl them back into our faces.
Jesus established one church, and gave his authority to the Church he established - not to any book. The sole authority of a book is an idea from ISLAM. He is the one following Islamic ideology.
Jesus gave peter and the apostles power to bind and loose, and forgive sins. He promised to be with them and the Church He founded until the end of time, guiding it in truth, and saying hell would not prevail against it. Why does your correspondent disbelieve these promises of Jesus?
A
Axion
Guest
This is the usual innuendo thrown against the church.
- The Concordat was signed to protect the rights of the Church against a hostile government. You don’t need to do this if you are allies.
- Catholics were virtually the only group who protested Nazi policies isolating the jews, introducing Eugenics and the euthanasia of the handicapped. In 1937 Hitler started a concerted attack on the Catholic Church (arresting 200 priests on charges of financial and sexual impropriety). Pope Pius XI issued a Papal Bull (declaration) entitled “Mit brennender Sorge” (“With burning anxiety”) over what was going on in Germany.
- Even the governments of the Allied powers didn’t “speak out” on the jews. The catholic church, in the most danger, and with the least power did and said more than any of them. Yet today people single out the Catholic Church and try to point the finger!
catholicleague.org/pius/dalinframe.htm
cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a014.html
users.binary.net/polycarp/piusxii.html
E
Eden
Guest
About the Holocaust, what is the reason for the increasing “smear campaign” of the Church during WWII?
Here are some articles from CA:
catholic.com/library/how_pius_xii_protected_jews.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101fea1.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0003up.asp
And an article from Pat Buchanan that ran in the newspaper:
buchanan.org/pa-98-0401.html
Here is an excerpt from Pat Buchanan:
“The document doesn’t even mention Pius XII’s failure to speak out against Nazi atrocities,” said a disgusted New York Times – as it dismissed Rome’s recent statement on the Vatican and the Jews in World War II. “It now falls to John Paul and his successors to take the next step toward full acceptance of the Vatican’s failure to stand squarely against the evil that swept across Europe.” **Yet, here is the same New York Times on December 25th, 1941: “The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas. … He is about the only ruler left on the continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all.” **
Here are some articles from CA:
catholic.com/library/how_pius_xii_protected_jews.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101fea1.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0003up.asp
And an article from Pat Buchanan that ran in the newspaper:
buchanan.org/pa-98-0401.html
Here is an excerpt from Pat Buchanan:
“The document doesn’t even mention Pius XII’s failure to speak out against Nazi atrocities,” said a disgusted New York Times – as it dismissed Rome’s recent statement on the Vatican and the Jews in World War II. “It now falls to John Paul and his successors to take the next step toward full acceptance of the Vatican’s failure to stand squarely against the evil that swept across Europe.” **Yet, here is the same New York Times on December 25th, 1941: “The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas. … He is about the only ruler left on the continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all.” **
E
Eden
Guest
About the “secret archives”, they must not be that “secret” as they are available to scholars:
vatican.va/library_archives/vat_secret_archives/docs/index.htm
vatican.va/library_archives/vat_secret_archives/docs/index.htm
E
Eden
Guest
About the Inquisition, the quote says “but honestly to say the Popes and others of the church’s members were not involved in the Inquisitions is like the muslims saying Islam has been hijacked and that those standing by watching all the evil deeds don’t know anything about it or why it’s going on!”
**When did anyone say the Church was not involved in the Inquisiton? **
It was, but not in the way most people think:
nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp
The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Yes, you read that correctly. Heresy was a crime against the state. Roman law in the Code of Justinian made it a capital offense. Rulers, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw them as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath. When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig or damaged shrubbery (really, it was a serious crime in England). **Yet in contrast to those crimes, it was not so easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. For starters, one needed some basic theological training — something most medieval lords sorely lacked. The result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent assessment of the validity of the charge. **
The Catholic Church’s response to this problem was the Inquisition, first instituted by Pope Lucius III in 1184. It was born out of a need to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges. From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.
**When did anyone say the Church was not involved in the Inquisiton? **
It was, but not in the way most people think:
nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp
The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Yes, you read that correctly. Heresy was a crime against the state. Roman law in the Code of Justinian made it a capital offense. Rulers, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw them as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath. When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig or damaged shrubbery (really, it was a serious crime in England). **Yet in contrast to those crimes, it was not so easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. For starters, one needed some basic theological training — something most medieval lords sorely lacked. The result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent assessment of the validity of the charge. **
The Catholic Church’s response to this problem was the Inquisition, first instituted by Pope Lucius III in 1184. It was born out of a need to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges. From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.
S
Scott_Waddell
Guest
Right. It is no different than any major university library with a special collection. There are very valuable and irreplaceable books and documents in them and they don’t want every Joe Blow rummaging through the collection damaging things, stealing things, etc. Anyone with scholarly creds can get in.
Scott
E
Eden
Guest
About the Inquisiton:
nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp
The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Yes, you read that correctly. Heresy was a crime against the state. Roman law in the Code of Justinian made it a capital offense. Rulers, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw them as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath. When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig or damaged shrubbery (really, it was a serious crime in England). Yet in contrast to those crimes, it was not so easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. **For starters, one needed some basic theological training — something most medieval lords sorely lacked. The result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent assessment of the validity of the charge. **
The Catholic Church’s response to this problem was the Inquisition, first instituted by Pope Lucius III in 1184. It was born out of a need to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges. From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.
As this new report confirms, most people accused of heresy by the Inquisition were either acquitted or their sentences suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ. The underlying assumption of the Inquisition was that, like lost sheep, heretics had simply strayed. If, however, an inquisitor determined that a particular sheep had purposely left the flock, there was nothing more that could be done. Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to secular authorities. Despite popular myth, the Inquisition did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense, not the Church. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.
nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp
The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Yes, you read that correctly. Heresy was a crime against the state. Roman law in the Code of Justinian made it a capital offense. Rulers, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw them as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath. When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig or damaged shrubbery (really, it was a serious crime in England). Yet in contrast to those crimes, it was not so easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. **For starters, one needed some basic theological training — something most medieval lords sorely lacked. The result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent assessment of the validity of the charge. **
The Catholic Church’s response to this problem was the Inquisition, first instituted by Pope Lucius III in 1184. It was born out of a need to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges. From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.
As this new report confirms, most people accused of heresy by the Inquisition were either acquitted or their sentences suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ. The underlying assumption of the Inquisition was that, like lost sheep, heretics had simply strayed. If, however, an inquisitor determined that a particular sheep had purposely left the flock, there was nothing more that could be done. Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to secular authorities. Despite popular myth, the Inquisition did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense, not the Church. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.
G
gusano
Guest
Dear Sir Knight…
In reading your post I am reminded of a man wearing a large coat, and this coat has many pockets. Each pocket is filled with rocks, his pants and shirt pockets are also filled with rocks…
not only that, he tightly (white knuckles) holds a good sized rock…in each hand.
with a very intense look in his eye…
He wants to know why there are so many sinners in the catholic church ! …and has ideas of what should be done about it.
Someone probably should tell him why.
**“Therefore a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God.”
** Heb.4:9
"Come to me all you who are weary and find life burdensome, and I will refresh you. Take my yoke upon your shoulders and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble of heart. your souls will find rest, for my yoke is easy and my burden is light."
Matt.11:28-30
gusano
In reading your post I am reminded of a man wearing a large coat, and this coat has many pockets. Each pocket is filled with rocks, his pants and shirt pockets are also filled with rocks…
not only that, he tightly (white knuckles) holds a good sized rock…in each hand.
with a very intense look in his eye…
He wants to know why there are so many sinners in the catholic church ! …and has ideas of what should be done about it.
Someone probably should tell him why.
**“Therefore a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God.”
** Heb.4:9
"Come to me all you who are weary and find life burdensome, and I will refresh you. Take my yoke upon your shoulders and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble of heart. your souls will find rest, for my yoke is easy and my burden is light."
Matt.11:28-30
gusano
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
My cent:
Historically, Church officials at all levels have done wrong. That’s too bad, as a body, we all suffer from it. We are sorry for things any Church officials or laity have done, both because of their temporal damage and the ugly face they paint onto Christ, whose image they are supposedly bringing to His sheep.
Overall, that’s not surprising because we are a hospital of sinners. We try to keep our leaders from going too far out of bounds, and so far we’ve been reasonably able to do that, and the Church as an organization has a better history of stability than any world government.
The Church herself will not fall under the gates of hell. Come on in; the water’s fine.
To borrow a phrase from an insurance company ad, “Come on in, protection is right here.”
It’s like, wow. If there’s a flood, the Church will become an ark.
Alan
Historically, Church officials at all levels have done wrong. That’s too bad, as a body, we all suffer from it. We are sorry for things any Church officials or laity have done, both because of their temporal damage and the ugly face they paint onto Christ, whose image they are supposedly bringing to His sheep.
Overall, that’s not surprising because we are a hospital of sinners. We try to keep our leaders from going too far out of bounds, and so far we’ve been reasonably able to do that, and the Church as an organization has a better history of stability than any world government.
The Church herself will not fall under the gates of hell. Come on in; the water’s fine.
To borrow a phrase from an insurance company ad, “Come on in, protection is right here.”
It’s like, wow. If there’s a flood, the Church will become an ark.
Alan
- Status