VATICAN - Pope: Muslim leaders must condemn terrorism, the Koran is a book of peace [AN]

[Gabriel_of_12]

Kelt;12563376]
Yes, before Constantine, Maxentius did not persecute Christians - that’s not quite the same as favouring them - but Constantine gave Christianity a huge boost by legalising it, even if he waited until his deathbed before he was baptised.

No, Galerius was a staunch opponent of Christianity, Galerius ended the Diocletianic Persecution of Christians when he issued an edict of toleration for Christianity in 311. Any removal of Roman Law to lift any persecution of Christians is a favor for Christianity. My argument is Constantine was not the Only or the First Roman Emperor to lift Roman persecution laws against Christians.

I have not suggested that the church governed the Roman Empire. It just became the official religion, thereby gradually gaining considerable power. Then it was the pagans being persecuted.

Ok, I disagree with you that Catholicism which is the only Apostolic Christianity in existence was not the official religion of the Roman Empire. Can you please give a historical fact, as to why you reach such a conclusion that; under Constantine the whole Roman Empire became Catholic? Or what document makes Catholicism the official religion of the Roman Empire?

I think it’s possible that we have a language barrier here? As well as a philosophical one! I am finding it difficult to follow your arguments.

Sorry, you are probably correct, I am introducing a Church history that may be new to you, I may have presumed too much here. I will try and keep it short.

There are many influences of pagan faiths on things in Christianity - many parallels with the cult of Mithras.

I disagree with you, paganology has no influence in the true faith of Christianity practiced within Catholicism. You have a great misunderstanding of how pagan Roman citizens were converting to Christianity and how the Church replaced their common pagan ritual holiday practices with Christian religious feast and solemnity prayer days, which later become approved by Christian Emperors and not all Emperors during these peaceful times were all Christians, some remained pagan and some became heretics.

Can you give an example of a parallel cult of Mithras?

The Pope today condemns terrorism. The Popes from antiquity never has the power to inflict any persecution on pagans, nor does any Pope ever have the authority to exercise capital punishment. Please don’t confuse Catholic Kings and princes (who do not speak or act for the Church) with the Bishops and Popes of the Catholic Church.

History proves the Catholic Church only excommunicating and banishing it’s own Catholic members who fell into heresy or became heretics. The Church moves to convert pagans not persecute them. I think you have been mislead or have a great misunderstanding of the Catholic Church. You may be falsely judging history here and confuse the earthly kingdom of the political Caesars with God’s Kingdom within the Catholic Church.

Albeit, post Constantinople up until 1054; anyone; who is unfamiliar with this Church history at peace with Pagan Rome can easily draw false conclusions; if the Catholic Apostolic faith is not understood as practiced within Catholicism? which can be easily confused on the surface mixing with the political powers of Rome, while the Emperors are given into having favor with the Church especially with the Church’s in the East where the New Rome is built in Constantinople. All the while the Bishop of Rome is humbled in poverty and neglect of military protection is constantly resisting the Eastern Church’s mixing powers with the Emperors of Rome.

 

[Kelt]

Ok, I disagree with you that Catholicism which is the only Apostolic Christianity in existence was not the official religion of the Roman Empire. Can you please give a historical fact, as to why you reach such a conclusion that; under Constantine the whole Roman Empire became Catholic? Or what document makes Catholicism the official religion of the Roman Empire?

OK we have a double negative here and I’m not sure what you’re saying. Can you see my difficulty? But as you go on, I understand you then are implying that I said that the WHOLE Roman Empire became Catholic. I was just talking about official religion of the state, not how many people throughout the empire had adopted it. I thought that Constantine had made Christianity the official religion but maybe this is a better description that I found:

"While the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (reigned 306–337) ruled, Christianity began to transition to the dominant religion of the Roman Empire. "
Then I found this:

“In 313 the Edict of Milan legalised Christianity alongside other religions allowed in the Roman Empire. In 325 the First Council of Nicaea signalled consolidation of Christianity under an orthodoxy endorsed by Constantine, and though this did not make other Christian groups outside the adopted definition illegal, the dissenting Arian bishops were initially exiled. But Constantine reinstated Arius just before the heresiarch died in 336 and exiled the Orthodox Athanasius of Alexandria from 335 to 337. In 380 Emperor Theodosius I made Christianity the Roman Empire’s official religion (see State church of the Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire and the Goths) and did enforce the edict. In 392 Theodosius passed legislation prohibiting all pagan cultic worship”
Just how it looked like the Catholicism of today I don’t know.

Sorry, you are probably correct, I am introducing a Church history that may be new to you, I may have presumed too much here. I will try and keep it short.

I disagree with you, paganology has no influence in the true faith of Christianity practiced within Catholicism. You have a great misunderstanding of how pagan Roman citizens were converting to Christianity and how the Church replaced their common pagan ritual holiday practices with Christian religious feast and solemnity prayer days, which later become approved by Christian Emperors and not all Emperors during these peaceful times were all Christians, some remained pagan and some became heretics

Can you give an example of a parallel cult of Mithras?

Mithraism was secretive and didn’t last long. It was developing at the same time as Christianity. Both Mithras and Jesus were beings from beyond our universe. Ritual communal meals and sacrifice for salvation were common to both, but they were apparently also common to much of the ancient world.

The Pope today condemns terrorism. The Popes from antiquity never has the power to inflict any persecution on pagans, nor does any Pope ever have the authority to exercise capital punishment. Please don’t confuse Catholic Kings and princes (who do not speak or act for the Church) with the Bishops and Popes of the Catholic Church.

History proves the Catholic Church only excommunicating and banishing it’s own Catholic members who fell into heresy or became heretics.

Which is worse for you? Pagan or Christian - but not quite agreeing with the eventually chosen ‘orthodoxy’, and therefore, I take it, heretic? Better non -Christian than heretic???

The Church moves to convert pagans not persecute them. I think you have been mislead or have a great misunderstanding of the Catholic Church. You may be falsely judging history here and confuse the earthly kingdom of the political Caesars with God’s Kingdom within the Catholic Church.

I wasn’t suggesting that it was the early church rather than the Roman state doing the persecuting of pagans, but I would imagine the church wasn’t too much against a bit of state persecution - ‘pour encourager les autres’ if you like. I would take issue with you if you claimed that the church was above persecution throughout its long history, whether it was of non Christians or heretics.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Kelt;12567243]OK we have a double negative here and I’m not sure what you’re saying. Can you see my difficulty? But as you go on, I understand you then are implying that I said that the WHOLE Roman Empire became Catholic. I was just talking about official religion of the state, not how many people throughout the empire had adopted it. I thought that Constantine had made Christianity the official religion but maybe this is a better description that I found:

That is why I disagreed with you; Constantine did not make Catholicism the official religion of the Roman Empire. Constantine still maintained his pagan religious high priest title over pagan Rome, while lifting Roman law against Christians.

"In 313 the Edict of Milan legalised Christianity alongside other religions allowed in the Roman Empire

.
Proof that Constantine was not the first and only Emperor to favor Christians.

In 325 the First Council of Nicaea signalled consolidation of Christianity under an orthodoxy endorsed by Constantine, and though this did not make other Christian groups outside the adopted definition illegal, the dissenting Arian bishops were initially exiled

.
It should be noted here; The Eastern Church’s suffered much heresy and heretics. An Early Council ratified by the Pope dubbed the Eastern Church’s who followed the Apostolic faith with the title “Orthodox” in order to separate their heretical sister Church’s who mirrored each other in liturgy, language and culture as Heterodox. Constantine supported the effort of the Church councils to reach peace between these Church communities found to be teaching heresy. Constantine’s endorsement falls under funding supplying the location for the Church to council which Constantine and the Emperors who followed required the Popes approval for Church councils. Constantine’s endorsement only allows the councils findings to be practiced within the Emperors domain.

The Arians come in and out of power with the Emperors. Much to say on this matter. Suffice it to be known the Arians were in communion with the Catholic Church before they were found to be holding to a heretical Jesus who denied Jesus divinity. In retrospect, the Nicene Creed proclaimed an already apostolic faith as binding, which separated the lambs from the goats (heretics).

But Constantine reinstated Arius just before the heresiarch died in 336 and exiled the Orthodox Athanasius of Alexandria from 335 to 337

.
Your history does not reveal all. St. Athanasius was re-instated, and the Arians loose their power and influence over the Orthodox Catholics.

In 380 Emperor Theodosius I made Christianity the Roman Empire’s official religion (see State church of the Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire and the Goths) and did enforce the edict. In 392 Theodosius passed legislation prohibiting all pagan cultic worship"
Just how it looked like the Catholicism of today I don’t know.

Much history here also; This is still the same Catholicism as practiced today unchanged. What your history fails at is; That Catholicism was not just in the Roman Empire. Just because one Emperor of Rome declares Catholicism official religion in his domain, does not mean, the next Emperor rejected Catholicism and sought to destroy her. Secondly during this time the Roman Empire begins to introduce to Emperor’s again one in the East and one in the West which begins another history and falling of the Empire. There is much to digress what happens next in the Western Empire but I do not want to confuse you. In short one cannot judge the whole Catholic Church to one specific era. when She survives all political and religious atrocities that came against her, unchanged to today.

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Mithraism was secretive and didn’t last long

.
True Catholicism was is never a secretive religion. The Gnostics pretended to have a secret knowledge. Catholicism was proclaiming Jesus Christ crucified from the roof tops, even at the cost of Martyrdom.

It was developing at the same time as Christianity. Both Mithras and Jesus were beings from beyond our universe. Ritual communal meals and sacrifice for salvation were common to both, but they were apparently also common to much of the ancient world.

I am sorry, but your parallel is false, because the Jewish religion is exactly the same as you just described. Did Mithras copy from the Jews and heretical Gnostics? I would chalk this is up to your opinion and never a fact of history.

Which is worse for you? Pagan or Christian - but not quite agreeing with the eventually chosen ‘orthodoxy’, and therefore, I take it, heretic? Better non -Christian than heretic???

Roman Catholicism is pure Orthodoxy without ever needing the title Orthodox. Secondly a heretic is worse than a Pagan, because a heretic knows the Truth and denies it. While the pagan is ignorant of the Truth of Jesus. There is another title you missed which few Christians were found to be Apostates. Nevertheless Apostates and most heretics repented and returned to full communion with the Catholic Church. Pagan’s are still sought after to welcome them into Christian living.

I wasn’t suggesting that it was the early church rather than the Roman state doing the persecuting of pagans, but I would imagine the church wasn’t too much against a bit of state persecution - ‘pour encourager les autres’ if you like.

Maybe you not aware of the Popes and the Catholic Church opposing the Emperors of their killing of non Christians and the way Pagan Rome was delivering it’s justice unjustly in the eyes of the Church, which brought conversions of Emperors or brought on persecution of Popes personally by Roman Emperors. There is much more to your logic in this history of the Church which appears you are not made aware of?

I would take issue with you if you claimed that the church was above persecution throughout its long history, whether it was of non Christians or heretics.

The Church has been persecuted since the first Apostles of Jesus Christ to today. In fact the first 34-+ popes direct apostolic successors to St.Peter and St. Paul in Rome were all martyred for the Catholic faith practiced unchanged today in the Roman Catholic Church Latin rite.
Peace be with you

 

[Kelt]

.
True Catholicism was is never a secretive religion. The Gnostics pretended to have a secret knowledge. Catholicism was proclaiming Jesus Christ crucified from the roof tops, even at the cost of Martyrdom.

We seem to spend a lot of time talking at cross-purposes…I would never suggest that their being secretive and short lived was one of the parallels - it was a comment. Altho’ of course Christianity did have its time of being secretive when it was being persecuted - but I wasn’t referring to this.

I am sorry, but your parallel is false, because the Jewish religion is exactly the same as you just described. Did Mithras copy from the Jews and heretical Gnostics? I would chalk this is up to your opinion and never a fact of history.

I did say that it was common in the ancient world…

Roman Catholicism is pure Orthodoxy without ever needing the title Orthodox. Secondly a heretic is worse than a Pagan, because a heretic knows the Truth and denies it. While the pagan is ignorant of the Truth of Jesus. There is another title you missed which few Christians were found to be Apostates. Nevertheless Apostates and most heretics repented and returned to full communion with the Catholic Church. Pagan’s are still sought after to welcome them into Christian living.

Now! this concept that a ‘heretic’…‘knows the Truth and denies it’…is utter nonsense. Think about it…if a person really believes ‘a’ which involves a genuine belief about their ‘eternal life’…and then chooses to ‘deny’ it all…? Where is the logic in that?? It’s like saying that while they ‘know’ (believe) that if they walk in front of a bus then they would die…but because they were obstinate or belligerent, or for whatever reason, that they would do it anyway!! If you truly BELIEVE something, you CANNOT ‘deny’ or disbelieve it. You could deny it in the sense that you would SAY you denied it under extreme torture, but inside you would still believe what you truly believe. Some people stand up for what they believe and in some cases this involved the established Catholic Church condemning them as heretics.

Maybe you not aware of the Popes and the Catholic Church opposing the Emperors of their killing of non Christians and the way Pagan Rome was delivering it’s justice unjustly in the eyes of the Church, which brought conversions of Emperors or brought on persecution of Popes personally by Roman Emperors. There is much more to your logic in this history of the Church which appears you are not made aware of?

I was talking about the persecution BY the church. ( I don’t understand your last sentence/question…)

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

The topic please

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I was talking about the persecution BY the church. ( I don’t understand your last sentence/question…)

Today’s example of the Pope addressing the terrorism by Islamic fundamentalist and condemning the killing of innocent victims who are both Muslim’s and Christian’s. The Pope does today what Popes have always done in the history you present.

Because the Pope today condemns terrorism today, does not act differently; when the Popes addressed Emperors from your presented time frame in history, who protects all human life both pagan, heretics, apostates and non believers. The Catholic Church’s members have taking on death in the place of a non-believer who is threatened with certain death. This walk by Catholic Saints prove that the Church herself never persecutes anyone and never has any power to persecute anyone, when her holy virgins, martyrs and saints give witness for the world to see that it is not difficult to love your enemy for those who follow Christ Jesus.

The Pope today, backed by saintly and living Catholic witnesses today who practice this divine doctrine revealed by Jesus to love our neighbors as our selves, speaks from Truth and by living testimony to those Muslim leaders today to condemn terrorism.

Just as the Popes addressed past pagan Emperors who were found to be killing the innocent unjustly or for self political gain. The popes concern is for human life not the destruction of human life no matter who they might be.

The pope holds Islam to it’s peaceful dictation among Muslims from the Quran to be fully revealed and practiced by Muslims to prevent terrorism among all peoples who suffer by terrorist groups in the name of Islam.

Can I recommend a book to you that addresses your historical topics, written and witnessed who lived in this history, which you raised?

 

[Kelt]

The pope holds Islam to it’s peaceful dictation among Muslims from the Quran to be fully revealed and practiced by Muslims to prevent terrorism among all peoples who suffer by terrorist groups in the name of Islam.

Can I recommend a book to you that addresses your historical topics, written and witnessed who lived in this history, which you raised?

(Are you saying that Islam IS revealed by God?)
While I have every respect for the peaceful motives of recent popes - especially Francis - our English history paints a different picture from the one you paint of the Catholic Church in the past! Of course the Protestant church was equally guilty, but burning people alive seems like persecution and violence to most people!
Then we have the crusades. Now, I know Catholic Answers has a different way of retelling this history, and I know one should always be careful about who is writing the history books, but…these were calls to arms called by popes against the Muslims. Yes, in some instances they were trying to defend threatened land. (But who had rightful claim to these lands anyway?) Where some can be excused somewhat for defence, others were downright bloodthirsty. The Albigensian crusade for example. Mass indiscriminate slaughter and mass burnings…instigated by the church because the church’s power was challenged by those it viewed as heretics.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Kelt;12569700](Are you saying that Islam IS revealed by God?)

My opinion is irrelevant here. The pope is addressing Muslims acting in terrorism to relate to the peace the Quran teaches them, in the hopes peace be applied to non-believers.

Of course the Protestant church was equally guilty, but burning people alive seems like persecution and violence to most people!

I think you portray a Hollywood version which rejects and distorts the Truth of lived recorded history of the Church. You don’t falsely claim that the popes or the Catholic Church condemned people to burn at the stake or literally burned people at the stake do you?
You like Hollywood, mixes the things that belong to God with the things that belong to the Caesar’s (secular powers). Because the church removes a priest or bishop from teaching error in the Church, she never condemns them to death which you wrongly suggest. When it is secular laws which acted in these circumstances, never by the Church.

The Pope today, never has any power to condemn or burn terrorist groups at the stake, if found guilty.

Then we have the crusades. Now, I know Catholic Answers has a different way of retelling this history, and I know one should always be careful about who is writing the history books, but…these were calls to arms called by popes against the Muslims.

The pope acts today the same way the pope acted in the beginning of the crusades. To protect the innocent pilgrims and protect all travelers on the roads to and from Jerusalem, when it was well known Muslims were killing travelers and pilgrims on the route to and from Jerusalem. How the secular military powers applied their security to protect the innocent victims from being murdered by Muslims. Is recorded in history which led to wars for Jerusalem.

The Pope today called for all nations to use what ever means at their disposal, that is possible to protect the innocent victims, Christians, Muslims and non believers alike. The Pope today and in times past never has the power to dictate to secular powers how to conduct their military or diplomacy to stop terrorism. She only pleads and prays that an action be taken to protect the innocent lives by known terrorist group(s). You don’t have to look to history for Truth on how the Popes act against terrorist who kill non Christians, Muslims and Christians. The Popes actions have not changed, they engage against terrorist who kill innocent people of all religions and creeds and protect them.

Yes, in some instances they were trying to defend threatened land. (But who had rightful claim to these lands anyway?) Where some can be excused somewhat for defence, others were downright bloodthirsty

No, you are wrongly placing the faith of the Church in history, when it is the secular powers who engage in the spoils resulting from war. Know first it was the Church who called for the protection of innocent people from being murdered that is all. The Church never has a military might to which you wrongly judge her and to which Hollywood wrongly paints this historical Church history for monetary gain, which appears you supported Hollywood’s fictional interpretation of history.

.

The Albigensian crusade for example. Mass indiscriminate slaughter and mass burnings…instigated by the church because the church’s power was challenged by those it viewed as heretics.

The Albigensians were all Catholic members, hellooo… who were infecting the Church with heresy. Look to the secular laws in place and practiced by secular authorities who judge their own citizens for heresy or lie-ing about the Royal Courts Catholic faith, don’t look to the Church for what secular Catholic Kings and princes did and do today to their own citizens when they violate their own civil laws. Please don’t apply today’s civil laws and misjudge Church history with secular laws which the Catholic members had to obey themselves during this history.

The Pope today does not look to change the Quran or act in laws contrary to the Quran but pleads to the Muslim’s Quran to act in peace and respect of human life. The Church only condemned her members from teaching the heresy of Albigensian. You make the false impression that the Albigensian’s were a certain type of ethnicity or indigenous people of the sort. After the Church removed her members from infecting the Church members. The Civil authorities act out their civil laws, for which you misjudge the Church. You and Hollywood give too much credit to the Church here.

Peace be with you

 

[Kelt]

I think you portray a Hollywood version which rejects and distorts the Truth of lived recorded history of the Church. You don’t falsely claim that the popes or the Catholic Church condemned people to burn at the stake or literally burned people at the stake do you?
You like Hollywood, mixes the things that belong to God with the things that belong to the Caesar’s (secular powers). Because the church removes a priest or bishop from teaching error in the Church, she never condemns them to death which you wrongly suggest. When it is secular laws which acted in these circumstances, never by the Church.

I have now recovered from being accused of getting my history from Hollywood! No, I don’t falsely claim that the popes and the Catholic Church condemned people to burn at the stake…I rightly claim it.
“Anyone who attempts to construe a personal view of God which conflicts with Church dogma must be burned without pity.”

• Pope Innocent III

While in Perugia, Innocent IV issued the 1252 papal bull Ad extirpanda permitting the torture of heretics…

“In 1252, Pope Innocent IV officially authorized the creation of the horrifying Inquisition torture chambers. It also included anew perpetual imprisonment or death at the stake without the bishops consent. Acquittal of the accused was now virtually impossible. Thus, with a license granted by the pope himself, Inquisitors were free to explore the depths of horror and cruelty.”
If you want to split hairs…the secular authorities might have done the torture, but it was at the behest of the church!
Of course, the torturers were not allowed to shed blood ( was it st Augustine who said that the church should for no cause shed blood?) so they used other methods.

The Pope today, never has any power to condemn or burn terrorist groups at the stake, if found guilty.

Of course not…society has moved on from old beliefs and superstitions! Medieval people saw the world through different eyes. It was all pretty much black and white to a lot of them.

The pope acts today the same way the pope acted in the beginning of the crusades. To protect the innocent pilgrims and protect all travelers on the roads to and from Jerusalem, when it was well known Muslims were killing travelers and pilgrims on the route to and from Jerusalem. How the secular military powers applied their security to protect the innocent victims from being murdered by Muslims. Is recorded in history which led to wars for Jerusalem.

The Pope today called for all nations to use what ever means at their disposal, that is possible to protect the innocent victims, Christians, Muslims and non believers alike. The Pope today and in times past never has the power to dictate to secular powers how to conduct their military or diplomacy to stop terrorism. She only pleads and prays that an action be taken to protect the innocent lives by known terrorist group(s). You don’t have to look to history for Truth on how the Popes act against terrorist who kill non Christians, Muslims and Christians. The Popes actions have not changed, they engage against terrorist who kill innocent people of all religions and creeds and protect them.

Modern popes and popes in the past are very different, politically and morally. They have changed considerably. While seeking the truth of history one always has to look carefully at the sources I know…but I think it is you who have swallowed some propaganda here.

No, you are wrongly placing the faith of the Church in history, when it is the secular powers who engage in the spoils resulting from war. Know first it was the Church who called for the protection of innocent people from being murdered that is all. The Church never has a military might to which you wrongly judge her and to which Hollywood wrongly paints this historical Church history for monetary gain, which appears you supported Hollywood’s fictional interpretation of history.

Have you heard of the Hospitaller Knights? A religious military order. Or the Knights Templar?
“Officially endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church around 1129, the Order became a favoured charity throughout Christendom and grew rapidly in membership and power. Templar knights, in their distinctive white mantles with a red cross, were among the most skilled fighting units of the Crusades.”
.

The Albigensians were all Catholic members, hellooo… who were infecting the Church with heresy. Look to the secular laws in place and practiced by secular authorities who judge their own citizens for heresy or lie-ing about the Royal Courts Catholic faith, don’t look to the Church for what secular Catholic Kings and princes did and do today to their own citizens when they violate their own civil laws. Please don’t apply today’s civil laws and misjudge Church history with secular laws which the Catholic members had to obey themselves during this history.

If, after torture, the condemned heretic was handed over to the secular authorities for burning…where are the protests from the church authorities that it should not be done? If they felt this to be wrong they would have said so. It is very convenient to put the blame of the method of execution on the secular authorities!

The Pope today does not look to change the Quran or act in laws contrary to the Quran but pleads to the Muslim’s Quran to act in peace and respect of human life. The Church only condemned her members from teaching the heresy of Albigensian. You make the false impression that the Albigensian’s were a certain type of ethnicity or indigenous people of the sort.

No I don’t. They were heretics in the eyes of the Catholic authorities.