-
Religion Is Not the Enemy
February 21, 2012 | 26 comments
-
The Lion as Catholic
February 8, 2010 | 27 comments
Buy the Book
Return to Lepanto
An “agnostic Protestant” may not necessarily be the best choice to write a history of the papacy.
Absolute Monarchs: A History of the
Papacy
By John Julius Norwich
(Random House, 528 pages, $30)
In his eccentric history of the papacy, Absolute Monarchs, John Julius Norwich is just hitting his stride when he mentions in passing the “hideous persecutions… instituted by the violently anti-Christian Marcus Aurelius, a philosopher-emperor who should have known better.”
Now think about that for a minute. Norwich is a popular historian; by his own admission he is no scholar. Marcus Aurelius was a philosopher. Here the popularizer presumes to instruct the philosopher on how he should have approached a question of belief. It apparently does not occur to Norwich that Marcus Aurelius might have had good reasons to fear the growth of Christianity—reasons that he, Norwich, fails to grasp.
Notice, too, how lightly Norwich airily suggests that the
philosopher-emperor “should have known
better”—as if persecution were the sort of regrettable offense
that might be committed by a naughty schoolboy. The same
determinedly superficial attitude will be in evidence throughout
Absolute Monarchs. And this passage appears on page 13,
with 455 pages to go. Steel yourself.
IT IS NOT CLEARY WHY Norwich chose to write a history of the papacy. A devout Catholic might treat the papacy with reverence, while an ardent Protestant might compare the Roman institution to the Whore of Babylon. But an “agnostic Protestant,” the description that Norwich chooses for himself, has no clear frame of reference. The author is skeptical about nearly every claim put forward for the papacy, the Catholic Church, and the Christian faith. He is not sure that St. Peter ever actually made it to Rome. Indeed he is not sure that Jesus intended to establish a Church. But if the reader holds these beliefs, Norwich will not oppose them. One has the impression that he doesn’t really care about questions of faith, as Marcus Aurelius did. He just wants to tell a story.
And what a story it is! Norwich roars through 2,000 years of errors and frustrations, schemes and setbacks, venality and failure. His history focuses on the political side of the papacy: the constant maneuvering for power and influence, the shifting alliances with political powers. Absolute Monarchs is absolutely the wrong title for this book; Norwich takes great delight in showing how many Roman pontiffs desperately sought support from earthly potentates. As he tells the story, one pope after another needed help from powerful Roman families or European emperors. As often as not the pontiffs failed to win the necessary support, and in a remarkable number of cases they conveniently die, sorely disappointed, as soon as Norwich has finished recounting their political failures.
Other historians have exposed the corruption that has undoubtedly tainted the papacy: the bribery and the assassinations, the mistresses and catamites, the sales of indulgences, the red hats for bastard sons. Serious Catholics and Protestants might disagree on the value of the papacy, yet agree that Rodrigo Borgia disgraced the institution. Norwich, never emotionally engaged with this subject, merely reports the vices of the Renaissance popes, sine ira et studio. It’s just all part of the story, and if you want to know the significance of the story—well, you’ll need to read another book.
Norwich the amateur historian does not try to stir the reader’s outrage against the scoundrels who have sat on Peter’s throne. But Norwich the popular writer cannot resist the lure of debunked myths about the papacy, even when he realizes that they are false. He realizes that the tales of a female “Pope Joan” are bunk, yet he devotes an entire chapter to the subject, giving the myth plenty of play before he disowns it. He airs the wild conspiracy theories about the alleged murder of Pope John Paul I in 1978 before quietly owning, in a footnote, that he does not believe them.
Page after page, chapter after chapter, Absolute Rulers recounts the conflicts between Roman pontiffs and other European leaders. In the early chapters the main conflict is between Roman and Byzantium, and Norwich, whose sympathies are clearly with the East, can barely suppress his wonder at the fact that Rome rather than Constantinople emerged as the acknowledged hub of the Christian world. Yet he notes that St. John Chrysostom, the most illustrious bishop of Constantinople, deferred to the bishop of Rome. Apparently St. John, like Marcus Aurelius, noticed something that has escaped Lord Norwich.
Yes, it is true that many early popes (and not a few later ones) had trouble differentiating themselves from the other political figures who surrounded them. But on their good days—and there were many good days, even if Norwich does not recognize them—the Roman pontiffs recognized that they were not politicians, but vicars of Christ, who had announced that his Kingdom is not of this world and his power is not earthly power.
Generations of history students have heard how a penitent Henry II stood barefoot in the snow at Canossa, waiting patiently for Pope Gregory VII to lift his excommunication. “In fact, Gregory’s triumph was empty and ephemeral, and Henry knew it,” writes Norwich, who goes on to show that Henry continued to plague Gregory for years after that dramatic encounter. Nonsense! At Canossa, the pope clearly established that whatever political power a king might wield, he could not match the moral authority of Peter’s successor. Some 935 years later, Lord Norwich still has not grasped that lesson.
Because he takes so little interest in religious affairs, Norwich does not pay much attention to the theological underpinning for the belief that the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ. He skips lightly through the Christological disputes of the early Church, the disastrous split between Rome and Constantinople, and the Protestant Reformation. All these subjects are covered briefly, whereas the political machinations of the Vatican are given exhaustive treatment. In this history of the papacy—which is perforce a history of the Catholic Church—Napoleon Bonaparte is a far more prominent figure than Martin Luther.
“POPE PIUS V lived for just seven months after Lepanto,” Norwich mentions, as he wraps up his coverage of one of the most important popes in history. Lepanto? The reader might be forgiven for wondering about the reference, since Norwich never says a word about the Battle of Lepanto, and barely touches on the heroic and ultimately successful effort by Pius V to rally Catholic opposition against an Islamic invasion of Europe. Again, the clash between religious forces is not a particularly important theme in this book—in a history of the papacy!
Norwich turns to an undoubted political expert for an assessment of another historically important pontiff, Pius IX. Metternich described “Pio Nono” as “a good priest, he never turned his mind toward matters of government.” In this book, Pius IX is depicted as the Vatican leader who coped with the Risorgimento, the unification of Italy, and the loss of the papal states. These were important historical developments, certainly, and they deserve treatment. But in Absolute Monarchs (again one notices the inappropriateness of the title) these political concerns completely overshadow the theological and pastoral work of Pius IX.
On the rare occasions when he does delve into theological issues, Norwich handles them poorly. He is misleading in his explanation of how Leo I justified papal primacy, sloppy in his recounting of the formulae set forth by the Council of Chalcedon, and simply wrong in his account of the teachings of Vatican II.
About the Author
Philip F. Lawler is the editor of Catholic World News (cwnews.com) and the author of The Faithful Departed: The Collapse of Boston’s Catholic Culture (Encounter).
Letter to the Editor View all comments (241) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Philip F. Lawler
More Articles From Buy the Book
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/10/24/return-to-lepanto
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
J.L. Hoskins| 10.24.11 @ 10:55AM
Catholic Extermination Camps
Surpisingly few know that Nazi extermination camps in World War II were by no means the only ones in Europe at the time. In the years 1942-1943 also in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveli, a practising Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope.
There were even concentration camps exclusively for children!
In these camps - the most notorious was Jasenovac, headed by a Franciscan friar - orthodox-Christian serbians (and a substantial number of Jews) were murdered. Like the Nazis the Catholic Ustasha burned their victims in kilns, alive (the Nazis were decent enough to have their victims gassed first). But most of the victims were simply stabbed, slain or shot to death, the number of them being estimated between 300,000 and 600,000, in a rather tiny country. Many of the killers were Franciscan friars. The atrocities were appalling enough to induce bystanders of the Nazi "Sicherheitsdient der SS", watching, to complain about them to Hitler (who did not listen). The pope knew about these events and did nothing to prevent them. [MV]
The Roman Catholic Church could spend from now until doomsday confessing its sins, and the Protestant church has almost enough sins to confess. The reason Protestants have less to account for is Protestantism hasn't been around as long as Roman Catholicism.
The history of Christianity is stained with the blood of innocents, lest we forget.
C Smith| 10.24.11 @ 11:23AM
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2008
Archbishop Stepinac
Today’s incursion on an already evacuated American embassy by a few hundred Serbs out of almost 200,000 taking part in an otherwise peaceful protest was provoked by the declaration of the Independent state of Kosovo. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a prepared statement earlier this week affirmed: "The United States has today formally recognized Kosovo as a sovereign and independent state.” Few comprehend the sickening sensation of déjà vu Serbs are experiencing. Almost 70 years ago, another independent state was declared: the Independent State of Croatia.
In May 1941, the Independent State of Croatia was established by a Nazi puppet regime, the Ustaša. Archbishop of Zagreb Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac immediately blessed the regime and offered prayers for Ante Pavelic its leader. Stepinac even arranged for Pavelic to be personally received by Pope Pius XII in Rome.
As “Father Confessor” to the Ustashi, Stepinac declared, "God, who directs the destiny of nations and controls the hearts of Kings, has given us Ante Pavelic and moved the leader of a friendly and allied people, Adolf Hitler, to use his victorious troops to disperse our oppressors... Glory be to God, our gratitude to Adolf Hitler and loyalty to our Poglavnik, Ante Pavelic." And with Stepinac’s blessing the Independent State of Croatia immediately instigated a pogrom, a pogrom to exterminate Serbian Christians!
David T| 10.24.11 @ 10:15PM
Mr. Smith: You might also be interested in a fascinating work known as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
PJ| 10.24.11 @ 1:14PM
To blatantly accuse the Roman Catholic Church & its clerics of actively participating in 1 of the worse atrocities of the 20th century, you better back it up with credible sources.
Hint: personal blogs are not credible sources.
Where are your sources?
Seek| 10.24.11 @ 2:16PM
For speaking the truth, expect a torrent of cyber-abuse. The Ustasha were monsters, all too willing to do the Nazi regime's dirty work. Serbs have a long memory.
UNBELIEVABLE BULLSHIT!| 10.24.11 @ 6:09PM
...AND YOU KNOW IT, LIAR!
Quartermaster| 10.24.11 @ 6:16PM
Alas, it is the truth. If you'd get out a bit more, your reading would have encountered the Ustasha. It was Roman Catholic, and it was supported by the Vatican.
As for the sources, wipe your own nose. I've come across them numerous times when I wasn't even trying to find them.
Clint| 10.24.11 @ 7:50PM
Do Your Homework.
" The Church in Poland also suffered severely. During the first four months of occupation following the September 1939 invasion, 700 priests were shot and 3,000 were sent to concentration camps (of which 2,600 died). By the end of the war, 3 million Polish Catholics had been killed in concentration camps."
"To make matters worse, by 1940 Hitler controlled Europe and Northern Africa, and was planning the invasion of Britain. The Vatican, officially a neutral country, was isolated. Hitler had plans to depose Pius XII, appoint his own "puppet" pope, and move the Vatican administration to Germany, plans which would have been executed if the war would have gone in the Nazi's favor. "
more later......
J.L. Hoskins| 10.24.11 @ 7:03PM
There are hundreds of documents incriminating the Roman Catholic church's direct involvement in Ustasha. I have read numerous articles from prestigious journals on this topic.
This from Wikipedia:
For the Ustaša, "relations with the Vatican were as important as relations with Germany" because Vatican recognition was the key to widespread Croat support.[1] Ante Pavelić was received in a private papal audience in Rome in May 1941, just after becoming dictator of Croatia.[3] According to Michael Phayer, "after receiving a papal blessing in 1941, Ante Pavelić and his Ustaša lieutenants unleashed an unspeakable genocide in their new country".[4] However, Pius XII refused to cut diplomatic ties with the Ustaša regime and met Pavelić again in 1943.[4] Pius XII was criticized for his reception of Pavelić: an unattributed British Foreign Office memo on the subject described Pius XII as "the greatest moral coward of our age."[5] For their part, the Vatican hoped the Ustaša would defeat communism in Croatia and reconvert many of the 200,000 who had left the Catholic Church for the Serbian Orthodox Church since World War I.[1]
Clint| 10.24.11 @ 7:55PM
Do The Homework.
" Pope Pius XI, who had condemned Nazism in his 1937 encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge, died in February 1939."
Next, "Pius XII spoke out. After the invasion of Poland in September l939, he denounced the aggression of the Nazis and proposed a peace plan. In 1940, he called for the triumph over hatred, mistrust, and the spirit of "cold egoism." The following year, he pleaded for the rights of small nations and national minorities, and condemned total warfare and religious persecution.
In his Christmas message of 1942, he specifically denounced the extermination of the Jews: The New York Times praised this message, writing, "This Christmas more than ever Pope Pius XII is a lonely voice crying out in the silence of a continent. The pulpit whence he speaks is more than ever like the Rock in which the Church was founded, a tiny island lashed and surrounded by a sea of war... When a leader bound impartially to nations on both sides condemns as heresy the new form of national state which subordinates everything to itself; when he declares that whoever wants peace must protect against 'arbitrary attacks' the 'juridical safety of individual'; when he assails violent occupation of territory, the exile and persecution of human beings for no reason other than race or political opinion; when he says that people must fight for a just and decent peace, a 'total peace'--the 'impartial' judgment is like a verdict in our high court of justice."
J.L. Hoskins| 10.24.11 @ 8:21PM
Talk is cheap, and Pius XII was a bit reticent in his pronouncements.
Most historians will tell you that Pius XII could have done far more than he did to condemn the Nazis and save the Jews and other victims.
Clint| 10.24.11 @ 8:45PM
"Pope Pius XII also acted. According to Israeli archives, papal relief programs saved at least 860,000 Jews, more than any other agency or organization. His Holiness also allowed the Vatican diplomatic corps, which were protected by diplomatic immunity, to carry messages between the allied powers.
During the Nazi occupation of Rome (September 1943 to June 1944), Pius XII helped to raise the Gestapo's demand of 50 kilos of gold of the Jewish community for "their safety"; unfortunately, the payment did not prevent the eventual round-up of Jews.
He also lifted cloister restrictions, allowing religious houses to offer refuge for Jews. He allowed the issuance of false baptismal certificates to Jews. These deeds do not even include the general relief efforts and distribution of food coordinated by the Vatican for the city of Rome.
When Pope Pius XII died on October 9, 1958, Golda Meir, then Israeli delegate to the United Nations, sent official condolences: "When fearful martyrdom came to our people in the decade of Nazi terror, the voice of the pope was raised for the victims. The life of our times was enriched by a voice speaking out on the great moral truths above the tumult of daily conflict. We mourn a great servant of peace."
Clint| 10.24.11 @ 8:57PM
What Did Your Religious Group Do To Help The Jews During The Holocaust, Hoskins ?
You're Up.
Clint| 10.24.11 @ 9:01PM
According to Israeli archives, papal relief programs saved at least 860,000 Jews, more than any other agency or organization.
How Many Jews Did Your Religious Group Save Hoskins ?
You're Up.
Nick| 10.25.11 @ 12:21AM
J.L. Hoskins,
No other person on the planet did more to save Jews than Pope Pius XII. He is credited with saving over 800,000 European Jews during the Holocaust.
What more could he have done, in your uninformed opinion?
Dan| 10.25.11 @ 10:45AM
Easy to criticize the Pope, but what did FDR and Churchill do? FDR turned away ship with over 1,000 Jews and sent it back to Europe.
Margie| 10.25.11 @ 9:04PM
They all get their just deserts from God as well. Using other people to try and justify the holocaust of murders by the Papists for six centuries is rather ridiculous, isn't it?
It's the perfect way to ignore (try to) the truth. But you can't. And your life now is either based on a lie or it isn't.
God is not mocked!
Margie| 10.24.11 @ 9:26PM
[Crime No.20-17] Of inciting violence and racial hatred (1919-1958) That Archbishop Pacelli later Pope Pius XII did both write, act and behave in a manner of inciting violence, hatred and suppression of rights of individuals upon the basis of their religious, political and ethnic background including, but not restricted to: all black people, all ethnic jews, all orthodox christians and communists/socialists. That Archbishop Pacelli later Pope Pius XII did display not only a bitterness towards these groups, but an open hatred and violent anger consistent with their potential demise and/or suppression.
That in reporting to the Vatican in 1919 concerning the German socialist revolution, Archbishop Pacelli later Pope Pius XII did write: “An army of employees were dashing to and fro, giving out orders, waving bits of paper, and in the midst of all this, a gang of young women, of dubious appearance, Jews like all the rest of them, hanging around in all the offices with provocative demeanor and suggestive smiles. The boss of this female gang was Levien's mistress, a young Russian woman, a Jew and a divorcee, who was in charge. And it was to her that the nunciature was obliged to pay homage in order to proceed. This Levien is a young man, about 30 or 35, also Russian and a Jew. Pale, dirty, with vacant eyes, hoarse voice, vulgar, repulsive, with a face that is both intelligent and sly."
That in 1919/1920, Archbishop Pacelli later Pope Pius XII did actively campaign to have black French troops removed from the Rhineland, convinced that they were “raping women and abusing children” - even though an independent inquiry sponsored by the U.S. Congress, of which Pacelli was aware, proved this allegation false.
That in 1943/1944, Pope Pius XII did specifically request the British Foreign Office that no Allied colored troops would be among the small number that might be garrisoned in Rome after the occupation.
Crime No.20-19] Of establishing an unlawful enterprise for the purpose of crime (1920 – 1945): That Archbishop Pacelli later Pope Pius XII and the Jesuit order under the control of Superior General Wlodimir Ledochowski did help form the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (German Workers' Party), abbreviated DAP, into the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP), also known as the Nazi Party as instructed to Adolf Hitler. That the initial purpose of the Nazi Party as formed by the Catholic Church was to (1) establish a pro-Catholic political party capable of defeating its opposition and gaining control of government; (2) establish a Concordant between the Catholic Church and the whole of Germany guaranteeing a massive financial pipeline in compensation for losing the Papal States; and (3) The elimination of all opposition including social reform/democratic minded groups, especially protestants, orthodox christians, communists and ethnic Jews.
That Archbishop Pacelli (later Pope Pius XII) did mentor Hitler to join the DAP, did arrange form him to report to him regularly (at least each month, sometimes weekly) until Pacelli appointment of Vatican Cardinal Secretary of State in 1929 and did provide all the financial support and means for Hitler’s rise to Chairman of the NSDAP in 28 July 1921. Furthermore, that Archbishop Pacelli did use the gold brought in to Germany in 1917 to help fund the rapid expansion of the Nazi Party, including its first reform as a paramilitary organization in 1921.K
Clint| 10.24.11 @ 10:03PM
Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha !
Your Source Is Aussie Ex Priest Whacko Frank O'Collins.
You Are American Spectator's Resident Zany Crazed Religious Nut Bag, Apocalyptic Crank Lady, Margie.
Who is the author and sponsor of one-evil.org?
Googling finds it and a lot of companion websites belong to UCADIA (Books) Pty Ltd, Clovelly, New South Wales. Australia. It's all by one Frank O'Collins - "Philosopher, author, free sovereign living man".
See A Religious Counselor And A Psychiatrist.
Margie| 10.24.11 @ 10:07PM
HIS Truth goes marching on.
Dan| 10.25.11 @ 10:46AM
The truth according to the Mullah Bigot.
Clint| 10.24.11 @ 10:11PM
Here Ya Go, Margie.
One Nut Bag Badmouthin' Your Nut Bag.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0F46DEpLqE
Margie| 10.25.11 @ 9:01PM
ex Priests and Athiests make the best Christians. Tehy believed a huge lie, and God granted them the eyes to see that the Scripture is the Word of God, and not the false teachings of Catholicism. For the Atheist, they get to give up another heavy burden as well, the one that teaches hat there is no God at all.
One teaches God is the Pope, the other teaches there is no God.
Both used by the Devil to bring people to Hell with himself.
But all that the Father gives to Jesus, will come to Him. Jn. 6:37.
And then we all say, along with the Prophet Jeremiah:
"Thy Words were found, and I ate them, and Thy Words became to me a joy and the delight of my heart; for I am called by Thy Name, O LORD, God of Hosts." Jer. 15:16.
Dan| 10.25.11 @ 10:17PM
Mullah,
You can't be this stupid. Stick to the feud with Ken, that is more your speed.
PJ| 10.24.11 @ 10:54PM
I can't argue with your biblical 1 line quote interpretations. You're pretty much on the mark except of course with your Revelation interpretations.
But your quotes from sources from this 1 above leaves me to doubt your ability to decipher fact from fiction.
I don't expect you to believe any credible Catholic sources given your animosity towards anything Catholic but how about a source from Jews who would have every reason to condemn the Catholic Church & esp Pope Pius XII.
See Pave The Way Foundation website: http://ptwf.org/NewsAndEvents/.
or how about doing a little internet research on Prime Minister Golda Meir or Jewish theologian Pinchas Lapide or Roman rabbi Israel Zolli or Albert Einstein to name just a few & find out what they have to say about the Catholic Church & Pius XII during WWII.
The Catholic Church has done many wrongs to many people (which seems to me you are 1 of those who have been wronged by someone in the Catholic Church) but to imply through your constant condemnation & postings of erroneous facts that it has done nothing good for the world leaves me to believe that no amount of facts I post will take away the hatred that you have against this religion. (I don't want to convert you; I just want you to hate less.) Hatred is not a good thing to have in your heart. That is why I pray for you & ask Jesus to soften your heart.
Margie| 10.25.11 @ 7:54PM
God hates Evil, and so do I.
He throws unrepentant murderers into Hell, right along with liars, and those who practice falsehood.
"Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap." Gal. 6:7.
"But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life." Rev. 21:27.
Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood." Rev. 22:15
No interpretation necessary.
Lying (and murderous) Papists both then and now will be held accountable for their adherence to and promoting of another gospel, other than Jesus Christ's.
Dan| 10.25.11 @ 10:17PM
Bigot Margie,
Tell us again how the popes killed fifty million people, that is 50,000,000.
Margie| 10.26.11 @ 12:32PM
Get ye theeself online and do your own homework, it's called HISTORY.
Papist Dan| 10.26.11 @ 2:21PM
Get thee a functioning brain, idiot bigot.
Doctor Right| 10.24.11 @ 7:48AM
This review is somewhat schizophrenic.
On the one hand, the author criticizes Mr. Norwich for his (Norwich's) particular focus on the institution of the Papacy:
"His history focuses on the political side of the papacy: the constant maneuvering for power and influence, the shifting alliances with political powers."
But then on the other hand, the author himself says this about the Papacy:
"Norwich the amateur historian does not try to stir the reader's outrage against the scoundrels who gave sat on Peter's throne."
Well, which is it?
If "scoundrels" have sat on "Peter's throne", is Mr. Norwich, the "agnostic Protestant" wrong to criticize the institution? An institution that itself claims to be "The Vicar of Christ" and infallible on matters of faith?? Were the admitted "scoundrels" also infallible?? And if not, then how us that possible, unless the institution itself is corrupt??
You can't have it both ways.
Perhaps Mr. Norwich's real offense was to criticize the Catholic Church from an outsider's POV?
Maybe he should ignore historical facts because he's not a Catholic, and leave it to the Catholic Church itself to expose these inherent contradictions in their sacred institution?
...Yeah...Sure.
patricia harwin| 10.24.11 @ 8:37AM
You obviously do not understand papal infallibility. The Pope is infallible only when making a judgment on a matter of faith which is in dispute - and, miraculously, none of the few personally immoral Popes made any such judgments. Infallibility has nothing to do with the personal morality of the man himself, any more than a judge has to be a moral man to make the final decision on a matter of secular law.
Doctor Right| 10.24.11 @ 9:38AM
I understand it VERY well.
The "faith" clause is a convenient excuse that Catholics bring up to cover for the actions of the "personally immoral" Popes (your words, NOT mine).
You just did exactly that.
In addition, you're overlooking (or conveniently ignoring) the real question:
HOW could there have been Popes who were "personally immoral"?
And we're NOT talking about your average sins, here, either. We're talking REAL corruption:
Rape, murder, adultery, grand larceny, political shenanigans on a continental scale, etc.
These "personally immoral" Popes were selected to head the Catholic Church, yet they themselves were UTTERLY corrupt. Why would ANY Catholic trust the word of such a man, even on matters of Faith, where he is supposed to be infallible???
Do you accept that an utterly corrupt individual would be somehow trustworthy on the ONE, most important thing that he should be trustworthy on??
Does that strike you as logical, or logically incoherent???
Sorry, but without getting into the argument over whether Peter was ever actually a "Pope" (he wasn't), or whether the Roman Catholic Church is the "one true" Christian Church (it isn't), one cannot deny the Church's role in the middle ages of securing ever more political power for itself in the manner of an earthly state devoted to WORLDLY conquest and acquisition as opposed to a Church whose goal is to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Finally, can you prove, with any degree of certainty, your claim that "...miraculously, none of the few personally immoral Popes made any such judgments" ???
How do you know that? Can you cite the source of that claim? Which "personally immoral" Popes NEVER made "ex cathedra" claims??
Please...enlighten us.
Clint| 10.24.11 @ 10:25AM
The Doctrine of Papal Infallibility is relatively recent, from the First Vatican Council (1870), but as such it was just clarifying what Catholics have always believed.
Until the Reformation, Papal Infallibility was widely accepted by Christians. Many beliefs Like the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption that had been believed by Catholics for many centuries but never really questioned. The Pope or a Council defined some of these beliefs only when the subject was a matter of extreme controversy and needed to be clarified as to exactly what the accepted definition was to be believed by the faithful. The nature of Jesus , the Trinity, and of Mary as the Mother of God(Theotokos) were some of the items that were debated and defined by the earlier Councils.
Occam's Tool| 10.24.11 @ 5:06PM
Of course, some modern Catholics like Clint and Jack oppose standing firm to jihad, as the great Pope Pius V did.
Fortunately, they are in the minority. The majority of catholics, like Nick, understand the lessons of Lepanto full well.
Occam's Tool| 10.24.11 @ 5:09PM
And as for my disagreements theologically, I always think of men like Nick as "Righteous Gentiles," and like Clint and Jack as foul beasts unfit for children to be around. That has nothing to do with their professed faith, and everything to do with them as men.
Clint| 10.24.11 @ 8:00PM
You Are A Maniac.
See A Real Psychiatrist, Tool Job.
Margie| 10.24.11 @ 8:00PM
Real men don't twist Scripture, nor do they accuse Bible believing Christians of being heretics, nor do they try and make Bible believing Christians out to be liars.
Real men follow Christ, not the Pope.
Clint| 10.24.11 @ 9:07PM
Real Woman Aren't White Trash World Class Nasty Ass Bigot Broads Like You, Margie.
See A Religious Counselor And A Psychiatrist.
Margie| 10.25.11 @ 8:48PM
You aren't a real man, you're a beast and by biblical definition. You're a filthy slob and a blatant liar who HATES Christians.
You hide behind the false Religion of Catholicism and think that somehow because you "believe in" a Pope you can actually get away with it.
Sorry Charlie, but this is America, Jesus is my Lord, and Heaven is my Home.
This isn't England and it isn't centuries past, where hateful punks like yourself could put believers like me to death... though I KNOW you'd LOVE to.
Repent, liar.
You need to see the Great Physician, Christ Jesus.
Nick| 10.25.11 @ 12:32AM
Thank you, Occam. I appreciate the compliment, very much. I see you as a righteous man as well.
Shalom and be well.
Proud Atheist| 10.25.11 @ 12:39PM
"Righteous Gentiles" is a term by jews who believe their faith is the only true faith to describe non-jews they approve because they support and agree with jews. It is as condescending to say this as for Gentiles, whatever that means, to say "Righteous Jews."
Nick| 10.25.11 @ 1:28PM
It's not condescending at all, sir/madam.
I consider it a compliment. And, since it was addressed to me, kindly butt out.
Proud Atheist | 10.25.11 @ 3:36PM
Wasn't adressed to you. General comment. If it's ok with you then you haven't given it much thought.
Nick| 10.25.11 @ 6:08PM
Why shouldn't it be okay with me?
Occam called me righteous and stated the plain fact that I am a gentile.
You'd have to be a real pompous twit to find something to be offended about in that statement, in my opinion.
Margie| 10.25.11 @ 8:23PM
Occam isn't a Christian, he doesn't see with spiritual eyes yet.
He doesn't see that what Nick practices is pure deceit.
When he comes to Christ, IF he ever does, he will see it then.
Dan| 10.25.11 @ 10:20PM
Nick and Occam are intelligent gentlemen. You are a bigot, and a stupid one.
You are not a Christian because you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus so stop lecturing as if you were a Christian. You are a cult of one.
Margie| 10.26.11 @ 12:25PM
Intelligence won't save anyone.
Repentance and belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ will.
That's what you need to do as well as Occam. There is no other way to Heaven.
THAT is the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The Bible states that ALL MEN are in darkness spiritually unless and until they repent and be regenerated from above.
READ YOUR BIBLE: Jn. 3:3.
Margie| 10.26.11 @ 12:29PM
Oh, an p.s.~ You're no gentleman, and neither is Nick.
Anyone who blatantly lies about Christians, their beliefs in the Scripture, ridicules them, tries to paint them as liars, is neither gentlemanly, Christian, or intelligent.
They are liars and God will throw them into Hell, as HE PROMISED TO DO.
See my post at the bottom of this thread.
Occam is not included in this bunch. He doesn't "see" spiritually, Jn. 3:3. And, he doesn't LIE about the characters of others like they do.
Nick| 10.26.11 @ 8:04PM
Thanks, Dan.
I appreciate the compliment.
Proud Atheist| 10.26.11 @ 8:46AM
Nick,
Didn't mean to offend you. My apology to you.
Nick| 10.26.11 @ 8:01PM
Proud Atheist,
Apology accepted. I consider Occam a friend, so, I took your comment as an attack on both of us.
God Bless! (I hope you don't find that offensive. Ha-ha!)
Proud Atheist| 10.26.11 @ 9:05PM
Nick, not at all. Can't hurt, right? Not an attackon either just a comment.
Margie| 10.26.11 @ 12:30PM
"Twit"? Wasn't it you, hypocrite who accused me of not being "Christian" for using the word PUNK?
Ah, but you are both!
Nick| 10.26.11 @ 8:03PM
Margie,
If you were replying to me, the answer to your question is: No, I have never accused you of not being a Christian.
Clint| 10.24.11 @ 7:59PM
Screwball Israel FirsterManiac,Tool Job Is All Zany Crazed Because Many Of Us Tea Party Patriots & Our Tea Party Co-Favorite Presidential Candidate Dr.Ron Paul & Our Tea Party Senator Dr.Rand Paul Don't Asskiss His Personal Israel Firster Agenda.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
Quartermaster| 10.24.11 @ 6:26PM
That the doctrine of Papl infallibility is recent is without dispute. It originated at Vatican I which found the Bishops pretty much imprisoned by the Then pope to ensure he got the doctrine he wanted. Papal infallibility is not really about doctrine, as claimed, but about politics.
The claim that it was long accepted is very questionable. That's a normal dodge pulled by Roman Catholic apologists that hasn't stood up to any scrutiny. The example of the "Mother of God" idea was challenged by Nestorius and the council of Chalcedon did not come down in favor of it. Nestorius was satisfied with the outcome even though he was persecuted.
Theotokos does not mean "mother of God." God has no origin, and therefore could have no mother. Theotokos means "God Bearer" and she did give birth to the incarnate God, which is a completely different idea.
You papists get so tendentious in these matters. It's particularly bad when you have no facts to back you up.
OperaNerd1986| 10.25.11 @ 1:47AM
"Theotokos means 'God Bearer' and she did give birth to the incarnate God, which is a completely different idea."
Actually, the reason Mary is called the Mother of God is to underscore Jesus Christ's divinity. Mary is the Mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. That is seriously all that the title "Mother of God" means. Mary did not give birth to God without beginning or end, but rather to God Incarnate.
Dan| 10.25.11 @ 10:48AM
Bigot Margie denies the divinity of Jesus because she cannot say Mary is the Mother of God.
Margie| 10.25.11 @ 8:23PM
Lying punk.
Dan| 10.25.11 @ 10:21PM
Prove that I a a liar and say you believe in the divinity of Jesus. Go ahead, bigot.
Margie| 10.26.11 @ 12:22PM
Repent, liar.
Repent from what you believe before it is too late. Jesus is coming back soon, as HE says.
He throws liars into Hell along with idolators.
Do you know what an idolator is?
It is anyone who places anything above Him.
You place the words of a false Religion before the Scriptures.
Sorry to say, you are not allowed into His Kingdom if you die in your sin.
Jesus Christ is LORD.
Do you know what LORD means, punk?
No, you do not because you need to repent and believe the Gospel of God.
Beginning with Mark 1:1.
Mary is not the Mother of God~ that is an utter blasphemy.
I hope you repent.
Papist Dan| 10.26.11 @ 2:27PM
Punkette Margie,
Do you believe LORD means the same as Divinity?
Do you believe Jesus is God?
Afraid to answer, cowardy bigot.
patricia harwin| 10.24.11 @ 10:27AM
I wouldn't attempt to convince you of anything positive about the Catholic Church, as you obviously have personal emotional reasons for hating it. The "bad" Popes made no ex cathedra statements - such statements are in fact very rare in the history of the Church, and the Borgia Popes were too busy enjoying themselves to be concerned with faith matters. For proof of this, try the Catholic Encyclopedia, Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism, or Warren Carroll's multi-volume History of Christendom. Papal infallibility is not based on the personal virtue of the fallible human being who holds that office, but on the Holy Spirit's concern for the Church. A Pope is subject to the same temptations as any other human being, and can choose to disobey God, although the number who have is very small. And for proof that Peter was the first Pope, I refer you to Matthew 16:18 and the words of Jesus: "Thou art Peter (which means rock) and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Nor shall you, dr. right.
Doctor Right| 10.24.11 @ 11:12AM
Catholics are INCREDIBLY defensive about their faith, and any critique of it's core principles.
Sorry, but I don't "HATE" the Catholic Church. That's a childish attempt to deflect from the substance of my post.
If you'd like to refute what I said, feel free.
Otherwise, trying to use (and misinterpret) Matthew 16:18 may please your CCD teacher, but it doesn't pass muster in the real world. Positing that Peter became a "Pope" from that passage is willfully absurd.
patricia harwin| 10.24.11 @ 12:01PM
I'm really curious what other interpretation you can give the passage from Matthew! It seems irrefutable to me. Besides the fact that thereafter Peter always speaks for the Apostles, that he was in charge of the congregation at Rome where the Papacy has always been located, that Christ told him He was giving him the keys of His kingdom (a sign of authority) and that we know the name of his every successor in an unbroken line through the centuries - it's beyond me to guess what you would consider proof that Peter was the first Pope!
Doctor Right| 10.24.11 @ 12:44PM
I'm sorry that it seems "irrefutable" to you. I fail to see how one posits the present structure of the Catholic Church, or the idea of a centralized Church organization and leadership, from Matthew 16:18.
First of all, the translation is from Greek, and it MUST be viewed in this context.
By calling Simon (Peter) the word "petras" (Greek for stone, or pebble), Christ was in essence saying
"Peter, you are but one among many, like a pebble, nut also like a pebble, you are strong. And your strength will be used to build MY Church."
That Christ gave Peter "authority" is undeniable. But extrapolating that "authority" (which was a spiritual responsibility, not a worldly office) into the vast wealthy, powerful, centralized Roman Catholic Church from Matthew 16:18 simply strains credulity.
David T| 10.24.11 @ 3:19PM
Dr. Right--If Jesus had spoken Koine Greek, he would have called Simon not "Petras" but "Petros," the masculine form of the feminine "petra." Both "petros" and "petra" mean essentially the same thing--a rock or stone, so the attempt at wordplay doesn't hold up. Besides, there's strong evidence that Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic, in which the word for rock is "kepha," so that Matt 16:18 is clearly rendered, "You are Kepha (Rock) and upon this kepha (rock) I will build my Church." Supporting the Aramaic theory, St. Paul calls Peter Kepha ("Cephas," as transliterated into Helenistic Greek) four times each in 1 Corinthians and Galatians.
Quartermaster| 10.24.11 @ 6:33PM
Yet Matthew did use the word Petra, a feminine noun, in reference to the statement by Christ to Peter. That Paul used Cephas is irrelevant to the issue.
That Matthew would have used the feminine petra in reference to Peter would have been a grave insult to a 1st century Jew. You are accusing Matthew of not understanding his own culture.
Matthew was written in Koine. The fact that petra is a feminine noun pretty settles the matter as to what Christ was referring to when he said what he would build his church on - the fact that Jesus was the Christ. The real church has no need for Peter to be the first pope, only that Jesus is the Christ.
patricia harwin| 10.24.11 @ 8:07PM
You actually fall back on the hoary argument about the meaning of "rock"in Greek! Jesus did not speak Greek, but Aramaic, in which there is only one word for "rock": kephas. The scribes who took dictation from the (largely illiterate) Apostles wrote in Greek, and made petra, the Greek word for rock (feminine), into a masculine word, petros, to accomodate the gender of Peter, but it was not the word Jesus used. He spoke in Aramaic, and "Kephra" referred to Peter as the rock on which the Church was founded.
Doctor Right| 10.25.11 @ 11:03AM
And you fall back on the non-argument that Peter was a "pope" by virtue of wanting to read something into Matthew 16:18 that ISN'T there.
Speak where the Bible speaks; be silent where the Bible is silent.
That will help you greatly.
David T| 10.24.11 @ 9:56PM
QM--You missed my point: I never said the Matthean scribe used the feminine form "petra" in reference to Peter. I did say that the two words "petros" and "petra" mean essentially the same thing, so the attempt to distinguish between them is pointless. It is not pointless, however, to point out that Paul calls Peter "Cephas," as does Jesus in John 1:42. My point? Peter is the rock upon which Christ built His Church.
CalMark| 10.24.11 @ 12:36PM
"Live and let live," my man.
Conservatives who happen to be Catholics have the same core political beliefs as every other conservative, regardless of faith (or lack thereof).
Stop the hating. You sully this forum and your own credibility.
Doctor Right| 10.24.11 @ 12:45PM
But this article is NOT about political philosophy.
"Hating"?
Grow up.
CalMark| 10.24.11 @ 1:10PM
I ask you to live and let live, and you let loose with anti-Catholic invective and tell me to "grow up."
On the matter of religion, I believe you are unbalanced. Forums on religious subjects would benefit greatly from your absence.
Doctor Right| 10.24.11 @ 2:32PM
Glass houses, Cal...
I told you to "grow up" because you childishly accused me of "hating" Catholics.
That's an immature view. When one grows-up, one realizes that criticism is not necessarily derogatory. Much of it is, in fact, quite constructive.
You also claim that I "sully" this forum, as well as my own credibility.
I'll stack my credibility on this issue up against yours any day.
Now...do you REALLY want to debate it, or would you prefer to hide behind the phony charge of "hate", and proclaim a hollow victory?
Like I said: Grow-up.
Seek| 10.24.11 @ 2:19PM
The late William Manchester's now-classic book, "A World Lit Only by Fire," provides a good account of just how corrupt the late Middle Ages-Renaissance popes really were.
kingsmill| 10.24.11 @ 11:21AM
Dr. Wrong, if you take the time to do remedial study on the Donatist heresy- then you may begin to understand why a corrupt pope (or any corrupt RC cleric) still has the sacramental powers of their office.
You will still reject these teachings but at least you will begin to understand what they actually represent.
Doctor Right| 10.24.11 @ 11:47AM
Maybe you should do some remedial study on a little document that Christians like to call "The Bible"..??
Instead of worrying about the Donatist heresy..??
You will still reject the Bible, but at least you will begin to understand what it actually represents.
CalMark| 10.24.11 @ 12:42PM
Every Roman Catholic Mass has at least two Bible readings. A Sunday Mass has three: Old Testament, New Testament (non-Gospel), and Gospel. A Solemn High Mass has FOUR: the three mentioned above, plus a second Gospel immediately before the dismissal.
So it's a bigoted canard that Catholics are allergic to the the Bible. Catholics study it just as much as Protestants. However, unlike many Protestant sects, we agree on the meaning of the text. Score one for hierarchy.
In other words, unlike the kind of evangelical Protestants who hate Catholics with a burning, satanic fury, we don't keep rupturing with each other over certain passages of the Bible in which there's disagreement about what the meaning of "is" is.
Doctor Right| 10.24.11 @ 12:53PM
Bigoted? Of course...Catholics LOVE to cry "bigotry" when their doctrines are questioned.
It's an infantile response to a conundrum they can't adequately address.
Do Catholics "read" the Bible at Mass? Of course. I WAS a Catholic for 32 years, so you're NOT telling me anything I didn't already know.
But Catholics do NOT study the Bible in detail. It's NOT taught in Catholic elementary or secondary schools. Catholics leave interpretation to their Priestly class, which is another dubious practice that allows those with a vested interest in perpetuating Catholic Doctrine to judge it's accuracy.
And please...let's not kid ourselves. The debate is not about what the meaning of "is" is...It's far deeper than that, and goes to the core of Catholic Doctrine.
Cries of "bigotry", straw-men, and blatant misinterpretations...
Sounds about right.
CalMark| 10.24.11 @ 1:13PM
Yes, bigoted. I am addressing a specific instance of hateful untruth being spread by an out-of-control Catholic hater.
Catholics read and study the Bible frequently. Our point of view on the approach is different than yours, which by your definition makes us evil.
You really should refrain from religious discussions here. Your hate adds nothing beneficial to these forums.
Doctor Right| 10.24.11 @ 1:34PM
Sorry, I was a Catholic for 32 years.
I speak from experience. Catholics DO NOT extensively study scripture. It's NOT emphasized during the worship service, and it's not emphasized in education.
If you did, you would see (as I did) the glaring inconsistencies that exist between Catholic Doctrine and God's Word in the Bible.
Crying "hate" does not alter the truth.
Jeepers| 10.25.11 @ 8:31AM
Catholic for 32 years and never learned a thing. The thing about Right and Margie is that they are always right and everyone else is always wrong. They are like little kids who constantly say the exact opposite of what anyone else says to get some attention.
That's really all they are. Little kids seeking attention.
Doctor Right| 10.25.11 @ 11:05AM
What do you know that I don't (regarding this discussion)?
Please...enlighten me...
Doctor Right| 10.24.11 @ 12:53PM
Bigoted? Of course...Catholics LOVE to cry "bigotry" when their doctrines are questioned.
It's an infantile response to a conundrum they can't adequately address.
Do Catholics "read" the Bible at Mass? Of course. I WAS a Catholic for 32 years, so you're NOT telling me anything I didn't already know.
But Catholics do NOT study the Bible in detail. It's NOT taught in Catholic elementary or secondary schools. Catholics leave interpretation to their Priestly class, which is another dubious practice that allows those with a vested interest in perpetuating Catholic Doctrine to judge it's accuracy.
And please...let's not kid ourselves. The debate is not about what the meaning of "is" is...It's far deeper than that, and goes to the core of Catholic Doctrine.
Cries of "bigotry", straw-men, and blatant misinterpretations...
Sounds about right.
C Smith| 10.24.11 @ 1:09PM
True believers don't hate Catholics; they hate Romanism's "burning, satanic fury":
http://martyrsmirror.blogspot....../temp.html
CalMark| 10.24.11 @ 1:18PM
How tiresome. Referring us to stories of Catholic persecutions of adherents to sects Catholicism regarded as heretics.
OK, so Catholics aren't perfect. Fine. No group of human beings ever is.
But other Christian religions aren't blameless, either. The Witch-hunting of 300 years ago was the sport of uber-fundamentalist evangelical types. To say nothing of the brutal destruction of all things Catholic by Elizabeth I in England.
I could go on, but I won't. I'll just finish by saying that certain Protestants here hate Catholicism with what I can only describe as burning and satanic fury. Because real Christians don't hate people whose faith is different than theirs. I don't recall Jesus condemning anyone for their beliefs--even Samaritans (whoops--Catholics never, ever, EVER read the Bible so I can't possibly know about these things)--only their actions toward their fellow men.
kingsmill| 10.24.11 @ 12:45PM
If the canonical books of the Bible hadn't been given to you at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage by the RC Church you would never have advanced beyond comic books. At best you would be proclaiming one of the ancient fanaticisms like Gnosticism.
Doctor Right| 10.24.11 @ 12:48PM
Oh, so you're saying that the Books of the Bible did NOT exist before the "Councils of Hippo and Carthage"..???
Is that what you're actually saying??
Catholic attempts to claim responsibility for the existence of the Bible are a pathetic way to try and convince the unenlightened that Christianity IS Catholicism.
Sorry, but your assertion is logically incoherent.
The "Councils of Hippo and Carthage" gave the world NOTHING.
WHERE did the books they debated come from in the first place?
Let's turn your argument around:
If the Books of the Bible hadn't existed before the "Councils of Hippo and Carthage", then they wouldn't have had anything to debate, now would they?
CalMark| 10.24.11 @ 12:57PM
Actually, there was only one Christian church at the time of Hippo and Carthage. People like you broke away 500 years ago because you believed that the Catholic church was teaching the Bible all wrong.
This will probably infuriate you, but the basic common tenets of Christianity were hammered out at the early councils. By Bishops and Popes. Teachings and beliefs (the Trinity, the Dual Nature of Christ, etc.) that are accepted by most Christian denominations came into being in those early days.
In other words, your spiritual patrimony is the same as that of Catholics. We just diverged 500 years ago on disagreements in Bible interpretation. I hope that doesn't make your head explode.
kingsmill| 10.24.11 @ 1:20PM
Your ancestor heresiarchs were fighting to include non-inspired books like the "Gospel of Thomas", gnostic tracts and a multitude of other non-inspired writings into the canon of Scripture.
The hated Papists rejected these un-inspired tracts and gave you the canon of Scripture at Carthage and Hippo.
Your "reformer" for-bearers chose to proclaim the false sola scriptura doctrine using the inspired Word of God-this was a disastrous development of prideful mankind.
However, without the RC Church your error would have been magnified and left you lost in the depths of gnostic mysteries and perfidy and you would have no hope of eternity. There is still hope if you reject error. Rejoice!
Doctor Right| 10.24.11 @ 1:31PM
I hate to keep bursting your bubble.
I can't speak for my long-dead ancestors in medieval Europe, but I'm gonna' go out on a limb and say that they weren't "heresiarchs" and had no use for the "Gospel of Thomas"...
...Or maybe they did? Who knows? And really, who cares? And WHAT does that have to do with the discussion on this forum?
Or is it just another attempt at deflecting, so as to avoid the issues?
I have any use for the "Gospel of Thomas"...or for the Catholic Catechism. Both are irrelevant.
Doctor Right| 10.24.11 @ 1:27PM
People "like me"???
Sorry, you've got it all wrong.
First of all, I'm not a Protestant. My Faith did not "diverge" 500 years ago, it is THE Faith of the Bible. I'm a Christian. Like the Apostles and disciples...you know...from the Bible? We were around LONG before the Catholic Church.
Second, the precepts of Christianity were established in the OLD testament (yes, the OLD one) as well as the NEW TESTAMENT (in the 4 Gospels, as well as in the Book of Acts, Romans, Galatians, etc). These precepts are CLEAR, and also existed LONG before the Catholic Church, and catholic claims to have basically discovered them by "hammering them out" [sic].
In other words, your spiritual patrimony existed long before Catholicism existed. Your faith diverged from the truth sometime around the end of the Western Roman Empire.
I hope that doesn't make your head explode.
CalMark| 10.24.11 @ 1:50PM
It's funny: unhinged bigots like you always claim that they "used to be Catholic" until they saw the light and found true religion. Which I find hard to believe.
In tone and tenor, your version of Christianity is very little different than Islam. The only difference is that you don't maraud and kill people.
CalMark| 10.24.11 @ 1:52PM
P.S. Your last rant makes it clear that your head DID in fact explode. Oh, dear.
P.P.S. People who are confident in their faith do not go around trashing other people's beliefs. Someday, we will both stand before the Almighty. I'm not sure what he'll say to either of us, but I'd rather be me than you.
Doctor Right| 10.24.11 @ 2:40PM
Actually, it sounds like your head is the one that's exploding under the weight of all the "hate".
I'm as calm and cool as a cucumber.
And I'm VERY confident in my faith. And I haven't trashed yours. That's another straw-man intended to detract from the fact that you cannot debate this issue on any merit, so you resort to infantile cries of bigotry.
I'm comfortable letting God's judge me according to His will and His word. Are you?
Do you even know it?
CalMark| 10.24.11 @ 3:02PM
"And I'm VERY confident in my faith. And I haven't trashed yours."
"Doctor Right" sez:
a. "Your faith diverged from the truth sometime around the end of the Western Roman Empire." That's not an insult? I've never accused you of being a member of an invalid faith.
b. "I have any use for the "Gospel of Thomas"...or for the Catholic Catechism. Both are irrelevant." "Irrelevant": to you, maybe. But not to Catholics. Saying it is without that qualification is judgmental bigotry.
c. "But Catholics do NOT study the Bible in detail. It's NOT taught in Catholic elementary or secondary schools. Catholics leave interpretation to their Priestly class, which is another dubious practice that allows those with a vested interest in perpetuating Catholic Doctrine to judge it's accuracy." All completely wrong. You're entitled to your own opinion, not to your own facts. The Bible is central to Catholicism. You are, in fact, trashing us when you say it isn't--because it doesn't meet with your definition. That is the very definition of narrow-minded bigotry.
d. "You will still reject the Bible, but at least you will begin to understand what it actually represents." Wow. Here is a Bible Protestant claiming to speak infallibly about what is in Catholics' hearts. 'Nuff said.
Doctor Right| 10.24.11 @ 6:53PM
You're transparently fraudulent.
Each of the quotes above was a restatement of something YOU said. I merely turned it around on you so you could see how wrong you are.
My original inclination was correct: You're a big baby.
Grow up.
Doctor Right| 10.24.11 @ 2:36PM
Which part do you find "hard" to believe?
The "version" of Christianity I follow is what is laid-down in the Bible, so it's not at all surprising that you're unfamiliar with it. It supports my earlier assertion:
Catholics DON'T study the Bible.
The fact that you would compare the Bible to Islam because you don't understand what's written in it is illustrative of your general lack of knowledge on Christian principles.
In tone and tenor, your version of Christianity is based on false doctrines.
Jeepers| 10.25.11 @ 8:33AM
"Sorry, but your assertion is logically incoheren."
Everyone else is illogical. Incoherent. Inconsistent. Inanimate. Obstinate.
Only we, the ENLIGHTENED Margie and Pseudo-Silly Doctor are right. Only us.
Doctor Right| 10.25.11 @ 11:07AM
OK...
Use logic to debate this issue.
Use logic, facts, and history.
That's a challenge. Up to it? If not, be a man and admit it.
Nick| 10.25.11 @ 1:22PM
Doctor Right,
Forgive me for butting in, but, two of your statements are mistaken.
Catholics do study the Bible, prayerfully and rigorously. You may not know of any, personally, but anecdotal evidence is usually not very dispositive. Especially concerning this particular assertion of yours.
Also, Catholics don't claim that the Catholic Church gave the Bible to mankind. The Church is the keeper and protector of Word of God. She protects the Inspired Words from addition, subtraction, and distortion. The Church keeps the Sacred Scriptures apart from all of the writings that were not inspired, e.g., The Gospel of Peter.
This is how we can trust which books belong in the Bible, and which ones do not. How do we know that the four Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? None of the authors identify themselves, so, the Bible is silent on who wrote them. It is because of Sacred Tradition, protected by the Church, that we know who wrote the Gospels.
God Bless!
Doctor Right| 10.25.11 @ 1:56PM
Nick,
Actually, I know a lot of Catholics. My ENTIRE extended family, on both my mother and father's side, are Catholics. Some are more strident than others, but they were all raised as Catholics, and the vast majority went to Catholic school all the way through 12th grade. I myself was raised as a Catholic.
I am not attempting to detract from your own personal experiences; if you claim to have "prayerfully and rigorously" studied scripture, then I have no reason to doubt you, and no right to say you didn't (beyond a 1st Amendment Right that allows me to say it, regardless of the truth).
However, I maintain my assertion, based on years of experience and careful observation of my own family, and years of attending Catholic Church that meticulous study of the Bible is NOT something that is stressed by Catholicism.
I realize that when I say this, most Catholics will protest, and that's understandable. I did, too. However, after deciding to use scripture and scripture alone to validate what I believed, and what I thought I believed, I was unable to find justification for much of Catholic Doctrine within scripture.
Please understand: I had NO anti-Catholic agenda.
My goal was NOT to attempt to disprove Catholicism, or any other denomination. My goal was to decide for myself if what's written in scripture is true. I concluded that it is. I also concluded that I cannot cherry-pick which parts are true, and which parts are not true. Parables aside, it's an all-or-nothing proposition. Either it's true, or it's just a book of nice stories.
I concluded the former. That led me to understand that I could therefore no longer be a Catholic. That is the most honest, straightforward way I can describe it.
To your point about the origins of the Bible, several catholic post-ers on TASOnline have asserted, either directly or indirectly, that the world would NOT have the Bible if it weren't for the Catholic Church. My POV is that the catholic Church merely codified, for themselves, what Christians had already known and studied for centuries. Catholic claims to exclusivity on knowledge of who wrote the Books of the Bible are not backed-up by history.
Be well!
Nick| 10.25.11 @ 3:32PM
Doctor Right,
Thank you for your response. And, I know you were not promoting an agenda.
I agree with you that in the recent past Catholic parishes and schools didn't emphasize Bible study. I'm sorry, I can't remember if you've ever given your age, but, I was born in 1967. So, I grew up in the post-Vatican II era, when all kinds of newfangled innovations were introduced into the realm of catechesis, a lot of which were not based on Scripture, nor Tradition.
I didn't go to catechism every year, until I was a teenager, when my parents were moved by the Holy Spirit to become better Catholics and live their faith. We weren't twice-a-year-Catholics, but, we weren't weekly Mass attendees, either. My dad didn't agree with much about the Catholic Church, and even attended a Baptist Sunday School as a kid, and studied with some Jehovah's Witnesses in his late teens. (He realized they were wrong pretty quickly.)
I attended three years of Catholic school: 2nd, 11th, & 12th grades. My mom was the devout Catholic in our family, but, for a variety of reasons, we would miss Mass for months at a time. Until, I was 12-13, when we started attending regularly.
If you, too, grew up in the '70s and '80s, I understand your personal experience. Studying the Scriptures by the laity had declined hugely in the 20th century. But, since the 1980's, this has changed greatly.
This is the point I was trying to make. I hope it didn't come across that I thought you were making things up? I was pretty sure that you basing your statement on personal experience. I couldn't remember when you left the Catholic faith, so, I wasn't sure if you were aware of the new emphasis on Bible study by many Catholics around the country. The irony of the '60s and '70s is that the Second Vatican Council specifically teaches that the laity should study the Scriptures as often as they are able!
On the origins of the Bible, I can't comment on everything the other Catholics, on TAS, have claimed. I have seen some of these assertions, to which you are referring. While some of them may be accurate, they leave out a great deal of information. I was restricting my response to this statement of yours: "The Books of the Bible were given to mankind by God...NOT the Catholic Church." I felt a better explanation was needed, in case you were not familiar with the Church's position.
You have piqued my curiosity, though: "Catholic claims to exclusivity on knowledge of who wrote the Books of the Bible are not backed-up by history." I don't believe the Catholic Church claims exclusivity, and, I wasn't trying to do so.
My point was that it is only through the writings of the early Church Fathers that we know who wrote the four Gospels (and the Epistle to the Hebrews.) Because the Bible is silent on who the authors were. Those who would only use the Bible to know what is true, and what isn't, would have to admit that they don't know who wrote the four Gospels.
I'm not claiming that you are one of these people. If you consider the writings of the early Christians to contain factual history, you may find them reliable enough on certain subjects, but not all. I understand this. Although, it would still be an appeal to an extra-Biblical source.
May God bless you and your family.
Yours in Christ, Nick
Doctor Right| 10.24.11 @ 2:46PM
The Books of the Bible were given to mankind by God...NOT the Catholic Church.
David T| 10.24.11 @ 3:27PM
Dr. Right--Christ did not leave us a book; he left us a body--His Church. The Church canonized the NT in 385 A.D. at the Council of Constantinople.
Doctor Right| 10.24.11 @ 6:55PM
The Bible is the inspired word of God.
So yes...He gave it to us.
Proud Atheist | 10.25.11 @ 3:39PM
How do you know this?
Quartermaster| 10.24.11 @ 6:41PM
The church during that period was known as the "Old Catholic" church. The man recognized as "pope" was Gregory who was Bishop about AD 605. The evolution of the Roman catholic Church from the old catholic church was started by Augustine who was the first persecutor. He started with the Donatist "heresy" which was declared such for reasons of politics, not theology or ecclesiology. A church for whom politics were very important could not tolerate the Donatists. And Augustine, as he demonstrated with the Pelagian matter, showed he was not even close to being above politics (note: Augustine's "Pelagian" writings dealt with Coeletius, not Pelagius who was long gone from North Africa by the time of those writings, and who was declared orthodox by two synods of the east, and one Bishop of Rome, until Augustine brought imperial pressure on Zosimus).
C Smith| 10.24.11 @ 11:29AM
Maybe he should ignore historical facts because he's not a Catholic, and leave it to the Catholic Church itself to expose these inherent contradictions in their sacred institution?
Hard to where to start:
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus:
• “There is but one universal Church...., outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
• “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
Doctor Right| 10.24.11 @ 2:45PM
Fascinating.
Neither of these statements are supported by one single passage in scripture, but MILLIONS hold them to be true.
Sad.
Quartermaster| 10.24.11 @ 6:44PM
Especially sad as the church rolls are kept in Heaven, and scripture certainly disagrees with the Roman catholic church on the matter. Christ knows those that are his, and that he who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Roman Catholics do not place faith in Christ, but in their church to "dispense" grace as mediator of such grace.
Alas, for the RCC,, there is only mediator between God and Man, the man Jesus Christ.
Margie| 10.24.11 @ 8:12PM
Popey Innocent, not innocent at all:
[Crime No.12-03] Of association/membership to a criminal organisation: (1198 - 1216 CE) That the person known as Pope Innocent III, also known as “Comes signatus”, the 15th Pope according to the prophecy of St Malachy, was both a member and leader of an organisation known as the “Roman Cult” first established and subsequently maintained for the sole purpose of organized criminal enterprise. That in his capacity of leader of this organized criminal enterprise did direct for numerous criminal acts to be undertaken including, but not limited to: murder, torture, infantcide, satanism, fraud, extortion, kidnapping, rape, and lack of public morals.
[Crime No.12-03] Of crimes against humanity for the purpose of promoting Satanism (1198-1216) That Pope Innocent III did promote the Inquisition throughout Europe causing the murder of over one million (1,000,000) innocent people through terrible torture and public human sacrifice aimed at promoting the principles of Satanism.
[Crime No.12-03] Of obstruction of basic rights and dignities of being a human being to think (1198) That Pope Innocent III did issue a Papal Bull declaring "anyone who attempts to construe a personal view of God which conflicts with church dogma must be burned without pity". That such action so fundamentally goes against all historical principles of the basic rights and dignities of being a human being that it represents one of the lowest marks of history concerning humanity.
[Crime No.12-03] Of obtaining property through theft and false crime: (1200) That Pope Innocent III did publish a Papal Bull granting church ownership of all wealth and property belonging to individuals convicted of heresy. This Papal Bull represents the birth of the all-powerful Arch-Bishops (Cardinals) of the Roman Catholic Church, who robbed Kings, Queens and Princes to gain wealth, versus Royal families that fought back, therefore the death of many tens of thousands of people over the next few centuries.
[Crime No.12-03] Of obtaining property through Fraud and extortion using threat of excommunication (1198-1216), That Pope Innocent III did deliberately threaten and extort money, possessions and land across the world using the threat of excommunication, therefore heresy, therefore legal possession of property to the church. That By the end of his reign, the Vatican had stolen land and property to become the temporal ruler of Naples, of the islands of Sicily and Sardinia, of almost all the States of the Iberian peninsula such as Castile, Leon, Navarre, Aragon and Portugal, of all the Scandinavian lands, of the Kingdom of Hungary, of the Slav State of Bohemia, of Servia, Bosnia, Bulgeria, and Poland.
[Crime No.12-03] Of crimes against humanity (1204) That Pope Innocent III did authorize the attack, theft and murder of the inhabitants of Constantinople, many of whom were Christians. Up to 100,000 innocent women, men and children were slaughtered.
http://one-evil.org/almanac/evil_0120.htm
Dan| 10.25.11 @ 10:52AM
Bigot Margie,
Did you run out of emails from Ken to post?
Dr Right believes in the divinity of Jesus, but you don't.
Margie| 10.25.11 @ 8:24PM
Liar: Don't you have a snake to feed somewhere?
Dan| 10.25.11 @ 10:24PM
Mullah,
You are the proverbial snake speading bigotry here so I will confront you bigotry whenever you post it.
Margie| 10.26.11 @ 12:18PM
First you were posting as Patriot, then Joseph, now it's Dan.
You can't hide from God, punk.
Papist Dan| 10.26.11 @ 2:31PM
Not Joseph, or Patriot, it is Dan or Papist Dan to you, sometimes Dannyboy since you like these names.
Got that Mullah? You are paranoid.
Do you believe Jesus is God, punkette?
Nemo| 10.24.11 @ 9:48AM
'Notice, too, how lightly Norwich airily suggests that the philosopher-emperor "should have known
better"--as if persecution were the sort of regrettable offense that might be committed by a naughty schoolboy. ' - The point is, that is how the men of the ancient world thought and felt. We forget today how much of history - and in how much of ther world today - human life was held very cheaply, and the most hideouis persecutions were regarded, at worst, as breaches of good manners. Our present reverence for human life and horror at persecution is a local and temporary accident. We are a small island surrounded by a historic ocean of barbarism and the sooner we realise it, the better.
Doctor Right| 10.24.11 @ 10:18AM
Much of today's world - most of it, in fact - still views human life as VERY cheap.
Reverence for life emerged from Christianity. As Christianity's influence wains, barbarism increases.
Occam's Tool| 10.24.11 @ 5:11PM
Doctor Right---VERY, Very True. Have you seen the book by the Italian "atheist" (I believe he is agnostic) Senator praising Judaism and Christianity for precisely the reason you outlined?
POST American| 10.24.11 @ 9:54AM
--Putting aside the now more than half
century infiltrated catholic church--
WHEN is this journal going to spotlight
and examine, or even mention, 'christian'
CON--job, PAT ROBERTSON'S recent
green light to dumping one's spouse with
Alzheimer's?
This not only spits in the face of Christ's
uttered doctrine ------but also, NOT incidentally,
marks the first high profile, out front,
'christian' promotion of 'on the go' YOU-genics.
This crooked smiling swine should be called
out ---and drummed out.
YOU-genics at the service of X-speed-iency
is quite obviously what's being introduced.
'ONE man, ONE woman, ONE life--'
--that's THE doctrine.
The genuine duty and adventure of
one's soul would have us, instead of
dumping the sufferer, in the FINAL
bond of love, not simply staying by their
side ---BUT going to the source of SO
MUCH of this epidemic -----weaponized
food, water, air and meds, and full-spectrum,
inescapable TV viewing.
-----------HUAC meets NUREMBERG 2012---------
Doctor Right| 10.24.11 @ 10:19AM
??? WTH ???
Quartermaster| 10.24.11 @ 6:47PM
Robertson has caught a lot of flak for that very thing. The man is disgusting. Just as disgusting as the anti-Christ Popes.
Kingofthenet| 10.24.11 @ 11:38AM
Here is a hint, there is NO such thing as a 'Biblical Scholar', no more than an X-Man Scholar or Star Trek Scholar. ALL they are are Jesus Groupies, writing fan fiction. Name ONE Atheist who is a 'biblical Scholar' and actually believes ANY of it? It is pretty hard to investigate something or someone you Love and believe in with a critical eye. A Southerner who had relatives fighting for the Confederacy 'might' write a fair book about the Civil War, but honestly I would trust some Dutch or Russian National alot more to present a fair picture, why not? He has no horse in the race.
Doctor Right| 10.24.11 @ 11:48AM
"Here is a hint, there is NO such thing as a 'Biblical Scholar' "
100%, totally, completely...wrong.
CalMark| 10.24.11 @ 12:49PM
Even if you don't believe in Judaism and Christianity, the Bible is a critical document to understanding the underpinnings of Western culture, and gives context to a surprising number of crucial historical events in the West.
Real historians--not the New Age potsmoking Marxist propaganda bigots who populate "history" faculties right now--understand that even if they don't agree with the teachings contained therein, most important actors in Western history did, some of them fanatically (e.g.: Cromwell), providing a context--in some cases the only context--for understanding their actions.
P.S. I doubt you would speak this way about The Holy Koran (or however they're spelling it this week), as even we non-Muslims are expected to call it.
OperaNerd1986| 10.25.11 @ 1:58AM
The problem is that, with regard to the Bible, there is not a single person on this planet who does not have "a horse in the race." The Word of God affects everyone.
OperaNerd1986| 10.25.11 @ 2:00AM
By the way, this is not to suggest that having a stake in the situation renders one's position invalid.
Margie| 10.24.11 @ 12:50PM
The book, Martyrs Mirror, now online gives a historical account of the Papacy, it's tortures and murders of Bible believing Christians.
Like the book, Fox's book of Martyrs, Catholics (die hard ones) try to discredit it, because it tells the truth about the Evil Papists, who tortured and murdered Bible believing Christians AND their children, whole families together, sometimes in groups of thousands as well.
What led them to do this? Their perverted teachings. Their unbiblical, perverted teachings, of which the Papists ordered the killings of those who refused to acknowledge.
For example, if a Christian disagreed with infant baptism, or refuse to agree with Mary as "Mother of God", but instead proclaimed the biblical (God's Own Truth) instead, that God HAS no Mother, and that baptism is for adults~ they were mercilessly tortured and killed.
Well, these same teachings are still being taught, and the modern day Papists are still yelling BIGOT! HATER! to those of us who, as the Christians from the days of the Apostles, refuse to accept.
Teachings, when bought, lead people to do sick things.
Better to care about what the Bible actually says, than what a pretender who calls himself "Vicar of Christ on Earth" says. There is no such thing as this in the Bible, either.
For these few reasons alone, it is perfectly acceptable to claim that Catholicism is not Christianity. It is a cult. One of the biggest anywhere.
http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/
Particularly though, this section, explaining how the "Catholic Religion" began, creating the unbiblical and ungodly Papacy:
OF THE UNGODLY AND FALSE CHURCH, WHICH IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE CHURCH OF GOD, AND THE ORIGIN, PROGRESS AND SUCCESSION OF THE SAME THROUGH ALL TIMES:
http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs007.htm
Dan| 10.24.11 @ 1:33PM
BIGOT ALERT!!!!
The Mullah Magie is now posting her usual anti catholic bigotry. She is taking a rest from her feud with Ken.
Tell us again how the Papacy killed fifty million people, that is 50,000, 000.
One word of religion and/or catholic in an article, and out crawls Margie and her little band of bigots. But they don't like to be called bigots.
Now the reply will be: papist punk liar repent.
Margie| 10.24.11 @ 1:52PM
You just proved my point, DannyBoy.
Your hole is already dug so deep, it's bottomless.
I hope you repent and follow the Gospel of God.
Beginning with Mk. 1:1.
Doctor Right| 10.24.11 @ 2:42PM
When Catholics are backed into a metaphorical corner and can't debate the issues on solid ground, with sound, scriptural knowledge, they ALWAYS scream "BIGOT!"
In that regard, they're not much different from Al Sharpton.
Proud Atheist| 10.24.11 @ 6:31PM
We have the village idiot, Margie, agreeing with Dr. Right who daily spars with Clint exchanging homosexual taunts/insults as supposed humor.
Both claim to be ex catholics, and enjoy throwing insults at Catholics disguised as some form of Biblical purity. I have to admit DR. is smarter, who isn't than Margie, and more clever and inventive. But both suffer from the same ignorance. They believe the bibe was written by god and given to man, sort of like UPS or FedEx. It was pure for two or three hundred years after Jesus' death, then it was corrupted by the Catholics until Luther and Zuingli, both priests, set the world straight that the bible is the sole authority and everyone can read and interpret it.
So now we have Dr and Margie as the experts on the bible which is the logical conclusion when you believe that you can read it and interpret it yourself. So I don't blame you guys for believeing what you believe. Of course you two probably disagree with each other and that is why you don't belong to a church but just do your own thing. Like a 60's church where you could send in two bucks and become a minister.
What is worse is when you say you were a catholic for 30 years then left. You left the faith of your family, your father and mother, and ancestors. You enjoy being the skunks at the party, I bet, whenever, if you do, see your family.
Quartermaster| 10.24.11 @ 6:51PM
"Proud Atheist?" Are you really proud of being irrational? I've never seen it admitted before.
Your church history is a bit too cursory to be taken seriously if you mean it to be anything like accurate. People like Luther and Zwingli had their problems, but certainly not what you think they were. You swallowed too much bigotry in place of history to be taken at all seriously.
Clint| 10.24.11 @ 8:26PM
"Martin Luther had a significant influence on German antisemitism by his harsh anti-Jewish statements and writings.
Luther's main works on the Jews were his 65,000-word treatise Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies) and Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi (Of the Unknowable Name and the Generations of Christ) — reprinted five times within his lifetime — both written in 1543, three years before his death.It is believed that Luther was influenced by Anton Margaritha's book Der gantze Jüdisch Glaub (The Whole Jewish Belief) Margaritha, a convert to Christianity who had become a Lutheran, published his antisemitic book in 1530 which was read by Luther in 1539. Margaritha's book was decisively discredited by Josel of Rosheim in a public debate in 1530 before Charles V and his court, resulting in Margaritha's expulsion from the Empire."
Doctor Right| 10.25.11 @ 7:53AM
Straw-man argument.
The fact that Martin Luther was an anti-Semite has absolutely NO bearing or relevance to the discussion at hand.
And besides, genius...Before he posted his 95 theses, what was Luther?
Answer: A Catholic! In fact, he was a Seminarian!
Gee...I wonder where Luther learned his anti-Semitism????
Do YOUR homework, Einstein...
Proud Atheist| 10.25.11 @ 8:07AM
Luther wrote is anti semitic works after he left the Catholic Church. I don't know how he learned it and how it developed. You do know Bismark threw out of Germany many of the Catholic religious orders and some pacifist Protestants left in the 1870's after he unified Germany because they did not fit in the German idea. Evidently the protestants did.
Doctor Right| 10.25.11 @ 11:09AM
So prior to leaving Catholicism, Luther NEVER had an anti-Semitic thought?
And he NEVER heard a word of anti-Semitism from catholic Priests in Germany...right???
And WHAT does Bismarck have to do with this discussion?
Proud Atheist| 10.25.11 @ 11:16AM
It thought you were smart and could follown an argument. We were talking about the anti semitism in Germany as exemplified by Luther,you they tried to argue the anti semitism must have come from Luther being Catholic, I told you the anti semitic articles were written after he left the Catholic Church, and further Bismark evicted the Catholic religous orders which is further evidence the anti semitism in Germany was part of your protestant ancestry. Is that clear now.
Doctor Right| 10.25.11 @ 11:32AM
You might want to be careful about pointing out who can and can't follow a simple argument...
The discussion is about the Doctrines of Catholicism and the Bible.
Uber-catholic apologist Clint first brought-up Luther's name in an attempt to distract from the discussion about Pope Pius and the Holocaust. I haven't weighed-in on that particular issue (and I won't), except to say that Clint's mention of Luther is IRRELEVANT to the discussion of Pope Pius.
Whether or not Luther was an anti-Semite has NO bearing on whether or not Pope Pius was an anti-Semite, or whether the Catholic Church was complicit in the Holocaust. A does NOT equal B.
My only other contribution to that discussion was to point out, FACTUALLY, that before Luther split from Catholicism, he WAS a Catholic! In fact, he was a seminarian.
To assert, as you seem to be doing, that his anti-Semitism emerged AFTER he left Catholicism is based on nothing but supposition, and that has no bearing on the dates of his publications.
Further, Bismarck evicted Catholics...? Again...so what??? It's not relevant to the conversation. If you're saying that Protestants have also demonstrated anti-Semitism, my only response is "No kidding."
But as I'm NOT a Protestant and never have been, that has nothing to do with anything I've posted.
So to answer your other question:
NO. Your point (if you have one) is NOT clear. Your argument is utterly illogical.
Proud Atheist| 10.25.11 @ 12:11PM
Your method of argument is to assume your are right, Right, and simply state you are right, in a dogmatic arrogant manner.
I am right and your are wrong. See, we can all do it.
Doctor Right| 10.25.11 @ 12:52PM
Not if you're wrong.
Proud Atheist| 10.25.11 @ 2:56PM
I'm right and your'e wrong... wait your'e Right and I'm...
Jeepers| 10.25.11 @ 8:35AM
You are just as irrational as he is.
Doctor Right| 10.25.11 @ 11:09AM
How so?
If you're going to say it, then explain it.
Doctor Right| 10.24.11 @ 6:59PM
"Proud Atheist"...
The name says it all.
Atheism is scientifically unsupportable. But I'm guessing you neither know that, or understand it.
Proud Atheist| 10.24.11 @ 7:03PM
Constructive criticism indeed. Quartermaster believes the Confederacy was right to secede. Dr assumes the superiority role that I just can't understand what he says. How do you scientifically support your bible worship, seriously, write in simple words so I can understand.
Doctor Right| 10.25.11 @ 7:48AM
Simple words?
Simple!
Study history. Study the Bible. Understand that the Bible us the MOST thoroughly referenced and fact-checked document that exists from antiquity. Understand what became of the men who walked with Christ, and how through Him, they changed the world.
Then understand that the atheistic view of existence and the origins of the Universe are utterly incompatible with physics and chemistry and natural law.
Proud Atheist| 10.25.11 @ 8:01AM
Do you believe Eve was made from Adam's rib?
Do you believe Jonah was inside the whale?
Do you believe the earth and all life was created in six days?
I don't know how life was created. You believe based on you faith how it was created.
Doctor Right| 10.25.11 @ 11:14AM
Do YOU believe that the universe was a random accident of nature?
That somehow, nothingness was compelled to become something-ness, even though when it was nothingness, there was nothing to compel, and nothing to compel it???
That's total, utter irrationality, and it defies everything that we know about the Laws of science, which atheists pretend to love but don't even remotely understand.
If you take even 5 seconds to actually ponder the existence of the universe, or the miracle (yes, miracle) that is Human Life, then none of the 3 questions you pose to me seem even remotely difficult for the Creator to achieve.
Proud Atheist| 10.25.11 @ 11:21AM
Nice trick answering a question with questions. You do this when you can't answer the questions I gave you. Now you know, if you are a medical doctor, that those aren't literally true, so how can you say the bible was fact checked.
Is your answer Yes to my questions?
In answer to yours, if there is a god, then obviously those are within his powers. But this requires faith in god, doesn't it? The foundation of your belief is faith, and I am not criticizing or demeaning that, just stating a fact.
Doctor Right| 10.25.11 @ 11:34AM
I did answer your question.
That I answered it with another question is irrelevant.
You want to portray my views as irrational, yet you fail to understand the total irrationality that supports your views, all the while laying claim to some form of intellectual/scientifically superior POV.
YES. The foundation of my belief is Faith, but it's not a blind faith. I came to it through a careful study of the FACTS.
You should try it.
Proud Atheist| 10.25.11 @ 12:04PM
Did not say your views are irrational. You said that. I said your views are founded on faith. Faith is not irrational. I have looked at the facts and have a different conclusion from those facts. I am not threatened by your faith, and you should not be threatened by the absence of my faith.
Which was or is the most determinative fact causing your belief in a creator?
Doctor Right| 10.25.11 @ 12:59PM
"Which was or is the most determinative fact causing your belief in a creator?"
Science.
Specifically, the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics.
You need to differentiate between what Science itself says is a "Law" versus a "Theory" or a "Hypothesis."
By the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the existence of the Universe cannot be a random event; it's impossible, yet that's what many who claim to believe in science cling to.
I recommend an excellent, highly readable book:
"The Case for a Creator", by Lee Strobel.
Proud Atheist| 10.25.11 @ 3:16PM
If it's so clear in science then why are so many scientists atheisist, for example Steven Hawking?
Doctor Right| 10.25.11 @ 3:37PM
Just as many scientists believe in God as don't believe in God.
And don't confuse intelligence with wisdom.
Hawking is very smart, but apparently not very wise.
I fail to comprehend how someone could gaze out into the vast universe and see NOTHING staring back at him (metaphorically speaking).
The entire fabric of the universe, with it's incredibly intricate structure literally screams "DESIGN!"
Yet people who should no better willfully deny this.
Why?
Arrogance. Fear. Worry.
If one posits a higher power, then it stands to reason that there is also a higher purpose, and that may mean accepting changes to one's life that one may not be willing to accept.
The cost of ignoring God is eternal separation from him.
You have everything to lose, and nothing to gain remaining an atheist.
Proud Atheist | 10.25.11 @ 3:42PM
You may be right, quoting Descartes. But if all these scientists disagree that means it is not as clear as you say, and it still comes down to faith.
Proud Atheist| 10.25.11 @ 4:17PM
sorry, meant Pascal, not Descartes
Nick| 10.25.11 @ 6:21PM
Very well put, Doctor Right.
Margie| 10.26.11 @ 11:58AM
Lee Strobel is excellent. He stands on Scripture. Nick wouldn't appreciate him at all.
Jeepers| 10.25.11 @ 8:37AM
"Study the Bible"
That's RICH coming from you. The irony! He's got just as much right to his interpretation as you have to yours.
Doctor Right| 10.25.11 @ 11:11AM
Did I say he didn't have a right to his interpretation???
Please...you really contribute NOTHING to this discussion.
Read and learn, or be silent.
Margie| 10.26.11 @ 11:57AM
No one has a "right" to his or her interpretation.
The Word of God says so:
"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 2 Peter 1:20 & 21.
The Words of God speak clearly for themselves with regards to Salvation and the Divinity of Christ.
That's why Catholics can't stand anyone (Christians) who quote Scripture. They don't believe them, they have their own interpretation of them, which is wrong and utterly perverse.
Like for example that Mary is the "Mother of God."
And things like prayer to the dead~ an abomination in God's Eyes.
Christians quote and stand on Scripture~ Catholics hate it, and the accusations of Bigotry abound.
They need to repent, and believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Doctor Right| 10.24.11 @ 7:02PM
I don't interpret the Bible for myself. And I DO belong to a Church.
It's called Christian.
Proud Atheist| 10.24.11 @ 7:05PM
Whose interpretation do you accept?
How do you define "Christian" to mean a church?
Doctor Right| 10.25.11 @ 7:40AM
Christian: One who accepts Christ as his savior, understands that Christ was the son of God (and God, as well), that he died for our sins and was resurrected on the 3rd day, and ascended to Heaven, is baptized in accordance with scripture for forgiveness of sin, and does his/her absolute best to live up to the example Christ set and that God expects, fails miserably, but keeps trying anyway.
The Church I belong to is Christ's Church. He established it, and He is it's Head. NOT a "Pope."
Proud Atheist| 10.25.11 @ 8:03AM
You are playing Clinton word games about church. Let me be precise. Do you attend and belong to a brick and mortar church? I am sure you understood the question, stop dancing around.
Doctor Right| 10.25.11 @ 11:17AM
I'm not playing any word games at all.
The problem you're having is that you confuse a "brick and mortar" building with THE Church.
A building is just that...a building. Nothing more, and nothing less. There's nothing sacred about it.
Now, to answer your question...
YES. I belong to a Christian congregation. We have our own building where we worship the Lord.
We are Christians, and as such, members of the Lord's Church. (And that's NOT a denomination).
The is only 1 Church.
Proud Atheist| 10.25.11 @ 11:22AM
Thank you, and good for you.
Margie| 10.26.11 @ 12:16PM
LOL: Dr. right, you just got had.. sort of. You see, you satisfied the troll by telling him you attend a brick n' mortar building.
They LOVE that. You see, you aren't allowed to say otherwise. I am betting Proud Atheist's a Catholic, or former one.
They are taught that God dwells in brick n' mortar dwellings, and that if you don't physically go to a physical building, you can't be saved or be a Christian.
Note his "acceptance" of you (as a proud atheist of course) after you said that.
It is hilarious that these people think they can sit in judgement over Christians who abide by the Scriptures~ he's supposedly an atheist.
My God says this to the proud and arrogant who think they know better than Him:
"But it was Solomon who built a house for Him.
Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made with hands; as the Prophet says,
'Heaven is My Throne, and earth My Footstool. What house will you build for Me, says the Lord, or what is the place of My rest?
Did not My Hand make all these things?'
"You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you." Acts 7:47-51.
Praise HIS HOLY NAME!
Proud Atheist| 10.26.11 @ 2:51PM
Hey, Margie,
I understood Dr Right to say there is one Church, but it is not a brick and mortar church as i asked.
Dr seems intelligent, far more than you, so I doubt he needs or wants any "assistance" from you.
My understanding is that catholics believe god is everywhere. It seems you either received wrong information, or more likely you didn't pay attention and learn. I bet it's the latter, judging from your comments.
Keep guessing as to my former, if any, religion.
Margie| 10.26.11 @ 12:05PM
Proud Athesit: There's nothing to be proud of. You're going to Hell. Repentance is only granted to those who aren't too bad to admit they're too stupid to be a man.
Yep. That's what God says.
So... I'm happy to be a fool for Christ. That's what the Apostles were and every other Bible believing Christians is most happy to be.
You're so stupid, you actually think you're smart.
Surely I am too stupid to be a man. I have not the understanding of a man." Prov. 30:2.
"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity; there is none that does good." Ps. 53:1.
"We are fools for Christ's sake, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute." 1 Cor. 4:10.
Praise God!
Margie| 10.26.11 @ 12:07PM
Oops. That should have read Repentance is only granted to those who aren't too PROUD to admit...
Oh, unless God chooses to zap you in spite of yourself, like He did with the Apostle Paul, who actually took part in Persecuting Bible believing Christians.
You never know, kiddo!
Dan| 10.24.11 @ 7:08PM
Dr.Right,
Please explain whether you believe in the divinity of Jesus, that Jesus is God.
Jeepers| 10.25.11 @ 8:38AM
Actually, if you go back through the Pseudo-Doctor's posts, you will find some (when he actually deigns to describe his "Christian" beliefs) that are not all the Christian.
Doctor Right| 10.25.11 @ 11:17AM
Which ones?
And be specific now...use examples to prove it.
Doctor Right| 10.25.11 @ 11:18AM
Of course I believe in the Divinity of Christ.
Dan| 10.25.11 @ 12:28PM
Great. So do I. But Margie doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus. If you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, based on your study of the Bible, are you a Christian?
Doctor Right| 10.25.11 @ 2:00PM
I've never heard Margie say this, so I can neither confirm nor deny that she has.
Regardless, I do not believe that one can be a Christian if one denies the divinity of Christ.
That viewpoint demotes him to the status of a great and wise man...One among many, whom we can follow or disregard with no consequence.
That's not supportable by history.
Dan| 10.25.11 @ 3:50PM
I believe in the divinity of Jesus. Margie went round and round on this question with RCV and Joseph and others and would answer the question by quoting some Bible verse that Jesus is "Lord." From reading the numerous posts my opinion is she doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus. I have asked her numerous times and she won't answer. And I don't believe it is for a noble purpose of not dignifying the question, as you say below.
Since she likes you, why don't you ask her?
She preaches every day here that she has the true Christian faith so she should answer a simple question that is at the heart of Christianity.
If she was not preaching every day, then you are correct that I,and others, should not ask her. But she is the one saying every day she is the true Christian and others who disagree with her are not. So we are entitled to know.
Margie| 10.25.11 @ 8:09PM
My posts have spoken clearly for about three years now exactly hat and in Whom I believe.
RCV and this "Dan" punk are blatant, despicable liars who take pleasure in trying to destroy me.
Evil behavior will not go unpunished, Troll.
They will burn in Hell for it, unless they repent.
"Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood." Rev. 22:15.
Margie| 10.25.11 @ 8:38PM
Dr. Right,
"Dan" is a blatant lying Troll, who continuously follows me around lying about what and Whom I believe in.
YOU know what and Whom I believe, as you've read my posts here for years now.
"Dan" is a Catholic hater of Bible believing Christians, and especially of me.
To these Papists, the Scripture is never enough for a Christian to take their stand on. These outrageous liars stop at nothing in their attempt at slander, just as their disgusting forefathers did.
Once I answered the question, this punk, along with RCV and the other Religionists continue to hound me, falsely claiming I never answered the question.
Well, I didn't answer it to their satisfaction!
Posting the Scripture numerous times in which I have clung to for almost 40 years isn't good enough for these despicable creatures.
They want a Catholic answer, and not a Scriptural one.
They refuse to believe the Scripture, but reject it for the false teachings of Catholicism and worship of the phony Pope.
Meanwhile, I myself will continue to believe every Word of God, and ALL that the Bible says concerning the Diety of Jesus.
I especially love this:
"In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, Whom he appointed the Heir of all things, through Whom also He created the world.
He reflects the Glory of God and bears the very stamp of His Nature, upholding the universe by His Word of Power. When He had made purification for sins, He sat down at the right Hand of the Majesty on High, having become as much superior to Angels as the Name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs." Heb. 1:1-4.
Now, this Troll isn't satisfied with me saying I believe everything the Scripture has to say about Jesus.
Dr. Right, have you ever read the accounts of the Martyrs in Martyrs Mirror or elsewhere? This is the EXACT type of hounding the Papists would do to the Christians.. some things never change!
He would be satisfied much the same way the Inquisitors were satisfied: when the Christians were put to death.
Dan| 10.25.11 @ 10:34PM
Another long winded evasion. Just say as Dr Right did " of course I believe in the divinity of Jesus." You can't because you don't believe it.
I don't hate Bible believing Christians or any other religions, but you hate all other religions except whatever it is you believe in.
Nobody is hounding you. You have a weird persecution complex, one day Ken is hounding you, now it is the Papists.
I resent being lectured by a fraud like you who isn't a Christian but a plain stupid bigot.
Prove I am a liar, say you believe in the divinity of Jesus and I won't ask you again.
But you will continue to evade, and I expect your usual demented reply: liar, punk, papist, repent.
Margie| 10.25.11 @ 9:10PM
"Dan" the liar:
If you truly believed in the Divinity of Christ, you wouldn't be a liar.
Repent.
Dan| 10.25.11 @ 12:32PM
Al Sharpton is a Protestant minister who shares your views more on the use of the Protestant bible, and not the Catholic views.
This is an example of your opinions masquerading as facts.
Doctor Right| 10.25.11 @ 2:03PM
Huh???
I have NO idea what Sharpton believes, nor if it resembles my own Faith. And neither do you.
Once again, you're being purposefully evasive.
My reference to Sharpton vis-a-vis the catholic tendency to cry "Bigotry!" has nothing to do with religious doctrine. It's a characteristic shared by those who can't formulate a response in a debate. Rather than try, they attack the messenger.
Now...try again.
Margie| 10.25.11 @ 8:40PM
SoCon:
How come you change your handle so many times?
You know you can't hide from Jesus.
Dan| 10.25.11 @ 10:35PM
You mean Jesus Christ, God.
C Smith| 10.24.11 @ 1:41PM
Thanks Margie,
For reminding us of the "other" chronology of martyrdom.
In this poignant "Martyrs Mirror" engraving the crucifix affixed to the pinnacle of each cathedral, monastery, or convent in the background is so disquieting.
http://martyrsmirror.blogspot......-1573.html
Margie| 10.24.11 @ 3:22PM
You're welcome.
And the entire point of it all (in posting the former atrocities) is this: The same false teachings that led the Papists to torture and murder the Christians are STILL being taught to this very day.
There is as much hatred toward Bible believing Christians by these horrible teachers, these church hierarchy Papists, as there was then.
It is because of what they choose to believe. They reject the Scriptures for the false teachings of men, the so-called "Early Church Fathers", the ones who broke away from following the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, to follow another gospel.
Today's Catholics have been taught for centuries that this is Christianity, that these teachings are from God. Because of the pomp and feigned godliness of the Popes, they buy into it and are utterly had.
Meanwhile, those who have eyes to see and ears to hear will read God's Own Words, as written in the Scriptures, and come to a knowledge of the Truth.
HIS TRUTH.
"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths." 2 Tim. 4:3 & 4.
Dan| 10.24.11 @ 7:21PM
Bigot Margie,
You don't believe in the divinity of Jesus so why do you pass yourself as a Chistian.
Why don't you tell us why you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus.
Margie| 10.24.11 @ 7:34PM
Papist Dan:
I would say you're a liar but I'm getting tired of even responding to your despicable posts.
You're a fool.
Dan| 10.24.11 @ 7:49PM
You are not a Christian because you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus. Prove I am a liar. Say I believe in the divinity of Jesus, that Jesus is God. Do it, cowardly Bigot.
Potluck Dinner| 10.24.11 @ 8:34PM
Margie, please!
"He who calls his brother a fool is in danger of hell fire."
Watch your tongue! Your malicious tongue! Try to be more Christlike.
Margie| 10.24.11 @ 9:29PM
He's not a brother.
Dan| 10.25.11 @ 12:27PM
Bigot Margie,
Dr Right directly answered that of course he believes in the divinity of Jesus. He is a Christian. Why do you have a problem answering clearly like Dr Right? it is because you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus. You find this to be a despicable question.
Doctor Right| 10.25.11 @ 2:04PM
Maybe she finds it a question not worthy of dignifying with a response?
Dan| 10.25.11 @ 3:51PM
See aswer above DR
Margie| 10.25.11 @ 9:09PM
What I find, as always, "Dan" is that YOU are despicable.
C Smith| 10.25.11 @ 6:48PM
You remind me of a passage that has brought me much tranquility: Proverbs 26:4.
Nick| 10.25.11 @ 12:46PM
Now, Margie, you forgot to mention exactly what Martyrs Mirror has to say about the excellent Catholic Saint Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch:
"Ignatius, a disciple of the apostle John, and a successor of Peter and Evodius, was in the service of the church of Christ at Antioch in Syria. He was a very God-fearing man, and faithful and diligent in his ministrations. He was surnamed Theophorus, that is, The Bearer of God, apparently because he often bore the name of God and his Saviour in his mouth, and led a godly life. He was wont to say frequently, 'The life of man is a continual death, unless it be that Christ liveth in us.' Likewise, 'The crucified Christ is my only and entire love.' And, 'He that allows himself to be called after any other than Christ, is not God.' And again, 'As the world hates the Christians, so God loves them.' A. Mellin., fol. 15, col. 1, from. Iqnat. in EQist. ad Row. et alibe." Second Century, Page 105 (emphasis mine).
You shouldn't be hiding the truth from everyone. How can Ignatius be a martyr for Christ if he wasn't a Christian? How can he be a Christian if he taught Catholic doctrines? Saint Irenaeus, too, is listed as a martyr for Christ.
Martyrs Mirror also has some nice things to say about Origen, by the way. Didn't you call Origen's teachings perverted, Margie? Why is he, of all people, included in your precious book? Does this now make Martyrs Mirror perverted?
Inquiring minds want to know.
God Bless!
Margie| 10.25.11 @ 8:11PM
Stuff it, Nick.
You're nothing but a lying punk. You continue to present this lie.
Do you not know where liars go when they die?
The same place "Dan" and your other lying pals are going to go, unless you repent.
You ARE perverse, indeed!
Nick| 10.25.11 @ 11:18PM
Margie,
"You continue to present this lie."
What lie? I copied and pasted that quotation directly from the link to Martyrs Mirror, which YOU provided. I even listed the chapter and page number. What more do you want?
And, as usual, when you can't answer my questions, you lash out and insult me. That's okay, I still love you.
God Bless!
Margie| 10.26.11 @ 11:49AM
Nick,
For the last time, you are lying.
YOU are the one who has said here that the book, Martyrs Mirror is a fantasy, made up.
That would make you a hypocrite AND liar.
Like Satan himself, you reverse the scenario.
I'm not the one that has a problem with Martyrs Mirror.
It is a factual account of the Martyrs, some of them. There are millions not included that God knows of.
You have said that the Martyrs in that book were indeed heretics.
Do you actually think that you are going to be allowed to get away with this blatant lying before God?
Also: See my post to your pal Dan, below.
It applies to you as well.
Repent.
Nick| 10.26.11 @ 7:57PM
Margie,
For the last time, no, I'm not.
Exposing your mistakes and false assumptions is not "lying" about you, or "trying to make you out to be a liar."
It is not my fault that you cannot answer my questions and objections.
God Bless!
Margie| 10.26.11 @ 2:13PM
"My precious book."
It IS precious, and the Martyrs, whom you refer to as heretics, are precious in God's Own Eyes, Papist.
Since you called them heretics, how exactly is it that you are doing what you're doing here with me, trying to assign a lie to me?
Disgusting, filthy liar:
Margie| 9.15.11 @ 12:01AM
For 600 years they tortured and killed Bible believing Christians. Thousands at a time, entire families~ you are a liar and an enemy of the Cross of Christ who also calls the Martyrs of Christ heretics.
http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/contents.htm
Repent!
REPLY TO THIS
Nick| 9.15.11 @ 12:24AM
Margie,
No, they didn't. And, I cannot repent for the deeds of others. Sorry.
Nick| 7.30.11 @ 1:29AM
Margie,
These are more fictions aimed at discrediting the Catholic Church. They do not reflect the historical record.
And here is how Nick looks at the Christian Martyrs:
Nick| 8.2.11 @ 12:50AM
Margie,
Wycliff's body was exhumed, and removed, because he was buried in consecrated ground. Since he was declared a heretic by the Council of Constance (1414-1418) his body had to be removed from the cemetery. Catholics who were excommunicated, or declared themselves not to be in union with the Church, could not be buried in a consecrated Catholic cemetery.
I could find no independent corroboration as to whether, or not, Wycliff's bones were burned and the ashes cast into a river. But, I did learn that Jan Hus, who was convicted of heresy by the same council, and burned at the stake by the secular authorities, had his ashes thrown into the Rhine.
So, it is probable that the same thing was done to Wycliff.
I could only confirm that Pope Martin V, in his Papal Bull Inter Cunctas (1418), approved the actions of the council.
~~~
La-dee-dah. No outrage, no disagreeing with the murderers. In fact, Nick says the Martyrs were INDEED heretics.
Nick| 10.26.11 @ 7:50PM
Margie,
"Since you called them heretics, how exactly is it that you are doing what you're doing here with me, trying to assign a lie to me?"
How am I "trying to assign a lie to" you? I'm only showing that you pick and choose what truths to believe in, from Martyrs Mirror, based on if they agree with your own preconceived notions. Not from logic.
Or, else, you would have to explain how this book can praise Catholic saints like Ignatius and Ireneaus, calling them "martyrs" and Christian, and, on the other hand, claim that the Catholic Church "murdered millions of Christians." Doesn't the fact that this book praises Catholics mean that its scholarship is flawed?
Also, I never said that all the people listed in Martyrs Mirror were heretics. So, you are mistaken, once again. We only discussed Wycliff and Tyndale, in depth, and, yes, they were both, indeed, heretics.
God Bless!
C Smith| 10.24.11 @ 1:49PM
Sermon Against the Jews:
The “wisdom” of the early Church Fathers eventually culminated in “Fathers” of yet another tradition. Augustine, commonly regarded as The Father of Roman Catholicism, exerted unparalleled influence over what many describe as “Christianity.” His early years were consumed in youthful lusts culminating in adherence to a Gnostic sect. Although trying in later years as a Doctor of Doctrine of the Roman Church to distance himself from this heretical system, his works suggest an affinity with the Babylonian mystery religions so characteristic of Gnosticism:
Image worship, the worship of a virgin, the mass, priest craft, all of these things were related, inseparably related, to the pagan custom of the day. … Baal worship goes clear back to the tower of Babel. It was at that time that there was a system created that when you read it and realize that God condemned it you will recognize the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. … The teaching of purification by priestly absolution found its origin and its roots in paganism, not in Scripture. The power of men to forgive sin found its origin in paganism, not in the Scripture. The mediation of a woman found its origin and roots, not in Scripture, but in pagan origin (The Valley Church, emphasis added).
Augustine, lacking the Hebrew and Greek skills of a scholar, continued to build on the sinking sand of Origen’s “Spiritual Israel.” Augustine spiritualized virtually everything: no literal Kingdom (the Church is the Kingdom), no literal Millennium (Christ’s reign within the Church is the Millennium), and according to his work The City of God, no literal New Jerusalem (the Church is the New Jerusalem). Dismissing the literal interpretation of Scripture, he fathered a doctrine subsequently referred to as amillennialism. And as an apparent consequence of Augustine’s handling of the Word of Truth, almost a billion people are involved in what The Valley Church describes as paganism:
You know it … as the dark ages. Here you have the [Roman] Church at its peak of dominance in the world. And what do we have? We have superstition. We have spiritual, moral, and intellectual darkness. We have apostasy with all of the occult and the corruption of that period of time. This was the time of the rise of a church hierarchy, the time of the inquisition where under … the sigh of the cross, thousands of people were slaughtered in the name of Christ.
… There is a true remnant within the Catholic Church who will be raptured. And God loves your Catholic friends, and your Catholic neighbors, and your Catholic relatives. He loves them like He loves the rest of the world. But these people have been bowing before an image that has its origin and roots in paganism, a priesthood that has its origin in paganism. And they have forgotten the centrality of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. And because of that God warns against this. How did it begin? It began with compromise. It began with allowing the social factors of the land in which the people lived to become a part of the worship of the church, God forbid that Valley Church should ever go that way (The Valley Church, emphasis added).
And Augustine, perpetuating the anti-Semitism of the early Church Fathers in his Sermon against the Jews, casually but consistently misappropriates a sanitized rendition of Israel’s Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, for the Church. He seems to have forgotten that there is salvation in none other then the Mashiach (Messiah) Yeshua Ben David (Jesus, Son of David), or perhaps he never knew.
http://theisraelofgod.blogspot.com/search?q=bowing
PJ| 10.24.11 @ 3:00PM
Do you read only blogs that agree with your perverse thoughts? Or do you try to expand your mind by reading about other ideas?
How about reading this review of a book, titled St Augustine's Defense of Judaism? http://www.newoxfordreview.org.....1009-sippo
Margie| 10.24.11 @ 3:13PM
PJ,
Do you actually read the Bible to see how Catholicism isn't in it?
The Truth will set you free.
"Jesus said to him, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me." Jn. 14:6.
PJ| 10.24.11 @ 7:03PM
Yes I actually do read the Bible on a regular basis & it is the most Catholic Christian book I have ever encountered. I embrace the Bible in its entirety. Unfortunately you do not; that's why I am always praying for you. And, I hope you pray for me.
Margie| 10.24.11 @ 7:31PM
PJ,
I'm a Christian. I've embraced the entire Bible since 1975. That's why I reject outright the false doctrines of Catholicism.
To say you pray for me because YOU say I do NOT embrace the entire Bible, is not only wrong and a blatant lie, but extremely disingenuous.
I've been posting Scripture here both Old & New Testament for about 3 yrs. now. If you cannot see that I embrace the Bible in its entirety then you obviously never read my posts.
And what would you be asking me to pray for you about specifically?
Clint| 10.24.11 @ 8:18PM
You Are WorldClass White Trash Joisey Bigot,Margie.
Tell Us Where You Say Practicing Jews & Muslims Go When They Die.
Then Give Us Your Bigoted Views On Practicing Mormons & Pravticing Protestant Sects.
You're Up Bigot Broad, Margie.
Margie| 10.25.11 @ 8:12PM
You're DOWN, punk. In the dregs of the bottomless pit with all your lying pals.
Repent.
Quartermaster| 10.24.11 @ 6:57PM
Augustine didn't write it. But, Augustine was never able to rid himself of either New Platonist or Manichean influences. Both show throughout his writings, and through the Roman Catholicism he essentially founded.
Those same influences also show up in John Calvin's theology, who was deeply influenced by Augustine during Calvin's philosophical training at the Roman Catholic University of Paris.
Clint| 10.24.11 @ 8:10PM
Tell Us About Martin Luther's Bigotry Against Jews.
You're Up
Clint| 10.24.11 @ 8:15PM
Tell Us About John Calvin's Views On Jews.
Alecto| 10.24.11 @ 2:30PM
Er, isn't the definition of an agnostic essentially someone who fails to grasp? Why, then is the author so surprised at the complete failure of the book to comprehend what believers do?
CalMark| 10.24.11 @ 3:54PM
Hello Margie, Dr. Right, et al. Here's a joke for you.
Dan Smith dies and goes to Heaven. St. Peter asks him which part of Heaven he'd like to live in, and takes him on a tour to help him make a choice.
First stop: Catholic Heaven, with an eternal Mass complete with beautiful music, pageantry, and ceremony. "Very nice," says Dan Smith. "There's more!" replies St. Peter.
Second stop: Protestant Heaven, with a rip-roaring sermons from a celestial pulpit being delivered by some of history's great orators.
They go through several others. "Impressive," says Dan Smith. "I think I've seen enough."
"That's not all," replies St. Peter. "Now, here's a peculiar little curiosity," St. Peter continues, taking Smith across a long bridge, through a deep forest, and down a long wooded path into a beautiful meadow. Sitting in the grass, reading the Bible, and animatedly discussing scripture are Margie, Dr. Right, and all their friends.
"What..." begins Dan Smith. St. Peter clamps his hand over Smith's mouth, and drags him bodily away from the meadow.
"Sorry," says St. Peter. "I couldn't let you make any noise and let Margie, Dr. Right, and their friends know that anybody else is here. It would ruin Heaven for them."
Doctor Right| 10.24.11 @ 7:08PM
Hi, Cal!
I accept your intellectual surrender, and your utter inability to refute one single thing I've posted on this topic.
It must be extremely frustrating to belong to a Faith that doesn't equip you to support it's intellectual foundation with factual information.
Oh, well...C'est la vie! (And that's French, NOT Aramaic...)
Dan| 10.24.11 @ 7:28PM
You have to be kidding. Your idea of a debate is to say "I am right" and "you are wrong" and you can't refute anything. All you post is your opinions. You don't post historical facts, other than to say there were bad Popes. Nobody disagrees there were bad Popes. Do you want to compare the genocide in Ireland by the Protestants, or the establishment of slavery in the USA by the Protestants, with the Catholic atrocities and argue who is worse? But you have an easy out, you are not a Protestant, you are some undefined "Christian."
You are entitled to your opinions, but stop pretending your opinons are facts to be refuted. You seem too intelligent for that argument.
Doctor Right| 10.25.11 @ 7:33AM
No.
I post facts.
That's why I'm right.
"Doctor Right", actually.
Sorry you think history is opinion.
Jeepers| 10.25.11 @ 8:44AM
You post YOUR opinions and try to one up everyone by pretending to be some high minded "intellectual" just giving everyone the facts.
In truth you and Margie are no more than cheap Leftist Democrat poseurs trying to pass off your religious opinions as facts. The Dems do it all the time, just like you do. I am Right...
Whatever. You sit here and joust with people who can't debate and act "superior" and "intellectual." In reality you are a buffoon, just like your cheap Leftist Democratic political cousins.
Your only redeeming quality is that politically you are not a Leftist Democrat.
You are a dumbass though.
Doctor Right| 10.25.11 @ 11:53AM
Please go through my posts, and make a list of "Opinion" versus "fact".
Go ahead...I'll wait.
Quartermaster| 10.24.11 @ 6:59PM
Cal, if there is any laughter at that, it is that you would have the courage to post something so utterly lame.
The word "courage" is used advisedly here. It did take a good bit of courage to post something that lame.
Margie| 10.24.11 @ 7:33PM
CalMark doesn't even abide by Catholicism anyway, right Cal?
Clint| 10.24.11 @ 8:08PM
Now, Apocalyptic Crank Lady Margie Can Tell You What She Says Happens To Practicing Jews & Muslim When They Die.
Then She Can Badmouth The Mormons And Practicing Protestant Sects Once Again.
You're Up World Class Religious Bigot Apocalyptic Crank Lady Margie.
Margie| 10.25.11 @ 9:07PM
Tell all the American Spectators where all your pedophile Priests go when they die, hmm?
You're down, liar.
POST American| 10.24.11 @ 11:25PM
--------------------FINAL WORD------------------------
"The Catholic church has been totally
infiltrated by Freemasonry since, at least.
the 1950's"
-MALACHI MARTIN
MEANWHILE, 33rd degree Freemason,
posing as an Arminian Heretic Christian
CON-job, PAT ROBERTSON, has, on record,
spit in the face of Christ's own uttered doctrine
with his greenlighting of the dumping of one's
spouse with Alzheimer's.
This is EUGENICS at the service of
pure, corporatist 'X---speed--iency'.
The definitive, precedent setting opening
of the door to the FULL-blown 'easing out' of
the old and the unfit.
This squinty eyed, crooked smiling swine
has to be called out ---and 'X---spelled'---
--------------------------NOW!----------------------------
Margie| 10.25.11 @ 9:06PM
Actually, the Catholic church has never been right. It still has not repented of its false teachings and falls into the category of Babylon the Whore, false Religion.
Papist Dan| 10.26.11 @ 11:05AM
BIGOT ALERT!!!!
Mullah Margie is posting her anti catholic bigotry.
She may be posting anti semitic bigotry also since she said Jews don't see with spiritual eyes.
Margie| 10.26.11 @ 11:43AM
The Bible, t(hat would be God's Own Words) says that we are in spiritual darkness unless we accept and confess and believe that Jesus Christ is Lord.
For someone who goes arounD this site on my back constantly accusing me of falsehood~ that would be that I do not believe in the Divinity of Christ, you certainly do not know a thing about His Word.
Not surprising since by what they are taught, Catholics are well trained to reject the Holy Scriptures and replace them with the false teachings of men.
And if you truly believed in the Divinity of Christ, you wouldn't say that Mary is the Mother of God, thereby assigning divinity to her as above God, which is blasphemy.
And now, a little bit of the Scripture which the above lying Catholic Trolls cannot bear to hear:
"Your eye is the lamp of your body; when your eye is sound, your whole body is full of light; but when it is not sound, your body is full of darkness." Lk. 11:34.
The teachings of Catholicism are utter darkness, and the pope is the eye of the church.
"And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." Jn. 3:19.
The above is exactly WHY men reject Christ and His Words.
"I have come as Light into the World, that whoever believes in Me may not remain in darkness." Jn. 12:46.
Jesus explaining that we are in darkness, but if we believe in Him we can be saved from it.
"..to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.' Acts 26:18.
That is what Jesus said to the Apostle Paul on the road to Damascus about the plans He had for him.
As you can see, we are all under the power of Satan and Sin unless we believe in Him.
God's Words, not mine. I simply pass them on.
"For it is the God who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ." 2 Cor. 4:6.
That is what Jesus does to believers.
"..for once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light." Eph. 5:8.
Again, God's Own Words say it, and I agree and preach it: We are ALL in darkness unless we repent and believe the Gospel of God.
And finally:
"Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them." Eph. 5:11.
That's what I'm doing here.
Catholics who reject the Scripture and pervert it lie and say I am not permitted to "cur and paste" Scripture! That is what the liar Nick says.
He was also trained well by the Devil to believe this, as this is what Catholicism has taught since its very beginning.
The lie from Satan himself that only the Popes are "permitted" to teach and to Scripture.
It is what they put to death Bible believing Christians for doing for centuries!
Now, Nick the blatant liar and distorter of God's Words will try and say that they did not. He will try and discount the historical facts, as a good Papist always does.
Catholics follow the teachings (false) of the Popes, Christians obey the Words of God, and His Son, Jesus Christ.
And the truth is, God says that anyone who brings to you another Gospel is to be accursed, and has no entrance into the Kingdom of God.
"But even if we, or an Angel from Heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed
As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed." Gal. 1:8 & 9.
Papist Dan| 10.26.11 @ 2:12PM
Bigot Margie,
You are truly stupid.
You still will not say you believe in the divinity of Jesus.
Nobody believes that Mary is divine, or God. False argument.
Your up Mullah: DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE DIVINITY OF JESUS, YES OR NO.
Margie| 10.26.11 @ 5:34PM
Apostate Dan,
Repent before it's too late.
God really DOES throw liars into Hell.
Papist Dan| 10.26.11 @ 6:43PM
Bigot Margie
You are a joke.
You are not a Christian because, among other things, you don't believe in the Divinity of Jesus, that Jesus is God.
Go post some more personal emails from Ken.
Nick| 10.26.11 @ 7:31PM
Margie,
"Catholics who reject the Scripture and pervert it lie and say I am not permitted to "cur and paste" Scripture! That is what the liar Nick says.
This is not true, at all. You are very mistaken. At least I hope you are, and not purposely spreading falsehoods about me. I defy you to provide a quote or link showing otherwise.
"Catholics follow the teachings (false) of the Popes [...]."
No, Catholics follow the teachings of Christ Jesus. The Popes just protected His teachings and handed them down through the past 20 centuries.
God Bless!
POST American| 10.26.11 @ 3:39AM
--------------------FINAL WORD------------------------
33rd degree Freemason infiltrator
and Arminian Heresy SAP OP
---PAT ROBERTSON--- spits in the
face of Christ uttered doctrine in
favor of the 'fave' doctrine of Luciferian
USURY worshippers everywhere:
-----------YOU--genics at the service
of X---SPEED---iency.
--------------------TALK ABOUT IT!!!!
Jeepers| 10.26.11 @ 2:12PM
"Every man a church unto himself...."
That's the end result you get when you go down the Dr. Wrong Road with Margie and Quartermaster.
Aluminum Wallet | 11.25.11 @ 2:54AM
why do you only respond to people who threaten to unsubscribe... what about me....Id like a shout out too .