W
w_stewart
Guest
She is a revered saint in the Catholic Church.
- Status
A
angelusm
Guest
What do you do when somebody comes to steal something the most precious for you? Muslims conquered the Holy Land and christians simply wanted to liberate it. Unfotrunatelly many bad things happened then as well.
How many professional books about “burning witches” have you read? Let me guess - ZERO. You believe in anti-catholic legends spread by protestants and leftists.
Two major times in history??? Who taught you history???
P
peary
Guest
Where in England, then, was she burned?
I
Irenicist
Guest
This statement is somewhat off on a number counts. As the Wikipedia item you cite later makes clear, she was burnt for heresy and not witchcraft. She was also condemned by a court presided over by a French bishop (albeit one who recognized the claim of the English king to the French throne).
But even if your observation had been fully correct, I am not sure what you think it would prove, especially as Joan’s trial was an abuse reversed on appeal, and effectively amounted to the judicial murder of a politically inconvenient opponent of English rule in France. Joan’s efforts to appeal the case to Rome were ignored by her judges at the trial, and the sentence carried out before anyone could intervene. All the court decisions were subsequently voided as soon as Rome was seized of the matter, and Joan is now venerated as a Catholic saint
There were also no Protestants in Joan’s time so the case wouldn’t reflect on any Catholic/Protestant comparison even if she had been convicted of witchcraft (which she wasn’t).
No one is claiming that no Catholic court ever convicted anyone of withcraft. In fact, (and perhaps sadly for those claiming it was essentially a Protestant phenomenon) the historical evidence can’t really establish that witch burning was more a Protestant than a Catholic “thing.” It seems to have been largely the product of popular hysteria that played out on both sides mainly in areas that were most affected by Reformation struggles such as Germany, Britain and southern France.
Notably, no one was ever convicted of withcraft by the Spanish Inquisition which maintained a skeptical tone throughout, and executions for witchcraft in Italy were very rare. Those areas that adopted the Reformation with a minimum of fuss also seem to have been relatively untroubled by the witch craze.
I really don’t think there is really much scope for point scoring by anyone on this rather sad chapter.
Irenicist
N
notself
Guest
From Wiki:
From New Advent:
I made a minor point that Joan was burned by English Catholics as a Heretic. Technically those who passed judgment were French Bishops but they sided with the English claims. I never said that she was executed by the Church. It appears that I unintentionally upset some because of this error. Never the less, heretics (that were also suspected of being witches) were burned. It would not matter to me whether I was burned as a witch or a heretic, I would be just as dead.
N
notself
Guest
More from an article on witchcraft in New Advent.
W
w_stewart
Guest
What’s the point? All I said was that St. Joan of Arc is a revered Catholic saint.
P
peary
Guest
It’s wonderful that she is a revered saint, but the point is, she died in France, not in England. That point was never clarified.
M
Marina14
Guest
Pardon me, but what does this have to do with Pope & Infallibility?
I
Irenicist
Guest
Nothing, but that’s partly our point.Pardon me, but what does this have to do with Pope & Infallibility?
Burning witches, heretics or even saints (whether in France or England) really has no bearing on infallible teaching authority.
Irenicist
1
123zab
Guest
As a Catholic, I was taught many “traditions of men” which were philosophically rationalized to agree with the Bible. I did not understand the Scriptures nor the power of God, but after my salvation the words of Jesus became true to me: “You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free… If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed” (John 8:32,36). In the Catholic Church I was not free. I had no assurance of my salvation because, as a Catholic, my salvation depended on the Sacraments of the (RCC) church, the intermediation of Mary and the saints, and the forgiveness of God rested upon the priest through the confessional and the Sacrifice of the Mass. I did not realize the free gift of the Almighty God in Jesus Christ by faith alone.
**Another reason for my leaving the Roman Catholic church is the supposed “infallibility of the pope.” It is taught in the RCC that the pope is the successor of Simon Peter. They claim that Jesus gave Peter the authority of the church and that Jesus gave Him the infallibility to go along with it.
It is evident in the Bible that Peter was not a pope but an elder by his own confession (1 Peter 5:1). There is no Scriptural evidence of Peter going to Rome. It was Paul’s call of God to the Romans. In Paul’ s letter to the Romans, his greetings do not include Peter (Romans 16). In the Book of Matthew, Jesus told Peter that We would build His church upon Himself (Jesus), not Peter. If Jesus built it upon Peter and gave Him infallibility, then why was Peter used of Satan in the following verses, requiring the rebuke of Jesus? (Matthew 16:23). Why does Peter in his own epistle call Jesus the Rock, not himself? (1 Peter 2). Paul only calls Jesus the “Rock” (1 Cor. 10:4). If Peter were infallible, then why would Paul have rebuked him? (Galatians 2:11-21) My friend, it is evident that the false teaching that Peter was pope and that the pope is infallible, whether sitting on a chair or standing on a roof, is not anchored in the Bible.
It is evident that there is One who sits on His Throne who offers you salvation in Him alone! His name is Jesus and He will judge by His Word, not tradition!
**
**Another reason for my leaving the Roman Catholic church is the supposed “infallibility of the pope.” It is taught in the RCC that the pope is the successor of Simon Peter. They claim that Jesus gave Peter the authority of the church and that Jesus gave Him the infallibility to go along with it.
It is evident in the Bible that Peter was not a pope but an elder by his own confession (1 Peter 5:1). There is no Scriptural evidence of Peter going to Rome. It was Paul’s call of God to the Romans. In Paul’ s letter to the Romans, his greetings do not include Peter (Romans 16). In the Book of Matthew, Jesus told Peter that We would build His church upon Himself (Jesus), not Peter. If Jesus built it upon Peter and gave Him infallibility, then why was Peter used of Satan in the following verses, requiring the rebuke of Jesus? (Matthew 16:23). Why does Peter in his own epistle call Jesus the Rock, not himself? (1 Peter 2). Paul only calls Jesus the “Rock” (1 Cor. 10:4). If Peter were infallible, then why would Paul have rebuked him? (Galatians 2:11-21) My friend, it is evident that the false teaching that Peter was pope and that the pope is infallible, whether sitting on a chair or standing on a roof, is not anchored in the Bible.
It is evident that there is One who sits on His Throne who offers you salvation in Him alone! His name is Jesus and He will judge by His Word, not tradition!
**
P
peary
Guest
Of course you left. You want “cheap grace.”
C
cruisin
Guest
go for it - That’ll really win 'm back :nope:
N
notself
Guest
Isn’t Grace a gift?
S
swariffin
Guest
Dear Notself,
God’s grace is indeed a gift, and it is free. But it is not as easy to get it as you wink your eye. Jesus himself told us to deny ourself and carry our cross to follow him. “The road will be steep and narrow” for anybody who want to follow him. It will be easier for a camel to go into the needle hole rather than a rich man to come into the Kingdom of God. The grace is available and free. The question is, are we ready to struggle to go for it? It not as simple as we do nothing especially still committing sins, but shamelessly expecting God’s grace. You must do goods then God will have mercy unto you. In your believe, you must do goods first, and the good Karmas will be rewarded. Am I correct?
C
cruisin
Guest
Gods grace is definately a gift. His Son has the scars to prove it.
C
cruisin
Guest
I’m I wrong or is this thread getting off topic???
S
swariffin
Guest
Yes indeed, let us go back to the topic.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
As a Catholic, I was taught many “traditions of men” which were philosophically rationalized to agree with the Bible.
Hi. You don’t strike me as a former Catholic and if you were, you are indeed poorly informed. I’m saying this because most of your ‘facts’ are wrong. What come to my mind as I read your post is that you may be a disguised Protestant? I hope I’m wrong though.
I did not understand the Scriptures nor the power of God, but after my salvation the words of Jesus became true to me: “You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free… If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed” (John 8:32,36).
Yes, true. But what is truth to you?
In the Catholic Church I was not free. I had no assurance of my salvation
Not true. You can have an assurance of your salvation – believe and obey Gods’ commandments.
because, as a Catholic, my salvation depended on the Sacraments of the (RCC) church,
Not true. Not entirely. What is sacrament as you understand it?
the intermediation of Mary and the saints,
Not true. Your salvation definitely does not depend on them. Which Catholic tells you that?
and the forgiveness of God rested upon the priest through the confessional
Not entirely. You can go to the priest hundred of times for confession and if your heart is not repentant, nothing will save you. Confession is not a loophole – you need to be sincerely remorseful of your sin and repent for it.
and the Sacrifice of the Mass.
Not true too. Your salvation does not depend on it. But if you love Jesus and you understand what the mass truly is, you’ll love going to the mass.
I did not realize the free gift of the Almighty God in Jesus Christ by faith alone.
True. But salvation is not. Faith without action is dead.
Another reason for my leaving the Roman Catholic church is the supposed “infallibility of the pope.”
Why do you have problem with that? If not for the “infallibility of the pope”, we would have a totally different set of Christianity today which can be changed by whim and fancy of men. Look, after 2000 years we are still practicing what the apostles did, thank for the “infallibility of the pope”. You should be thankful that the pope is the defender of the faith and traditions.
It is taught in the RCC that the pope is the successor of Simon Peter.
Why not? Indeed he is.
They claim that Jesus gave Peter the authority of the church and that Jesus gave Him the infallibility to go along with it.
Yes. Why not?
It is evident in the Bible that Peter was not a pope but an elder by his own confession (1 Peter 5:1).
Just different word. An elder is good enough at that point in time.
There is no Scriptural evidence of Peter going to Rome. It was Paul’s call of God to the Romans. In Paul’ s letter to the Romans, his greetings do not include Peter (Romans 16).
Doesn’t prove that he was not there.
In the Book of Matthew, Jesus told Peter that We would build His church upon Himself (Jesus), not Peter.
Are you referring to Mathew 16? Then you’re wrong because clearly Jesus pronounced Peter as the rock!
If Jesus built it upon Peter and gave Him infallibility, then why was Peter used of Satan in the following verses, requiring the rebuke of Jesus? (Matthew 16:23).
How that could take away the fact that Jesus called Peter rock and built His church upon it? Are you saying that a chosen man of God cannot be tempted by Satan?
Why does Peter in his own epistle call Jesus the Rock, not himself? (1 Peter 2).
It still does not negate the fact that he is the rock.
Paul only calls Jesus the “Rock” (1 Cor. 10:4).
Really? What do think Petros (in Greek) meant?
If Peter were infallible, then why would Paul have rebuked him? (Galatians 2:11-21)
If you really were a Catholic, you’d understand what infallibility of the pope meant. Please find out again what it means.
My friend, it is evident that the false teaching that Peter was pope and that the pope is infallible, whether sitting on a chair or standing on a roof, is not anchored in the Bible.
Nor your teaching is, my friend.
It is evident that there is One who sits on His Throne who offers you salvation in Him alone!
Yup. Agree. Alleluia!
His name is Jesus and He will judge by His Word, not tradition!
Please clarify. Thanks.
Peace.
Reuben.
Hi. You don’t strike me as a former Catholic and if you were, you are indeed poorly informed. I’m saying this because most of your ‘facts’ are wrong. What come to my mind as I read your post is that you may be a disguised Protestant? I hope I’m wrong though.
I did not understand the Scriptures nor the power of God, but after my salvation the words of Jesus became true to me: “You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free… If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed” (John 8:32,36).
Yes, true. But what is truth to you?
In the Catholic Church I was not free. I had no assurance of my salvation
Not true. You can have an assurance of your salvation – believe and obey Gods’ commandments.
because, as a Catholic, my salvation depended on the Sacraments of the (RCC) church,
Not true. Not entirely. What is sacrament as you understand it?
the intermediation of Mary and the saints,
Not true. Your salvation definitely does not depend on them. Which Catholic tells you that?
and the forgiveness of God rested upon the priest through the confessional
Not entirely. You can go to the priest hundred of times for confession and if your heart is not repentant, nothing will save you. Confession is not a loophole – you need to be sincerely remorseful of your sin and repent for it.
and the Sacrifice of the Mass.
Not true too. Your salvation does not depend on it. But if you love Jesus and you understand what the mass truly is, you’ll love going to the mass.
I did not realize the free gift of the Almighty God in Jesus Christ by faith alone.
True. But salvation is not. Faith without action is dead.
Another reason for my leaving the Roman Catholic church is the supposed “infallibility of the pope.”
Why do you have problem with that? If not for the “infallibility of the pope”, we would have a totally different set of Christianity today which can be changed by whim and fancy of men. Look, after 2000 years we are still practicing what the apostles did, thank for the “infallibility of the pope”. You should be thankful that the pope is the defender of the faith and traditions.
It is taught in the RCC that the pope is the successor of Simon Peter.
Why not? Indeed he is.
They claim that Jesus gave Peter the authority of the church and that Jesus gave Him the infallibility to go along with it.
Yes. Why not?
It is evident in the Bible that Peter was not a pope but an elder by his own confession (1 Peter 5:1).
Just different word. An elder is good enough at that point in time.
There is no Scriptural evidence of Peter going to Rome. It was Paul’s call of God to the Romans. In Paul’ s letter to the Romans, his greetings do not include Peter (Romans 16).
Doesn’t prove that he was not there.
In the Book of Matthew, Jesus told Peter that We would build His church upon Himself (Jesus), not Peter.
Are you referring to Mathew 16? Then you’re wrong because clearly Jesus pronounced Peter as the rock!
If Jesus built it upon Peter and gave Him infallibility, then why was Peter used of Satan in the following verses, requiring the rebuke of Jesus? (Matthew 16:23).
How that could take away the fact that Jesus called Peter rock and built His church upon it? Are you saying that a chosen man of God cannot be tempted by Satan?
Why does Peter in his own epistle call Jesus the Rock, not himself? (1 Peter 2).
It still does not negate the fact that he is the rock.
Paul only calls Jesus the “Rock” (1 Cor. 10:4).
Really? What do think Petros (in Greek) meant?
If Peter were infallible, then why would Paul have rebuked him? (Galatians 2:11-21)
If you really were a Catholic, you’d understand what infallibility of the pope meant. Please find out again what it means.
My friend, it is evident that the false teaching that Peter was pope and that the pope is infallible, whether sitting on a chair or standing on a roof, is not anchored in the Bible.
Nor your teaching is, my friend.
It is evident that there is One who sits on His Throne who offers you salvation in Him alone!
Yup. Agree. Alleluia!
His name is Jesus and He will judge by His Word, not tradition!
Please clarify. Thanks.
Peace.
Reuben.
- Status