Bible Banning??? In Christianity???

[Landon Caeli]

It wasn't within scope of my response, because my response was withing the scope of the OP.

The only reason it's no longer banned is because it no longer can be banned. The cat is out of the bag. One can't undo what the reformation did in this regard, opening the scripture to the vast majority of the people on Earth. If the RCC was able to again impose such a ban, I believe they would in a heartbeat in an attempt to consolidate their power base.

Burning those corrupted bibles was a righteous act, which I believe, saved Christianity from utter destruction.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You constantly trying to remove the label "Christian" from the heretics your church slaughtered, is "defending" it, because unfortunately, many Catholics still have the Crusade mindset that it's okay to kill pagans and muslims. Indeed that was the very justification the Church used, that they are "not" Christians.



You could just scroll back and see why. The REASON the Bible was banned was to suppress these "heresies" which the Catholic Church was violently suppressing and you were defending the Catholic actions, claiming they aren't "true Christians", etc. (despite the fact many of the biggest Cathar heresies have been adopted by the Vatican today, opposition to death penalty, equality for women, and vegetarianism were considered among their biggest heresies and Catholic inquisitors tested people by seeing if they would eat meat or kill animals, if they refused, they were executed as heretics).


Glad you don't disagree, sad you just shrug it off, upset you try to claim it off-topic when the topic is suppression of God's word (and the purpose being to prevent "heresy" which they violently suppress). It is all part of the pattern of the beast on seven hills.

Yes, once you wake up and join the ex-Catholics and realize the bitter truth about your beloved Church, you will fight for that truth to the end. It was not a happy occasion that I discovered the truth. It shattered my world view. I did not understand why Jesus came to me and told me how wrong I was about muslims (the caliphate being the antichrist, wanting a new crusade against them). It made me read Revelations all over again and made my jaw drop when I realized the woman (church/religion) riding a beast (nation) was not a Caliphate, but a Church. The Church I loved, clothed in "scarlet and purple" on the "seven hills" of Rome.

All scholars agree it has to be a religious state. You can continue, like I did, to think it's a future Caliphate, but there is nothing to support that when there is a clear seven-hill Church-nation clothed in "purple and scarlet", drunk with the blood of the saints (Inquisitions, crusades against Christian "heretics", etc.).

I think it's the ultimate plot twist. But leave it to the Great Author to do that!



Please do. None of your posts added anything to the conversation and you just reposted a Wikipedia section that didn't refute my argument, as if I needed education on it when I already know the whole story. And just denying doesn't constitute an argument. Put forward your own numbers on how many were killed in the Inquisition, witch hunts, heretic killings, canonical punishments (I.e. Goslar incident), crusades against christian "heretics", etc.

Do your own research and put forth the various numbers of estimated christians murdered in each of those conflicts. By the way, any number greater than zero and you still come to the same problem, your "Church"/Pope murdered Christians. Many of them for "heresy" that the Church now accepts as doctrine, many Cathar "heretical" positions that were the very reasons used to justify murdering Cathars, are not common Catholic positions.

"My Church" did nothing that other denomiations have not done, as well. The Protestant Reformation murdered lots of Catholics in the process, and lots of heretical Protestants for that matter.
"My Church" has murdered no one. Not one. Catholics have murdered people, certainly. But the Church has not murdered anyone. In the Albigensian Crusade, the French Government was the entity that killed heretics, and the statement you provided is totally inaccurate.

That's why it's a myth that has no substantiation.

 

[Goodbook]

As you werent there at the time you dont actually know all their reasons for banning it.

It doesnt matter now. We have the Bible NOW so praise the Lord!

 

[mikpat]

Catholic Church —- Infallibility.

The Roman Pontiff when he speaks "ex cathedra" that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians , by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding " Faith and Morals" to be held by the Universal Church, —- by the Divine assistance promised to him, Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer, willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding Faith and Morals. And therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not in virtue of the consent of the Church, etc.

The source of the Pope's Infallibility is the supernatural assistance of the Holy Spirit, Who protects the Pontiff of the Church from error.
When the Pope speaks to bishops, pastors the laity on social, political, religious, educational educational issues or writes an Encyclical———-he, is not speaking with infallibility.

The last time a Pope spoke ex cathedra, was in 1950, regarding the Assumption of Mary….I'm sure of the date.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Catholic Church —- Infallibility.

The Roman Pontiff when he speaks "ex cathedra" that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians , by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding " Faith and Morals" to be held by the Universal Church, —- by the Divine assistance promised to him, Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer, willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding Faith and Morals. And therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not in virtue of the consent of the Church, etc.

The source of the Pope's Infallibility is the supernatural assistance of the Holy Spirit, Who protects the Pontiff of the Church from error.
When the Pope speaks to bishops, pastors the laity on social, political, religious, educational educational issues or writes an Encyclical———-he, is not speaking with infallibility.

The last time a Pope spoke ex cathedra, was in 1950, regarding the Assumption of Mary….I'm sure of the date.

We have to keep in mind that after the statement of Jesus as to the church came the command to get behind Him, in no uncertain terms, so much for infallibility

 

[mikpat]

I don't know why all these people, sola scriptura, bible only and KJV readers etc. have a problem with Catholic Church's "infallibility"?

Many readers of the KJV, all declare, is the Verbum Dei, and therefore whatever biblical interpretation they post is straight from the Word of God————-well that sort of sounds like a lot of "infallibility" to me.

 

[mikpat]

The Catholic Church has always followed Christ. Christ is the leader, and the Catholic Church follows right behind Him.

 

[Root of Jesse]

No one? Really? Talk about denial! You do know the Popes ruled over the Inquisitions which killed tens of thousands of Christians. Or the Crusades which killed hundreds of thousands. That they wrote the canonical laws which ordered witch burning which killed hundreds of thousands of innocent women. And are you completely unaware of the nation called the "Papal States" which was a secular nation ruled by the Pope which killed further hundreds of thousands in various battles and wars in order to further it's land holdings? There have even been Popes who led armies directly on the battlefield. You are in some severe denial here or else unaware of history.

They ruled over the Inquisitions, but the Popes didn't kill anyone. And it wasn't 'tens of thousands'. Crusaders did kill people, though not hundreds of thousands, but while the Crusades were preached by the Church, the Church didn't kill anyone. Regarding the Papal States, the Popes didn't kill anyone. Perhaps the secular government of said States did.
As an American, should I declare that 'you' are responsible for the deaths of those who were killed in America's wars?

Yes, we all know that, however when the French asked permission if it was okay to slaughter the inhabitants because they couldn't tell the Catholics from the Cathars, the Papal Legate, the direct representative of the Pope, declared "Kill them all, God will know His own" (which is where the alternative translation of "Kill them all and let God sort them out" comes from). So not only did the "Church" and Pope order the massacres of many Christians, they even massacred Catholics. Several Catholic saints were killed as heretics ironically.

He sadi no such thing.

Even St. Augustine himself would of been put to death by the later Catholic church since he was briefly a Manichean, which are vegetarians, and Catholic inquisitors often tested heretics by seeing if they would eat meat or kill animals (like the Cathars who were also vegetarian). Thousands were put to death by Catholic bishops precisely for this reason. Even before the Cathars, there incidents like the one at Goslar in 1051 where several bishops got together and decided the penalty for several peasants that refused to kill their chickens (likely to preserve their egg laying), they decided the penalty would be death and executed them.

See, you don't understand that killing a heretic means that he fries in hell, and means a lost soul for the Church. The Church's mission is to SAVE souls, not to destroy them. Their mission is to convert heretics, but when said heretics refuse, then it became a matter for the state to deal with. Also, by the way, we didn't do witch hunts. That was a Protestant thing, for the most part.

Today, ironically, the Catholic Church has embraced many of the heresies they executed Cathars for.

Wrong answer.

 

[derGroßmütige]

And it wasn't 'tens of thousands'.

Denial.

Crusaders did kill people, though not hundreds of thousands

Denial. What are your alternative numbers? Sources? Evidence? You are going against mainstream history here so please provide your alternative sources on this. I was just mentioning the hundreds of thousands of CHRISTIANS killed and you are denying they even killed any hundreds of thousands of PEOPLE! You do realize the secular figures on the death tolls of just the Crusades against Islam are in the millions right? Just a quick google search will show you most figures are in the 1 to 3 million range, Washington Post for example says 1.7 million killed.

while the Crusades were preached by the Church, the Church didn't kill anyone.

Yet more denial. By that logic, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Robespierre, etc. never killed anyone, they just "preached" killings that their followers enacted.

Regarding the Papal States, the Popes didn't kill anyone. Perhaps the secular government of said States did.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt! Wow! It was NOT a secular government. It was a theocracy ruled by the Pope as both spiritual AND secular ruler. Hence "Papal States".

As an American, should I declare that 'you' are responsible for the deaths of those who were killed in America's wars?

I am not saying modern CATHOLICS are responsible, I'm saying the VATICAN and CATHOLIC CHURCH is responsible. Just as there were good Bolsheviks and good Wehrmacht, not all individuals in that system are to blame, but you can't claim Communism never killed anyone for example, which is your logic, that your ideology is blameless because there were people/followers pulling the trigger and not an abstract idea pulling the trigger.

He sadi no such thing.

It's amazing how you think denying everything is a valid way of arguing. I suppose it is convenient for you, if you just deny everything, in your head you never lose an argument!

See, you don't understand that killing a heretic means that he fries in hell

Who are you to judge heretics? All heretics "fry in hell" because they are not Catholic? Wow. You do realize it is blasphemy for any human to claim to be the arbiter of who gets into Heaven or Hell (as many Popes do). ONLY GOD has the power of forgiveness, not the Pope. Only GOD has the power to judge where souls go. Newsflash: many people of all denominations are going to Hell, and many in denominations you don't approve of are going to Heaven. You can't just wave your denomination at the Gates of Heaven like a "get out of hell free" card. That's not how it works.

means a lost soul for the Church. The Church's mission is to SAVE souls, not to destroy them.

Ideally, sure. But your Church is ruled by a man. And men are fallen sinners. You are in denial of their sins. Of past Popes' cravings for power, wealth, and prestige. Of their wars and crusades that killed millions. Or of the Yellow Cross they forced Cathars to wear, and Yellow Badge they forced Jews to wear (sound familiar?).

Their mission is to convert heretics, but when said heretics refuse, then it became a matter for the state to deal with. Also, by the way, we didn't do witch hunts. That was a Protestant thing, for the most part.

Again denial doesn't make your position true. Trying to put witch hunts on Protestants, now that is HILARIOUS. Yes, there were the Salem Witch Trials, if that's what you mean. Protestants were the ones who ENDED the practice of burning witches and inquisitions that had plagued Europe for a thousand years. Very few witches were ever tried by Protestant nations because we didn't have oppressive Church hierarchies, inquisitions, bishop-run tribunals to judge "heretics", etc.

The lowest number I've seen (FROM A CATHOLIC HISTORIAN) is that roughly 40,000 witches were killed. The highest number out there is 9 million+ witches killed (although he includes Orthodox areas, etc.). The most credible numbers of witches killed by Catholics usually range from 100,000 to 500,000. At Stedinger alone over 20,000 accused witches were killed in a short time frame so the 40,000 number is very easily discredited.

But let's even go with that number, the most pro-Catholic number of 40,000. You still deny your own religion's historians here.

Wrong answer.

Then please give your answer, not just blatant denials of any criticism. Deny, deny, deny. You're not running for political office, don't worry this is a safe space, you don't have to deny everything.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Then there must be something wrong with your hearing.

To claim Infallibility is to claim that your interpretation cannot possibly be mistaken. Only the hierarchy of the Catholic Church makes that claim. Nobody else does.

On the other hand, many a poster has claimed their point of view is what the infallible bible says and no other point of view qualifies.

 

[W2L]

Not quite. But uninformed criticism is bigotry. There is a lot of bigotry in this thread.

That's not bigotry either

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

On the other hand, many a poster has claimed their point of view is what the infallible bible says and no other point of view qualifies.

Isn't that what's it all about anyway is interpretation, except when it comes to adding on what isn't there. At least some can say that the words they are saying come from inspired text and be correct in that at least.

You misunderstand entirely. They can be infallible. The pope cannot. End of story.

Beginning of pride

Not quite. But uninformed criticism is bigotry. There is a lot of bigotry in this thread.

The only race worth mentioning is for the rewards of the millenial kingdom, which far too many overlook

 

[Graham Dull]

"My Church" has murdered no one. Not one. Catholics have murdered people, certainly. But the Church has not murdered anyone. In the Albigensian Crusade, the French Government was the entity that killed heretics, and the statement you provided is totally inaccurate.

.
The Church has Two Swords

The two swords of the church are the spiritual and the temporal.

• The second sword (the temporal) is the material sword.
• This sword is administered by the Church,
• in the hands of kings and soldiers,
• at the will and sufferance of the priest.
• every human creature is subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Unam Sanctam
His Holiness Pope Boniface VIII -- November 18, 1302
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_bo08us.htm

URGED BY FAITH, we are obliged to believe…
We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal…
Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church, but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest…
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
------------

The church has great authority

The church has great authority. And its authority extends to the sword. Every human creature is subject to the Roman Pontiff.

The church has boldly proclaimed the preeminence of its authority in this respect. History supports its claim.

The sword is (was) used at the will and sufferance of the priest, every human creature being subject to the Roman Pontiff.

How can the church now say that it was never in charge, it was never responsible? How can it say that everyone else was responsible for the killing? But the church is innocent?
.

 

[chilehed]

How can we expect to be blessed by God when the source of his blessings is banned???

I haven't read through the thread. Has there been any discussion of the events leading up to the council, and what the canons really said?

 

[derGroßmütige]

So Jesus told you that Islam is more holy than Catholicism? Wow.

Sorry did not pick up on this criticism earlier but felt I had to address it. No, I was told I was wrong about Islam. Since Revelations clearly speaks of a woman (religion/church) riding a beast (nation) I had assumed it was speaking of a Caliphate, and I was one of those people in love with the Crusades. I had just the day before been re-reading Pope Urban II's Crusade speech and was inspired by the Pope's call for war so I was agitating for the same things politically. So when Jesus told me I was wrong about Islam and to love Muslims, it threw me for a total worldview-shattering spin.

I re-read Revelations and my mouth just dropped wide open. The beast was on my beloved "seven hills" of Rome, clothed in "scarlet and purple" (cardinals and bishops), and was the Church, not a Caliphate.

You can choose to reject my testimony and believe it's a future Caliphate if you want, I'm just telling you of my own spiritual transformation.

By the way, if the Crusades were righteous then, why are they not now? Why back away from them now? I think ISIS is probably worse than the Muslims back then, no? If the Crusades were not wrong, then do you support a new one now? I'm honestly curious. And if even the ones against Muslims were wrong, then how are not the crusades against Christians like the Hussites?

That's why we are critical of anti-Catholic bigotry.

Are you critical of anti-Heretic bigotry? You know the deaths of tens of thousands? That's real bigotry. Bigotry means not tolerating a person, not allowing them to exist (like wiping out the Cathars) or harming them in some way. No one here is executing Catholics or harming them. Just criticizing your religion is not bigotry. If that's the case then criticizing ISIS is anti-Muslim bigotry? How is criticizing actions done in your religion's name "bigotry"?

Are we to ignore it and call it a "religion of peace" and pretend nothing happened?

Is holding an organization or country responsible for the actions of the past bigotry? Would that mean people talking about slavery or Japanese internment are "anti-American bigots"? Maybe they are, I just want to know how you define bigotry since you think those bringing up past violent actions of a country or ideology are "bigots"?

 

[mnorian]

Mod Hat On

To Not Flame Each other
If your post has been removed, it was either in violation or quoting another post that was. Please remember the no-flaming rule of the forum and to stay on topic to the original topic. Please treat each other with respect, including during debates.
Site Rules:
http://www.christianforums.com/help/rules/
Further issues with this thread may result in further cleans, a permanent shut down, and member staff actions.
Carry On​

 

[mnorian]

Thank you.

Yer welcome.

 

[pshun2404]

Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should not be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.- The Church Council of Toulouse 1229

No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days, so that they may be burned.- The Church Council of Tarragona 1234 AD

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. ... - Psalms 1

How can we expect to be blessed by God when the source of his blessings is banned???

What they prohibited was that the laity SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED to have the Bible....not that they should be prohibited from having them. The decision of Tarragona reversed this.

 

[rainbow42]

"All power is given unto me in heaven and in the earth,
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded
you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world"
[Matthew 28:18-20]

 

[chevyontheriver]

What they prohibited was that the laity SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED to have the Bible....not that they should be prohibited from having them. The decision of Tarragona reversed this.

Actually, whoever copied and pasted the canon from the council of Toulouse introduced a typo or inadvertently copied a typo from whatever source they used. That 'not' in the quotation does not belong there.

The regional synod of Toulouse, canon 14, in 1229 AD did ban individual Bible ownership without explicit permission. Bad translations or otherwise corrupted copies were burned. It is the context of that canon that this discussion is about, whether it is a ruling for all time or a temporary matter, and why such a thing would ever be done. Some think this is the smoking gun to prove the Catholic Church deficient. Others see it as a measure necessitated by the Albigensians.