|
|
Post by bearhunter on May 1, 2008 7:32:30 GMT
"Is this a lie or is it the truth? According to their canon law, a heretic is to be purged by the following steps:
Excommunication, Proscription from all offices, ecclesiastical or civil,--from all public duties and private rights, Confiscation of all their goods. And the last punishment is death sometimes by the sword, more commonly by fire."
Yes, yes, I am aware of how the RCC attempted to purge Protestants from the face of the earth. In fact the Duke of Alva's campaign in the Spanish Netherlands was one of the most appalling attempts at genocide ever. But let's not pretend that it wasn't a two-way street. As soon as I can find the link again, I'll post the figures of Catholics killed vs Protestants killed in England during the Reformation. It wasn't a case of poor defenceless Protestant babies being eaten by Catholic priests.
"The catholic church has directly and indirectly killed millions throughout the world. England stank with the smell of the burning flesh of the martyrs, John Wycliffe, openly attacked the sale of indulgences by the Catholic Church (whereby sinners could buy forgiveness from the Church - a nice way of earning even more money for the Church's coffers), arguing forgiveness could not be bought for a few coins. Wycliffe also translated the Bible into English and delivered his sermons in English, rather than the Latin used by the Catholics."
Yes, throughout the world, it has wreaked havoc. I accept that and I deplore it, but since I am not a Catholic it's hardly my fault. On a worldwide scale, Catholics have killed more than Protestants have, but that does not mean that they were alone in being a complete shower of bastards. It just means there were more Catholics than Protestants. Again, it's not a case of poor defenceless Protestants being put to the sword wthout any reply in kind. (And before you accuse me of condoning religious slaughter, I don't. By any religion. That's part of the reason I'm an atheist.
"No it is not bullshit, many of those that I know don't have a bible and let's not forget Catholics were not allowed to own a bible or interpretate it and that was the catholic church's rules not anyone elses."
How long ago were they not allowed a Bible? 1450? 1550? Give me a timeframe here, because I have a family Bible that goes back to the early 1700s.
"How do you come to that assertion when I am stating what the bible teaches not what I teach or say? Many of their practices are unbiblical, so if you disagree take it up with the bible."
In your opinion. Just because YOU think Catholics are "unbiblical" and unlikely to make to heaven, doesn't mean that what you say is true. That's arrogance, becasue what you are saying is that if people don't conform to your idiosyncratic interpretation of your version of the Bible, they are damned.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 1, 2008 7:53:56 GMT
Oh I forgot this. According to Decreti, pars ii. causa xxiii. quaest v. can. xlvii: "Those are not to be accounted homicides who, fired with zeal for Mother Church, may have killed excommunicated persons." Oh come on, if someone from Italy went out and killed a protestant tomorrow they are hardly going to be pardoned by the Vatican for it. |
|
|
|
Post by earl on May 1, 2008 9:03:07 GMT
WASP,
So when was the last Protestant burning? Was there one last week, last century, or a couple of hundred years ago?
I think you'll find that goes for almost every faith. For example, millions died in India alone due to British Protestant evangelical zeal during the mutiny. Women and children included.
Yes it is bullshit. We had a Bible at home which I read as a young'un. A cathecism and a Bible.
Well stoning menstruating women and men with beards is very biblical, but would you reckon it's the decent thing to do? Just because it's not in the bible, doesn't make it wrong, and just because it's in the bible, it doesn't make it right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on May 1, 2008 19:49:38 GMT
BH I never ever said it was only the bad Catholics, Protestants made sure of pay back and they also killed fellow Protestants of other faiths. I iknew you all would come out with the line meaning but today is different blah blah. But it is not, they can't because they know what would happen with world opinion. But the rc church is meant to be infalliable, look what that mean for yourselves and these rulce and laws still remain regardless of wht you all try and pretend to say about it.
BH I did not say all Catholic beliefs are unbiblical, re-read my posts.
Earl your final; comment is laughable and ridiculous as well as downtrihht childish. The catholic church has throughout the centuries introduced doctrine that is totally unbiblical in any shape or form. Sentencing people to hell because they told the truth, because they spoke out against the Catholic church and certain clergy etc and that was only about 60 years ago, not centuries ago.
Tell you what you get me in the bible many of the practices that the Catholic church dictates and has forced upon its people for centuies to follow its word both directly and indirectly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on May 1, 2008 19:50:52 GMT
BTW how is it bullshit that many of the Catholics I know don't have bibles in their homes, do you friggin know them? I know plenty of Protestants that don't have a bible in their homes.
|
|
|
|
Post by earl on May 2, 2008 8:43:42 GMT
WASP,
That's not what's BS, this is BS:
Okay WASP, pop quiz time. Do you accept the following:
This is biblical. Does it make it right?
How about any of these:
* If a man has sex with his father's wife, kill them both.
* If a man has sex with his daughter in law, kill them both.
Now, I'd agree with the unsavoury nature of both, but 'the word of God' says that we should kill people who do this? This is biblical. Is it right?
* If a man has sex with a menstruating woman, they both "shall be cut off from among their people."If a man has sex with a menstruating woman, they both "shall be cut off from among their people."
Why is the Bible against something that is natural? Why has 'God' got such a poor understanding of the natural and necessary cycle? Do you practice this? It's in the bible. It's the word of God. It's biblical, but is it right?
I could go on, and on, and on.......
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on May 2, 2008 20:29:53 GMT
Early you are taking out of context the laws of man and God's laws, but regardless of what you are saying what on earth has that got to do with some of the doctrines that the Catholic church has introduced such as how they see Mary, purgatory, indulgences, priests being a go between for confessions, bowing to idols (probably made in China) etc etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by easterner on May 3, 2008 4:08:21 GMT
if you want insight then you have to ask the right questions man you are soooo lucky you didn't have Nun's in your school when you were growing up. You would have been beat black and blue with that attitude.  I sure as hell didn't have nuns as my teachers,BUT I did have one overseeing my 11+ exam, she threw me out for having chewing gum . That was back in the days when our teachers swapped for the exam, 2 schools in the one street.They came in to do roll call then ran across the street, between Beechfield and St.Matthews. Oh and guess who got thumped because she was sent home early...no it wasn't the nun  |
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on May 3, 2008 10:16:37 GMT
plenty of catholics and protestants have no bibles in their home because they are only nominally one or the other and couldn't give a flying fuck about either outlook. I like Earl had several bibles in the house growing up, includling the king james version which is best for majest of language i always thought, and several other translations. we are not living in the pre or post reformation days and this is mad paranoia when the evangelical end of the protestant churches gets going about this stuff. The catholic church has done evil things, the orthodox church also, the protestant churches to - are you advancing christianity by constantly using them as a bar to recognition that we could all be seen as gods children. I 'm not even sure if i believe in god or not but if there is something up there whether it cares what faith we are or not has alway seemed unlikely to me and would make it pretty petty on an universal scale.
on another point catholics and protestants are both christians - on essentials such as christ needing to redeem mankind the difference is minimal -why not focus on what binds us together not what drives us apart.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on May 3, 2008 16:29:49 GMT
BA I agree with you on some things here, but it is far from paranoia, it is doctrinal fact and these same doctrines are still around. Infact they have been renewed several times, the last was recently.
Protestants cannot be united with Catholics because we do not see the pope as anything other thanan ordinary man instead of viewing him as the holy father bullshit and the vicar of Christ.
To say we are both Christtians is false, to be a Christian you have to be saved and that is not the chpoice of man, but God's will, his work and his alone. To believe does not make you a Christian, the devil believes in God and he is hardly a Christian.
|
|
|
|
Post by bearhunter on May 4, 2008 21:42:28 GMT
"To say we are both Christtians is false, to be a Christian you have to be saved and that is not the chpoice of man, but God's will, his work and his alone. To believe does not make you a Christian, the devil believes in God and he is hardly a Christian. "
Again, that is what you believe. Just because that is what you believe does not make it true. You still have no idea how arrogant you sound when you say who is Christian and who is not, do you? And back to the Bibles in homes bit, I don't know your firends, of course I don't. But if they haven't got a bible, it's not because the Church told them not to, which was the implication in your post.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on May 4, 2008 23:27:44 GMT
The bible is quite clear on these matters, while somethings are open to interpretation which would be no more than the differing flavours of ice cream. It is not me who is saying it is true because I say so, it is God's word, not mine.
You are twisting what I am saying BH to suit your own line of arguement. Again the bible is clear and the likes of me can only pray that I am one of those chosen by God before the world was created. Take your arguement up with the bible because I am claiming nothing from my own opinion.
I never ever said the Church told them not to, the reformation brought about people being allowed to own bibles and to teach from it. I know many Catholics who hardly know the reasons why they do the things they do according to Catholic doctrine and practices. From my own personal knowledge many Catholics just go along with what the church says and tells them rather than searching themselves.
Look at what the current official stand of the Catholic church says. I will let it speak for itself.
1. "Hence, both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence." (Vol. 1, page 755)
2. "But the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone." (Vol. 1, p. 755)
3. "But by divine institution it is the exclusive task of these pastors alone, the successors of Peter and the other Apostles, to teach the faithful authentically, that is with the authority of Christ ...." (Vol. 2, p. 430)
4. The Roman Catholic Church "condemns with anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them." (Vol. 1, p. 71)
5. "An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain defined conditions through the Church's help when, as minister of Redemption, she dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfaction won by Christ and the saints." (Vol. 1, p. 75)
9. "The faithful who use with devotion an object of piety (crucifix, cross, rosary, scapular or medal) after it has been duly blessed by any priest, can gain a partial indulgence." (Vol. 1, p. 77)
22. "Finally the Immaculate Virgin preserved free from all stain of original sin, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, when her earthly life was over, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things ...." (Vol. 1, pp. 417 and 418)
32. "The infallibility, however, with which the divine redeemer wished to endow his Church in defining doctrine pertaining to faith and morals, is co-extensive with the deposit of revelation, which must be religiously guarded and loyally and courageously expounded. The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful -- who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk. 22:32) -- he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith and morals." (Vol. 1, p. 380) (now what was all that about today being different etc)
E. "If anyone says that in the Roman Church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism, let him be anathema." (ibid., p. 53 -- Seventh Session, Sacrament Of Baptism, Canon 3)
H. "Its [The Council of Trent's] purpose was twofold, to define the doctrines of the Church in reply to the heresies of the Protestants, and to bring about a thorough reform of the inner life of Christians .... In them [the dogmatic decisions] the council proclaimed to the world the doctrines that were committed to the keeping of the Church on the day of Pentecost. They are a sign erected on everlasting foundations indicating to the passer-by the straight road along which the Church has traveled ever since that day and along which she will continue to travel till the day of judgment. She recognizes no detours, for these lead only to destruction." (ibid., p. iii)
Take the assumption of Mary, before 1950 it would have been deemed heretical for anyone to teach this happened, after 1950 it would be deemed heretical not to believe it happened. IMHO if Catholics questioned the many practices introduced by the church as to why they were introduced etc many more would leave. Of course there would be many who would take the 'vicar of christ's' word as gospel regardless if it is in the bible or not.
For me the bible is very hard in parts to understand so there are plenty of things that I am wrong on or learned about or changed my opnion on etc but I am absolutely sure about the false practices that the rc church has introduced as being unblical. The same goes for some Protestant denominations such as some of the beliefs of the charasmatics (signs and wonders). There is no perfect Church but there are those who teach a false gospel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on May 4, 2008 23:46:42 GMT
BH etc in about 1229 the RC CHurch introduced this infallible rule. The Bible forbidden to laymen and placed in the Index of forbidden books by the Council of Valencia
Jesus commanded that the Scriptures should be read by all. (John 5:39; 1st Timothy 3:15-17).
1215 Confession of sin to the priest at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III., in the Lateran Council
The Bible commands us to confess our sins direct to God. (Read Psalm 51:1-10; Luke 7:48; 15:21; 1st John 1:8-9).
1439 The doctrine of Purgatory was proclaimed as a dogma of faith by Council of Florence
There is not one word in the Bible that would teach the purgatory of priests. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sins. (Read 1st John 1:7-9; 2:1-2; John 5:24; Romans 8:1).
In 1449 The doctrine of 7 Sacraments affirmed
The Bible says that Christ instituted only two ordinances, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. (Read Matthew 28:19-20; 26:26-28).
The Council of Trent, held in the year 1545, declared that Tradition is of equal authority with the Bible
By tradition is meant human teachings. The Pharisees believed the same way, and Jesus bitterly condemned them, for by teaching human tradition, they nullified the commandments of God. (Read Mark 7:7-13; Colossians 2:8; Revelation 22:18).
In the year 1870 after Christ, Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of Papal Infallibility
This is a blasphemy and the sign of the apostasy and of the antichrist predicted by St. Paul. (Read 2nd Thessalonians 2:2-12; Revelation 17:1-9; 13:5-8,18).
Pope Plus X, in the year 1907, condemned together with "Modernism", all the discoveries of modern science which are not approved by the Church
In the year 1950 the last dogma was proclaimed by Pope Pius XII, the Assumption of the Virgin Mary
These are only a few. Can you see where I am coming from now?
|
|
|
|
Post by bearhunter on May 5, 2008 4:54:47 GMT
Right, in reply to your several posts:
"The bible is quite clear on these matters, while somethings are open to interpretation which would be no more than the differing flavours of ice cream. It is not me who is saying it is true because I say so, it is God's word, not mine."
You are saying it is so because YOU believe it to be true. Not because it necessarily is. I'm not going to debate your faith in god here, I'm only saying that because you believe something to be true does not make it so.
"Again the bible is clear and the likes of me can only pray that I am one of those chosen by God before the world was created. Take your arguement up with the bible because I am claiming nothing from my own opinion"
See my point above. Although I would take issue with you saying that none of this is your own opinion, because by definition it is your opinion. You are saying it because you believe it, fair enough, but that does not make it any more fact. And please spare me the "God says it" argument, because you'd have to persuade me god exists before being able to bring that argument into play.
"I never ever said the Church told them not to"
No you didn't. You put the statement about them not having one right next to one about the church not allowing it five hundred years ago (although you never actually said it was 500 years ago). I don't believe you are naive enough not to be aware of the implication in how you phrased it. By the way, the rest of your reply to that point about what else the RCC believes is not part of the issue, WASP. It's another opportunity for you to list what you see as the failings of the RCC. Why you do this all the time baffles me. Since you don't believe in the RCC and don't even believe it is "Christian" (your version rather than the mainstream accepted use of the word) then why the fuck should you care what it believes? I don't and I was brought up in it. I also don't give a hot-buttered shite about what any other form of Christianity believes, nor Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, Parsis, Baha'is, shintoists, Animists or other atheists. each to their own and let's not get annoyed about trivia.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 5, 2008 12:34:25 GMT
Oh I forgot this. According to Decreti, pars ii. causa xxiii. quaest v. can. xlvii: "Those are not to be accounted homicides who, fired with zeal for Mother Church, may have killed excommunicated persons." So in the vaticans eyes it would have been fine for anyone to kill the inla or ira or whatever republican organisations that where excommunicated yet you've always said the church went hand in hand with republicans? (not exact words but you know what I mean). |
|
