Who is My Brother?

[Eden_of_Mind]

Greetings to all… I thank you for your serious interest in exploring this subject in as many ways as might prove useful. I have been negligent, I think, in failing at the very beginning to gather together the proper resources which might make an end to much of our hypothesizing. Some of the challenges I have rightly received have made it clear that this is precisely what is needed, at the very least to ensure that we chart a more sure course and sufficiently resolve the issues which would narrow our inquiry and, hopefully, make it a bit less daunting.

I offer, then, a very brief description of many important official documents and letters, decrees of councils and Papal bulls, with the use of scholarly resources, most often taken from scholarly sites that are pro-Roman Catholic. I will, of course, provide links where possible. For the sake of space, I will simply begin…

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

In the third Lateran Council (1179), the issue of the heretical branches of Cathari, which had grown rather large and were perceived as a notable threat to the Church, provoked a disciplinary innovation in calling forth a crusade to deal with these heretics:

On these [princes] and on all the faithful we enjoin, for the remission of sins, that they oppose this scourge with all their might and by arms protect the Christian people against them. Their goods are to be confiscated and princes free to subject them to slavery. Those who in true sorrow for their sins die in such a conflict should not doubt that they will receive forgiveness for their sins and the fruit of an eternal reward. We too trusting in the mercy of God and the authority of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, grant to faithful Christians who take up arms against them, and who on the advice of bishops or other prelates seek to drive them out, a remission for two years of penance imposed on them, or, if their service shall be longer, we entrust it to the discretion of the bishops, to whom this task has been committed, to grant greater indulgence, according to their judgment, in proportion to the degree of their toil. . . . Meanwhile we receive under the protection of the church, as we do those who visit the Lord’s sepulchre, those who fired by their faith have taken upon themselves the task of driving out these heretics, and we decree that they should remain undisturbed from all disquiet both in their property and persons. If any of you presumes to molest them, he shall incur the sentence of excommunication from the bishop of the place. . .

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/LATERAN3.HTM

In this quote, we see an open admission by the council that there is a distinct possibility, even an expectation, that in taking such hostile actions innocent people will be slaughtered, particularly identified in the text are repentant brethren who come to a “true sorrow” for their sins and would otherwise have sought to return to the Roman church. The object of this statement even seems to be the desire to elicit this sorrow in the midst of a furious bloodshed… and a furious bloodshed it turned out to be. Even those who simply refused to take an oath were to be counted as heretics… The reasoning behind this was that the forbidding of oaths was one of the teachings of the Cathars based upon their reading of Christ’s command not to swear an oath. Apparently, this was all the evidence that might be needed to identify someone as a “heretic” and put them to the sword.

In 1184, Pope Lucius III (1181-1185) worked with Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa to organize episcopal commissions to control heresy in northern Italy (see the Papal bull Ad adolendam). “Laymen accused of heresy, if unable to prove their innocence, were likewise handed over to the civil government for punishment” (26). The punishment was left up to the state and, a little over a decade later, execution by fire became an official decree of the Aragonese King, Peter II.*

All those who even associated with the members of this heretical sect of Cathars were punished as well, as Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) had commanded in a letter to the Archbishop of Auch in 1198:

And therefore by this present apostolic writing we give you a strict command that, by whatever means you can, you destroy all these heresies and expel from your diocese all who are polluted with them. You shall exercise the rigor of the ecclesiastical power against them and all those who have made themselves suspected by associating with them. They may not appeal from your judgments, and if necessary, you may cause the princes and people to suppress them with the sword.

fordham.edu/halsall/source/innIII-policies.html

Ultimately, even women and children were not spared. Those who partook in the slaughter were, as seen above, granted “the protection of the church” and special rewards for this “service.” Any who were negligent to take part, by the authority of the bishops, “should not be allowed to receive the body and blood of the Lord.” Any who stood in the way of this slaughter was excommunicated and would be suspected of heresy themselves.

“Several earlier popes, including Alexander III, Lucius III, and Gregory VIII, had authorized bishops to proceed against heretics on the basis of rumors alone, without waiting for formal evidence. It was then up to the accused to prove his innocence.” (275)*

*(Brown, Harold O. J. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Pub. Peabody, MA: 3rd printing, 2000)

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

In the year 1215, the fourth Latern Council made it officially clear that the “extermination” of heretics was a priority and that anyone suspected of heresy was guilty until proven innocent. Once more, all those among the secular powers who did not “cleanse” their territories of these heretics were found guilty as well. Curiously, the council declared that Roman Catholics would then be free to conquer and occupy the lands of the “temporal ruler” who was guilty after this fashion:

But those who are only suspected, due consideration being given to the nature of the suspicion and the character of the person, unless they prove their innocence by a proper defense, let them be anathematized and avoided by all until they have made suitable satisfaction; but if they have been under excommunication for one year, then let them be condemned as heretics. Secular authorities. . . shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church. . . . But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled by Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith. . . . Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land.

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html

Honorius III (1216-1227) continued Innocent III’s crusade against the Albigensians. Afterward, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Gregory IX (1227-1241) also furthered this program:

Gregory IX was very severe towards heretics, who in those times were universally looked upon as traitors and punished accordingly. Upon the request of King Louis IX of France, he sent Cardinal Romanus as legate to assist the king in his crusade against the Albigenses. At the synod which the papal legate convened at Toulouse in November, 1229, it was decreed that all heretics and their abettors should be delivered to the nobles and magistrates for their due punishment, which, in case of obstinacy, was usually death. When in 1224 Frederick II ordered that heretics in Lombardy should be burnt at the stake, Gregory IX, who was then papal legate for Lombardy, approved and published the imperial law. . . . In February, 1231, therefore, the pope enacted a law for Rome that heretics condemned by an ecclesiastical court should be delivered to the secular power to receive their “due punishment”. This “due punishment” was death by fire for the obstinate and imprisonment for life for the penitent. . . . It must not be thought, however, that Gregory IX dealt more severely with heretics than other rulers did. Death by fire was the common punishment for heretics and traitors in those times. . . . The so-called Monastic Inquisition was established by Gregory IX, who in his Bulls of 13, 20, and 22 April, 1233, appointed the Dominicans as the official inquisitors for all dioceses of France (Ripoil and Bremond, “Bullarium Ordinia Fratrum Praedicatorum”, Rome, 1729, I, 47).

newadvent.org/cathen/06796a.htm

We must remember that the State, according to Rome, derived its authority from Rome itself. These states were officially “Catholic entities.” Rome sanctioned and rewarded their work and lent it the supposed authority of heaven, even as they knew not every victim was likely a “heretic.” The approach was pragmatic. Better that a few grains of wheat should be torn away than that the tares sprouting up as a burgeoning heretical movement should be allowed to survive to grow strong once more.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

In 1252, Innocent IV (1243-1254) sought to put an end to heresy by inscribing his papal bull, Ad extirpanda, which some acknowledge as the beginning of the Medieval Inquisition, though it hadn’t yet attained its full height. In the bull, Pope Innocent IV prescribed torture as a means of obtaining confessions from those suspected to be heretics. He only granted that this method be put to use once, yet he left this so ambiguous that Rome’s Inquisitors interpreted it in a number of ways (as I will show later). None of this was kept secret but was a practice taught openly in the Inquisitorial manuals.

In the same bull, Innocent IV also prescribed burning at the stake for relapsed heretics, he appointed Dominicans to preach a crusade against heretics in Italy. As a reward for this crusade, participants would receive the same indulgences and privileges as were often granted in a crusade to the Holy Land. Finally, Pope Innocent IV advocated the principles of punishment by the confiscation of property to extend even to the heirs of a heretic. Much of this would, as far as I have learned, later be refined and advanced by Alexander IV (1254-1261), Urban IV (1261-1264), Clement IV (1265-1268) and codified by Boniface VIII in the Liber Sextus (1298).

I do want to apologize that, though I searched diligently the archives of scholarly sites and the official Roman Catholic resources, I could not find the text of Ad extirpanda online anywhere.

At this point, I wish to allow the reader a lengthy quotation from an EWTN article granting a somewhat detailed account of the procedures chosen by Inquisitors:

The inhabitants mere summoned to appear before the inquisitor. On those who confessed of their own accord a suitable penance (e.g. a pilgrimage) was imposed, but never a severe punishment like incarceration or surrender to the civil power. However, these relations with the residents of a, place often furnished important indications, pointed out the proper quarter for investigation, and sometimes much evidence was thus obtained against individuals. These mere then cited before the judges — usually by the parish priest, although occasionally by the secular authorities — and the trial began. If the accused at once made full and free confession, the affair was soon concluded, and not to the disadvantage of the accused. But in most instances the accused entered denial even after swearing on the Four Gospels, and this denial was stubborn in the measure that the testimony was incriminating. David of Augsburg (cf. Preger, “Der Traktat des David von Augshurg uber die Waldenser”, Munich, 1878 pp. 43 sqq.) pointed out to the inquisitor four methods of extracting open acknowledgment:

• fear of death, i.e. by giving the accused to understand that the stake awaited him if he would not confess;
• more or less close confinement, possibly emphasized by curtailment of food;
• visits of tried men, who would attempt to induce free confession through friendly persuasion;
• torture, which will be discussed below. . . .

The principle had hitherto been held by the Church that the testimony of a heretic, an excommunicated person, a perjurer, in short, of an “infamous”, was worthless before the courts. But in its destination of unbelief the Church took the further step of abolishing this long established practice, and of accepting a heretics evidence at nearly full value in trials concerning faith. . . . Even prior to the establishment of the Inquisition the names of the witnesses were sometimes withheld from the accused person, and this usage was legalized by Gregory IX, Innocent IV, and Alexander IV. Boniface VIII, however, set it aside by his Bull “Ut commissi vobis officii” (Sext. Decret., 1. V, tit. ii ); and commanded that at all trials, even inquisitorial, the witnesses must be named to the accused. There was no personal confrontation of witnesses, neither was there any cross-examination. Witnesses for the defence hardly ever appeared, as they would almost infallibly be suspected of being heretics or favourable to heresy. For the same reason those impeached rarely secured legal advisers, and mere therefore obliged to make personal response to the main points of a charge. This, however, was also no innovation, for in 1205 Innocent III, by the Bull “Si adversus vos” forbade any legal help for heretics: "We strictly prohibit you, lawyers and notaries, from assisting in any way, by council or support, all heretics and such as believe in them, adhere to them, render them any assistance or defend them in any way”. . .

As an example of this, in 1532, Dominican cardinals famously tried heretics without legal counsel.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

It is important to take note, in the same EWTN article, of a few details on the Inquisitorial use of torture to elicit confessions:

In the beginning, torture was held to be so odious that clerics were forbidden to be present under pain of irregularity. Sometimes it had to be interrupted so as to enable the inquisitor to continue his examination, which, of course, was attended by numerous inconveniences. Therefore on 27 April, 1260, Alexander IV authorized inquisitors to absolve one another of this irregularity. Urban IV on 2 August, 1262, renewed the permission, and this was soon interpreted as formal licence to continue the examination in the torture chamber itself. The inquisitors manuals faithfully noted and approved this usage. The general rule ran that torture was to be resorted to only once. But this was sometimes circumvented — first, by assuming that with every new piece of evidence the rack could be utilized afresh, and secondly, by imposing fresh torments on the poor victim (often on different days), not by way of repetition, but as a continuation. . . as defended by Eymeric; “quia, iterari non debent [tormenta], nisi novis supervenitibus indiciis, continuari non prohibentur.” But what was to be done when the accused, released from the rack, denied what he had just confessed? Some held with Eymeric that the accused should be set at liberty; others, however, like the author of the “Sacro Arsenale” held that the torture should be continued. because the accused had too seriously incriminated himself by his previous confession. When Clement V formulated his regulations for the employment of torture, he never imagined that eventually even witnesses would be put on the rack, although not their guilt, but that of the accused, was in question. From the popes silence it was concluded that a witness might be put upon the rack at the discretion of the inquisitor. Moreover, if the accused was convicted through witnesses, or had pleaded guilty, the torture might still he used to compel him to testify against his friends and fellow-culprits. It would be opposed to all Divine and human equity — so one reads in the “SacroArsenale, ovvero Pratica dell Officio della Santa Inquisizione” (Bologna, 1665) — to inflict torture unless the judge were personally persuaded of the guilt of the accused.
But one of the difficulties of the procedure is why torture was used as a means of learning the truth. On the one hand, the torture was continued until the accused confessed or intimated that he was willing to confess, On the other hand, it was not desired, as in fact it was not possible, to regard as freely made a confession wrung by torture.
It is at once apparent how little reliance may be placed upon the assertion so often repeated in the minutes of trials, “confessionem esse veram, non factam vi tormentorum” (the confession was true and free), even though one had not occasionally read in the preceding pages that, after being taken down from the rack. . . he freely confessed this or that. However, it is not of greater importance to say that torture is seldom mentioned in the records of inquisition trials — but once, for example in 636 condemnations between 1309 and 1323; this does not prove that torture was rarely applied. Since torture was originally inflicted outside the court room by lay officials, and since only the voluntary confession was valid before the judges, there was no occasion to mention in the records the fact of torture.

ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/INQCATEN.HTM

As a reminder, please understand that I am not providing this information merely as some sort of scare tactic or as an attempt at horrifying the reader. Every quotation and fact mentioned is for the strict purpose of grasping the measure of Rome’s involvement and sanction precisely of activities that would make extremely likely the conviction and death of innocent people, even by Rome‘s standard of innocence. Do the decrees of these ecumenical councils, papal bulls, encyclicals, definitions of the purpose and parameters of Inquisitorial methodology, silences, approvals, etc., make it inevitable that innocent people were killed. By “innocent,” I am thinking of the following categories of people:

1. “Separated brethren”
2. Innocent Roman Catholics falsely accused and tortured to make false confessions
3. Innocent children of heretics who were punished.
4. Innocent Roman Catholics who were butchered in crusades because they were even associated with heretics and, therefore, guilty until proven innocent.
5. Truly repentant souls who would or did wish to return to the fold but could not, perhaps because they were killed in an indiscriminate crusade or tortured to death in search of confession…
6. Those who recanted but were burned all the same.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

To continue… in 1415, under a promise of safe conduct, Jan Hus chose to attend the Council of Constance in order to discuss the possibility of certain reforms in the Roman church and submit to reasoned correction by his peers. He was, in spit of the safe conduct, put on “trial” and was not allowed to speak in explanation or defense of himself but was, instead, shouted down by the authorities present each time he tried to respond. Without legal counsel or the capacity to speak in his own defense, he was publicly mocked and humiliated and, finally, sentenced to burn at the stake for holding opinions that he himself insisted he did not hold (or, in some cases, were misinterpreted). Was this a proper trial and execution or did a good man of faith die simply because he wanted to help reform a church that most, by that time, knew to be internally corrupt? Here Hus in his own words regarding his conviction:

fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1415janhus.html

After Hus was thought by his followers to have been falsely burned at the stake, they grew more restless. Eventually, in 1429, Pope Martin V (1281-1285) ordered a crusade to exterminate the Hussites in Bohemia, who had grown rather large and threatened the church perhaps as much as the Cathars once had.
newadvent.org/cathen/09725a.htm

There is supposedly a letter extant in which Martin V urges the King of Poland to “massacre” the Hussites but I cannot vouch for its authenticity so I will not give it here. Perhaps someone on this thread knows whether it is another invention.

The case of Girolamo Savonarola is the final subject I will consider. He was a Dominican friar who preached against clerical immorality and the opulence of the Roman church (and its Pontiff). The church taxed the people and the priests required payments for almost every service. Certain councils had, around this time and earlier, even attempted to deal with some of the problems but corruption was still prevalent. Obviously that is not Rome’s fault, necessarily. Nor were the notorious cruelties and extravagances of Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503) and his son, Caesar Borgia necessarily reflective of Rome‘s policies. Many good men did exist in the church. Yet, because of Rome’s previous policies and outlook regarding all “heretics,” Savonarola was tortured mercilessly. The article at EWTN described it this way:

The case of Savonarola (q.v.) has never been altogether cleared up in this respect. The official report says he had to suffer three and a half tratti da fune (a sort of strappado). When Alexander VI showed discontent with the delays of the trial, the Florentine government excused itself by urging that Savonarola was a man of extraordinary sturdiness and endurance, and that he had been vigorously tortured on many days (assidua quaestione multis diebus, the papal prothonotary, Burchard, says seven times) but with little effect. It is to be noted that torture was most cruelly used, where the inquisitors were most exposed to the pressure of civil authority.

That final line is rather misleading as it was, often, the civil authorities that thought Rome’s policies went too far. There was some resistance to the crusades against heretics in the beginning and to the introduction of torture to elicit confessions. Later, of course, there arose those monarchs who were altogether happy to both accept and interpret Rome’s decrees to their favor. Rome did little to dissuade them, as in the case of Savonarola above.

Finally, Savonarola collapsed under the weight of so much torture and made many confessions that, later, he withdrew. Because he withdrew these confessions, as had often happened before in Inquisitorial proceedings, he was charged with being a relapsed heretic and burned at the stake. This particular case is extremely important because of what happened afterward. Seven years after his death, the sermons and books of Girolamo Savonarola were pronounced orthodox. (302)*

Implicitly, Rome had admitted that Inquisitors, faithful to the allowances of the rule of councils and papal bulls and even the reigning Pope had tortured and executed an orthodox Roman Catholic. Obviously, these are the actions of a single Pope and his officials and the secular authorities under him. Nevertheless, it was clearly the teachings and sanction of the Roman church regarding the practices of those faithful to Rome that had led to this.

*(Brown, Harold O. J. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Pub. Peabody, MA: 3rd printing, 2000; 260)

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Conclusion…

Christ promised His people, as I have quoted before, that “Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. And they will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me.” (John 16:2-3)

It is a simple statement and not at all difficult to understand. Those who kill the brethren, the people of Christ whom He purchased with His own blood, particularly those who do this thinking they are “offering service to God,” do so precisely because they do not know Christ nor His Father. One cannot, therefore, advocate such a thing, even out of motives thought to be righteous and pure. A church, therefore, who advocates the same, is not a Church that knows our Christ or is of Him. Only a few of the facts and quotations I cited would be sufficient to demonstrate that Rome actively and even conscientiously advocated this in fear (not faith) of the impending rapid growth of heresy. Rome did this in the following ways:

1. Officially calling forth crusades to exterminate entire areas, even cities, of heretics, without bothering about fair judicial proceedings (which are sloppy and indiscriminating)
2. Officially requiring that persons suspected of heresy be deemed guilty until they could satisfactorily prove their innocence.
3. Officially disallowing legal counsel in defense of a person accused of heresy.
4. Officially disallowing heretics to know the accusers who had testified against them or even to question the testimony of those witnesses.
5. Using torture to procure confessions from those suspected of heresy.
6. Burning at the stake those who, after torture, withdrew their confessions.
7. Burning those who had already recanted (as in the case of Thomas Cranmer, among others)
8. Extending punishments even to the children of heretics (as Innocent IV prescribed).

I hope and expect that the resources I have provided will not be unfairly dismissed by the fair Roman Catholics I have often encountered on this board. I tried to utilize recognized scholarly resources, most often explicitly pro-Roman Catholic, where I could find them. Sadly, many of the bulls which I cited are not available anywhere online… but having the information at their disposal, anyone may read through them by visiting a library in their area.

The real question now is whether or not these facts, I think finally established to some measure of recognition, lead one to the conclusion that Scripture and Christ would (indeed has for some time) condemn the Roman church as a false church. Did our precious LORD remove His lamp from her long ago, particularly according to the testimony we receive in Scripture about the nature of His Church and what it will and certainly will not do?

Rome claims that the true Church of Christ is infallible “in all points” and, indeed, must be as it is the LORD that guides her. Does this doctrine taught by Rome condemn Rome itself? I shall leave the reader to decide and thank everyone who took the time to pour through this material. I know that it was long and I truly appreciate your patience and sincere devotion to the Truth.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Having neglected, thus far, to respond to many of the good people here, I shall endeavor to do so, now.

adnauseum:

See?

The Bible was in fact established by the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

No serious intellectual denies this.

EOM and his alter-ego deny this.

That’s all there is to it, folks.

Hmm… According to you, no serious intellectual denies that the “Roman Catholic church,” and not simply the universal (Catholic) church of early Christianity “established” the Bible. Then, I suppose on this way of “thinking,” there are no serious intellectuals outside of informed members of the Roman Catholic church.

I would suggest, kindly, that if you believe that, it is time for me to question the seriousness of your concept of an “intellectual”… Perhaps, instead of this kind of extravagant claim, we can keep our mind’s focused on the issue at hand. We are not discussing whether you (or I) think that the Roman Catholic church “established” the Bible (or even, technically, existed at the time). The issue is whether, for all its claims to antiquity, Rome reflects the nature of Christ’s true church.

So far, unless I have missed something, other than denying what seem to be the plain facts of history (as I hope to have shown with my latest series of posts) and arguing that the Roman church is the true Church on other grounds altogether, my main point has not really been challenged.

Now, esr brought up a point which was discussed a bit earlier, specifically whether the Roman church could be the true church even if guilty of all that I have demonstrated. I believe that the Scripture passages I have provided (plus others) leave us without recourse to this suggestion (John 16:2-3; I John 3:13-17 and others). If esr (or anyone else) disagrees, then I would be glad to hear anything they have to say in explanation of those passages of Holy Scripture. I think it would be imperative then to bring other passages to bear on the subject as we ought to be thorough and honest with the whole testimony of the Bible as to the nature of the Church.

Quickly, I will also address the question of the_storygirl. You are quite correct, of course, that certain individuals whom we know to be followers of GOD did things of which they were rightly ashamed. However, they repented of this and, also, they are individuals and nothing of their religion sanctions what they did. If it had done so, they would not have seen the need to repent.

My concern is not with individuals but with a religion or an institution (a church) that {B]does, after all, sanction what is evil, according to the Bible. The goodness and the evil of individuals may have nothing at all to do with the ideals or the ogranization or institutions they profess to serve. This is why, when the los point to abortion clinic bombers, for instance, we can honestly suggest to them that the actions of such people have more to do with our accusers than with ourselves and our beliefs. Why? Because the activity of the abotion clinic bomber was a wretchedly self-centered act and this is not in accordance with our religion but is prevalent at the heart of all non-Christian thought.

It is when the institution itself or the religious beliefs themselves sanction evil or allow evil or suggest or imply that such evil is right that we have good grounds for condemning that institution or religious belief. The question is, is Rome itself guilty of this?

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Church Militant:

. . .the misconduct of any one or group of members of any organization…even it’s leaders, does not disqualify any truth that that group may propound. Truth, (if one believes in objective truth) remains a constant regardless of human actions one way or another. . . .

Indeed, it does. If I were speaking of individuals, you would be correct. But I am speaking of an institution that claims to possess the Truth and is the only proper interpreter of that Truth and is the established means of conferring the light and grace of Christ to the world. That is not merely a matter of individual sin leaving “truth” uncorrupted. This is a matter of whether a certain institution is itself corrupted and, thus, whether it is the true Church of Christ and has any authority at all.

Rome is, after all, only one church among many that claims to be the true Church. You may think that Rome’s claims to this are strong elsewhere, but that is not the subject and nothing else has been heard on those other subjects as well. It would, of course, be absurd for either of us to claim that we have already “heard it all” and looked carefully at all the evidence on numerous issues.

. . .since the historical evidence shows that the Catholic Church is indeed the church that Christ originally founded, then this whole discussion is a moot point, and nothing more than an exploration of excuses for you to reject that objectively proven historical evidence that the early church was indeed Catholic and called itself that even before the death of the last apostle.

No one here is arguing whether “the Catholic” church is the true Church but whether an institution which refers to itself as the “Roman Catholic church” is indeed the Catholic Church established by our LORD.

Members of “The True Church” can indeed murder and commit any human failings that any other human being can commit, but that does not invalidate the factual truth of that church. If so then, all of Christianity must indeed collapse since the apostles themselves were not shining examples of high moral character and courage, and that is as evident as a simple reading of the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

This is absolutely true. I agree with every word of it. However, it is equally true, as Scripture seems to reveal, that, though individuals within a church may fail, the church itself (indeed, the true Church according to the teachings of Rome) cannot fail but is infallible “in every point.” Surely, you are not denying Roman Catholic teaching on the expectations we all ought to have of the purity of the true Church of Christ?

All the rest of this discussion is nothing more than a great deal of noise and dust being thrown up into the air. I don’t see an honest query or discussion here… I see an ongoing platform for a couple of guys to allege trash which Catholics have answered in very good faith while they continue to deride and denounce the Catholic Church and picking up stones to throw, all the while knowing that they themselves are not without sin.

I am heartily and sincerely sorry that this is all you see.

So go ahead… let the one without sin throw that first stone.

I cannot throw any stones, being a fallible man myself. Instead, I will leave Christ to throw the stones of judgment at that church which kills His people. I am only here to consider whether He already has.

Enough of this! I’m outta this bad joke!
Mark well these posters friends…
Pax vobiscum,

Is this a suggestion that I and CorneliusBottom be censored by others? And what, precisely, have we done to merit this, particularly CorneliusBottom, who has not been advancing these arguments as I have and seemed to come in late to this entire discussion?

I’m sorry that you find all this to be some sort of “bad joke.” It isn’t a joke at all and I think you know this, which is perhaps why you’re angry. As much as you may already have grown hard hearted toward what I have to say, I am not trying to be dishonest and I hope that my recent attempt to bring forward the better resources will help to illustrate this.

I expec that you would want to know the truth and that, if that is so, you will read the quotations of church councils and papal bulls and openly sanctioned Inquisitorial methods. You will think carefully and responsibly, with a good conscience striving to glorify Christ as you weigh this evidence. You can ask no less of yourself as you have certainly demanded this of me.

I’ll pray for you…

 

[esr]

EOM,

Thanks for attempting to answer my question. Although, it was not really an anwser to my direct question. You have stated several times in your posts, ableit in a very polite manner, that we have not answered you direct questions. So, I will implore you again to answer me: What is the true Church? It is not very Christian of you to claim that the Catholic Church is not the true Church, but then not elaborate on what is the true Church. I think we all understand what you think it is not. So, please tell us what church is the true Church.

I am still at a loss as to how you think the Sacred Scripture that you quoted negates my suggestion, ie. that maybe God allowed the atrocities that you cite in order to preserve the Truth in His Church. Could you please elaborate on my assertion (without just picking and chosing Sacred Scripture).

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Eden:

Well what I have learned from all of this is that the Reformation Protestants created a “Black Legend”

I hope now, Eden, after reading through documents which are taken from reliable Roman Catholic sources, after looking at the testimony even of your own sites, like EWTN, that you will reconsider this claim that Protestants have invented a “Black Legend.” If the history I provided in my recent series of posts is a “Black Legend,” then it is one taught even by the Roman church.

Then I find out that it is questionable as to whether or not the Malleus Maleficarum was even approved for use by the Church as it never received the Nihil Obstat, the author was accused of forging an approval for the work and that same author was condemned by the Inquisition in 1490 . It certainly is a convenient propaganda tool.

First, the methods prescribed by the Malleus were not, in many ways, extraordinary, as the evidence I’ve gathered from official Roman Catholic sites attests. What was absurd in the Malleus, for the most part, were the sexual theories about witches propunded by Heinrich Kramer. Nevertheless, as I already relayed, Kramer was respected by many and the Roman church continued to employ him as an Inquisitor long after he had been supposedly “condemned” by the Inquisition at Cologne. Roman officials even invited him to speak authoritatively on the subject. His works were extremely popular and influential and many other Inquisitorial manuals detailed a similar use of torture and other methods which made it likely that the innocent were falsely accused and perished. That is the issue.

Second, there is nothing “convenient” about the Malleus or what it reveals.

From the outrageous claims that anti-Catholics like Jack Chick and Dave Hunt have made. . . . There has historically been a concerted campaign to slander the Church in certain circles using lies because using truth does not work against a* true* Church.

Again, I deny any use of or any sympathy with the methods and work of Jack Chick and Dave Hunt. Dave Hunt is not, in my opinion, even a Christian, if the account I read that he revealed himself to hold to anti-Lordship views is true. As for the lies that have been propounded by conspiracy theoriests about Rome, I hope to have demonstrated amply by my recent series of posts that I am not one of them.

When I asked EOM what the repercussions for an accused heretic should be, I have received silence.

I honestly don’t remember ever having been asked this. If I have, I missed it. l’ll answer here. The Roman church, in my opinion, if it were the true Church, would have never gone beyond excommunication in the face of heresy. It would not have sanctioned its own officials to use torture or to hand heretics over to the state to have them killed or confiscated the property of heretics (which is hardly owed even to Christ’s Church and is simply theft). Most assuredly, it would not have sanctioned crusades against heretics or used methods which even Rome explicitly believed would end up harming those who were innocent.

What’s my conclusion? I have seen enough instances in which the Church is accused of great evils (for instance the fake “Knights of Columbus Oath” and the fake “Vicarius” title supposedly used by the Pope that adds up to 666 to name just two) only to find out that they are lies created to discredit Catholicism. So now I have evidence that the myth of the Inquisition was used as a propaganda tool by Protestants.

I’ve never cited any “Knights of Columbus Oath” nor attempted to say something so absurd as that the “Vicarius” title of the Roman Pontiff adds up to 666. I am, in fact, completely unaware of the latter and the former I do not believe in the least. As for the Inquisition, its horrors, though exaggerated by many in their extent, were very, very real, as even Roman Catholic sources will attest. You dishonor the memories of those who suffered.

Am I concerned that the Church is not the true Church? Not in the least bit. It’s an historical fact. Even Martin Luther was clear about that. . .

Now that is funny. Has Luther become a resource for Roman Catholics? Am I bound to agree with his mistaken notion of history at this point?

I know. You are citing Luther because you have this conception that his works are wholly authoritative in the minds of Protestants everywhere… but I assure you that we don’t see Luther as some sort of Pope. At the very least, I do not. He was a brilliant man and I take his work seriously because of this. But, then, I think Aquinas was a genius and I take him seriously because of this. But their works are no better than the arguments they employ.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

esr:

EOM,

Thanks for attempting to answer my question. Although, it was not really an anwser to my direct question. You have stated several times in your posts, ableit in a very polite manner, that we have not answered you direct questions. So, I will implore you again to answer me. . .

I have answered that question many times on this forum but I will answer it again… Before I do, did you read through the series of articles I posted with the resources from Roman Catholic and scholarly sites? I ask this because it is the foundation of any future discussion of this as you still seem intent on suggesting that I only “think” that Rome was responsible for those things I’ve attributed to it.

 

[Mickey]

esr:

So, I will implore you again to answer me: What is the true Church? It is not very Christian of you to claim that the Catholic Church is not the true Church, but then not elaborate on what is the true Church. I think we all understand what you think it is not. So, please tell us what church is the true Church.

Greetings esr!

It is most likely that EOM and Cornelius are reformed baptists. Please pray for them.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Mickey:

Greetings esr!

It is most likely that EOM and Cornelius are reformed baptists. Please pray for them.

I’m sorry… I obviously cannot speak for CorneliusBottom, but you’ve guessed wrong about me.

 

[Mickey]

Eden of Mind:

The Roman church, in my opinion, if it were the true Church, would have never gone beyond excommunication in the face of heresy.

Glory To Jesus Christ!

The Catholic faithful are at peace with the knowledge that the true Church is the Catholic Church.
May the truth that you seek, one day bring you to this same peace and understanding.

God Bless you!
Mickey

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

I have no wish to point fingers because there is a great mixture of people and ideas here in this forum. But I must ask why there are a number of you who wish to know what my idea of the nature of the true Church founded by our precious Christ is?

What does this have to do with the question at hand? I am not pursuing this question in a circular fashion, arguing that Rome is somehow not the true Church because Rome is not the church I’ve grown up in or converted to or prefer or am faithful to, etc.

I’ve put forward the strong possibility that Rome is not the true Church based upon what both the Scriptures and Rome say about the nature of the true Church. If the true Church is what Rome has taught (infallible “in all points” of faith and morals–which this issue certainly falls under) and, if the true believer who knows the Father and the Son cannot slay the Father’s children, even if they believe themselves to be doing Him a great service, then the Roman Catholic church cannot be the true Church Christ founded. The “good intentions” that may be cited as lying behind Rome’s past do not avoid the judgment already pronounced by Christ in John 16:2-3. Indeed, it is precisely those who feel that they’ve killed His people with the highest of intentions that He singles out for His judgment in that passage.

That, so far, is where the argument seems to be… No one has been willing, perhaps, to address the facts that I took some pains in establishing recently by quoting from your church’s own sources. Did I err? Did I quote from invalid sources? Did I misunderstand them? Please, I ask you, if you can see an error in my handling of these resources, to point it out to me so that I will no longer hold these erroneous views.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Glory To Jesus Christ!

The Catholic faithful are at peace with the knowledge that the true Church is the Catholic Church.
May the truth that you seek, one day bring you to this same peace and understanding.

God Bless you!
Mickey

Did you read the sources I’ve given recently? Did you read the decisions of ecumenical councils, papal bulls, etc., that I quoted? I don’t understand. The Roman Catholic church went far beyond excommunication. That is what Rome began doing in the face of heretics and the methods Rome employed afterward simply escalated. That would, it seems, make Rome guilty.

How, then, does my statement secure some sort of relief from this dilemma?

 

[Mickey]

Eden of Mind:

How, then, does my statement secure some sort of relief from this dilemma?

My statement only wishes peace for you. Please forgive me for any and all offenses I may have committed against you and Cornelius while responding to this thread.

May the grace and the love and the peace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, be with you always.

Mickey

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

By the way… that “excommunication” to which I’m referring is a very simple thing. It should not be coupled with further punishments, such as the confiscation of property (how this can be justified, I have no idea), exile, imprisonment, loss of privileges to buy and work or sell, etc., which would almost guarantee a person to be at risk of the loss of his or her life.

There simply would not be an association with other Christians on the level of fellowship until that person, who claims to be of Christ, returns and obeys the LORD they profess to serve and ceases to shame His name by wearing it in sin.

Of course, my views on this are not really the issue. Whatever I may think of the limits Rome was allowed to go, none of this has been established in discussion (i.e., I may be wrong) and it really is not as clear, I think to everyone here, as the obvious truth that Christ’s Church cannot kill His people.

Not a single soul that has generously offered their time to us all has challenged this. I think we all know that I am not arriving at some absurd or borderline truth that could “go either way,” so to speak. Is there anyone willing to try to defend the view that the true Church of Christ can kill His people which He purchased with His blood simply because of their beliefs?

Can the true Church founded by Christ sanction the killing of faithful Roman Catholics?

Rome has sanctioned methods which even the church understood would make this inevitable.

 

[mercygate]

Eden of Mind:

I have no wish to point fingers because there is a great mixture of people and ideas here in this forum. But I must ask why there are a number of you who wish to know what my idea of the nature of the true Church founded by our precious Christ is?

What does this have to do with the question at hand?

The reason it is important to be able to identify THE true Church – is because Jesus promised to build his Church and that the netherworld should not prevail against it. Therefore, if you eliminate the Catholic Church based on the single criterion you elect as exclusionary, you must either identify something else as the true church or you must deny that Jesus did what he said he would do. If he has failed to fulfill his promise to build his Church, then he is not the Messiah, and he certainly is not God.