Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[Berean777]

The Crusades were a defensive war, and in accord with our Just War Doctrine. There was little or no massacre at all.

The Inquisition was a tribunal court system. You don't have a problem with courts, do you? The Inquisition did occasionally use torture, but torture was back in vogue in secular systems as well, and Inquisition torture was much less vigorous than secular torture.

Pope Pius XII actually harbored and hid many Jews during the time of Nazi persecusion of the Jews. There is no truth to the myth that Pius XII stood by silently. I guess you think the Pope had an army that could actually do something about the Nazis???

You say Crusades was a just war, Hmmmmmmm..........you choose to ignore the bigger picture. Does Jesus condone, worldly definition of Just War, that is to send mercenaries to rape, steal and pillage?

Inquisitions were illegal courts against the body of Christ and who persecuted the body as testified my court docs and many other pieces of related historical evidence that points to a religious cleansing, similar to ethnic cleansing agenda.

Well a pope who is alleged to protect and hide Jews is one for the Public Relations don't you think? Show me evidence, one only that had Pope Pious not sending armies, but condemning the actions of the nazis, Hmmmmmm.....please cone back to me with evidence. Thanks.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You know, here I am telling you that I believe you're a member of the Body of Christ. If you choose to say that you feel you aren't, be my guest. By the way, we believe that every baptized Christian is a subject of the Pope, whether you assent to it or not...
Nope. Every baptized Christian is, however imperfectly, part of the one Body, by the grace of God. The degree of perfect communion is all that's in question.

I rather think that, given the rationale, the Pope would gladly claim jurisdiction over all humanity.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

...we believe that every baptized Christian is a subject of the Pope, whether you assent to it or not..

Thus faced with the reality that the body of Christ extends beyond visible organic formal bodies, esp. that of Rome which makes itself to be the only body of Christ, then your only recourse is delusion. And your use of "subject" is not how the papal teaching cited uses it, which means obedience, and which also, contrary to you, excludes from salvation all who are not.

We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” - We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
...no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” — Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (Seventeenth Ecumenical Council)
..in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. - Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos

" Nope. Every baptized Christian is, however imperfectly, part of the one Body, by the grace of God. The degree of perfect communion is all that's in question."

Which is directly contrary to what is documented. Thus other RCs hold that any Prot must become a Catholic before he dies in order to be saved. However, RCs manifestly have a great deal of liberty to interpret both the Bible as well as Rome.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Well the fact is that torture came back into civil law, and popes allowed it, .

Another example of protect-the-pope deception, for the pope did not merely "allow" torture, but commanded,

The head of state or ruler must force all the heretics whom he has in custody,{8} ...to confess their errors and accuse other heretics whom they know, and specify their motives, {9} and those whom they have seduced, and those who have lodged them and defended them, as thieves and robbers of material goods are made to accuse their accomplices and confess the crimes they have committed. - Ad extirpanda, papal bull, promulgated on May 15, 1252, by Pope Innocent IV.

Moreover, implying civil law is to be blamed for the use of torture does not provide an excuse.

".Extermination of heretics, by the way, was a Protestant way of getting rid of Catholics, too.."

Indeed, and i usually mention such had to be unlearned by early Prots, which does not excuse either. There is yet more that needs to be unlearned from Rome.

blah, blah, blah

Which sums up your response to your sophistry being exposed and reproved.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Thus faced with the reality that the body of Christ extends beyond visible organic formal bodies, esp. that of Rome which make to the only body of Christ, then your only recourse is delusion. And your use of "subject" is not that of papal teaching as which meaning obedience, and contrary to you, excludes from salvation all who are not.

We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” - We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
...no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” — Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (Seventeenth Ecumenical Council)
..in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. - Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos

Which is directly contrary to what is documented. Thus other RCs hold that any Prot must become a Catholic before he dies in order to be saved. However, RCs manifestly have a great deal of liberty to interpret both the Bible as well as Rome.

Thus we enter the morass of Catholic soteriology. On one hand, the Pope claims as many Christians as he possibly can hope to, but on the other hand limits salvation only to the very select few who meet all of the stringent requirements of Catholic dogma. Thus, when the Catholic Church insists that all must believe its Marian dogmas to be saved, that automatically excludes all Protestants, so it is an empty idea that Protestants can be saved simply because the Pope accepts their baptism as valid.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The Crusades...was little or no massacre at all.

little or no?! How can you say that with a straight face except in ignorance, or by defining "massacre" to exclude it from applying to Rome, or relegating all researchers who describe Crusaders as engaging in massacres as being anti-Catholic bigots whose research is to be blithely dismissed in favor or some Catholic answers-type sophistry, driven by cultic protection of her?

You can and should have argued that not all the bloodshed by Crusaders has papal sanction, and in fact sometimes was contrary to it, though he set it in motion and provided motivation, but you simply cannot say that in Crusades there was no massacre at all. Rather than describing all such, that of the First Crusade should suffice for now.

...the Crusade had evolved into a ponderous machine made up of various elements: the greater nobility, the lesser nobles such as Count Emicho of Leiningen, and the people. It was the last element which proved particularly receptive to the anti-Jewish slogans spreading rapidly among its ranks and it was less amenable to discipline. Although the bishops and prominent nobles were generally opposed to such ideas, they had no wish to see Christians fight Christians over the Jews. Frequently their assistance to the attacked Jews was passive at the most. It was in the region where the crusaders assembled that violence broke out, ...

On the 23rd of Iyyar (May 18, 1096) Worms suffered a similar fate. The crusaders first massacred the Jews who had remained in their houses, then, eight days later, those who had sought an illusory refuge in the bishop's castle. The victims numbered about 800; only a few accepted conversion and survived, the great majority choosing to be killed or suicide rather than apostasy. Hearing of the massacre, the Jews of Mainz asked for the bishop's protection, paying him 400 pieces of silver to this end.

When the crusaders, led by Emicho, arrived outside the town on the third of Sivan (May 27, 1096), the burghers hastened to open the gates. The Jews took up arms under the leadership of Kalonymus b. Meshullam. Weakened through fasting, for they had hoped to avert the disaster through exemplary piety, the Jews had to retreat to the bishop's castle; however the latter could do nothing for them, as he himself had to flee before the combined assault of crusaders and burghers.

After a brief struggle, a wholesale massacre ensued. More than 1,000 Jews met their deaths, either at the enemy's hands or their own. Those who managed to escape were overtaken; almost no one survived.

A comparable disaster occurred in Cologne, where the community was attacked on the sixth of Sivan (May 30, 1096). The bishop dispersed the town's Jews in order to hide them in nearby localities: at Neuss, Wevelinghofen, Eller, Xanten, Mehr, Kerpen, Geldern, and Ellen. The crusaders located them and a bloodbath followed.

At Trier the bishop could not protect his Jews, as he himself had to go into hiding, and he consequently advised them to become Christians. The great majority refused, preferring suicide. At Regensburg , all the Jews were dragged to the Danube where they were flung into the water and forced to accept baptism. At Metz , Prague , and throughout Bohemia , one massacre followed another. These came to an end when Emicho's crusaders were decisively halted and crushed by the Hungarians, who, incensed by their excesses when they poured through the country, had risen against them...

...the crusaders had reached Jerusalem (June 7, 1099), and the siege had begun. The city was captured on July 15, with Godfrey entering it through the Jewish quarter, where inhabitants defended themselves alongside their Muslim neighbors, finally seeking refuge in the synagogues, which were set on fire by the attackers. A terrible massacre ensued; the survivors were sold as slaves, some being later redeemed by Jewish communities in Italy. - http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/crusades.html

"The Inquisition was a tribunal court system. You don't have a problem with courts, do you?

Which is pure insolence, as valid an argument as when a Holocaust deniers say the like. In this esteemed tribunal court system, papal teaching instructed that witnesses, even the whole neighborhood if necessary, be forced to testify to the inquisitors, and extort from all heretics by torture a confession of their own guilt and a betrayal of all their accomplices.

Roman Catholic author Paul Johnson describes this system based on the records of it:

Ever since the eleventh century, secular rulers had been burning those who obstinately refused to fit in with established Christian arrangements; the Church had opposed capital punishment, successive councils decreeing confiscation of property, excommunication, imprisonment or whipping, branding and exile. But in the 1180s, the Church began to panic at the spread of heresy, and thereafter it took the lead from the State, though it maintained the legal fiction that convicted and unrepentant heretics were merely 'deprived of the protection of the Church', which was (as they termed it) 'relaxed', the civil power then being free to burn them without committing mortal sin. Relaxation was accompanied by a formal plea for mercy; in fact this was meaningless, and the individual civil officer (sheriffs and so forth) had no choice but to burn, since otherwise he was denounced as a 'defender of heretics', and plunged into the perils of the system himself...

Convictions of thought-crimes being difficult to secure, the Inquisition used procedures banned in other courts, and so contravened town charters, written and customary laws, and virtually every aspect of established jurisprudence. The names of hostile witnesses were withheld, anonymous informers were used, the accusations of personal enemies were allowed, the accused were denied the right of defence, or of defending counsel; and there was no appeal. The object, quite simply, was to produce convictions at any cost; only thus, it was thought, could heresy be quenched. Hence depositors were not named; all a suspect could do was to produce a list of his enemies, and he was allowed to bring forward witnesses to testify that such enemies existed, but for no other purpose. On the other hand, the prosecution could use the evidence of criminals, heretics, children and accomplices, usually forbidden in other courts...

Torture was not employed regularly until near the end of the thirteenth century (except by secular officials without reference to the Inquisition) but suspects could be held in prison and summoned again and again until they yielded, the object of the operation being to obtain admissions or denunciations. When torture was adopted it was subjected to canonical restraints - if it produced nothing on the first occasion it was forbidden to repeat it. But such regulations were open to glosses; Francis Pegna, the leading Inquisition commentator, wrote:

'But if, having been tortured reasonably (decenter), he will not confess the truth, set other sorts of torments before him, saying that he must pass through all these unless he will confess the truth. If even this fails, a second or third day may be appointed to him, either in terrorem or even in truth, for the continuation (not repetition) of torture; for tortures may not be repeated unless fresh evidence emerges against him; then, indeed, they may, for against continuation there is no prohibition.'..

The methods used were, on the whole, less horrific than those employed by various secular governments - though it should be added that English common lawyers, for instance, flatly denied that torture was legal, except in case of refusal to plead.

Once a victim was accused, escape from some kind of punishment was virtually impossible: the system would not allow it. But comparatively few were executed: less than ten per cent of those liable. Life-imprisonment was usual for those 'converted' by fear of death; this could be shortened by denunciations... A spell in prison was virtually inevitable...

Food was the prisoner's own responsibility, though the bishop was supposed to provide bread and water in the case of poverty. [FONT="times new roman" , serif][FONT="arial" , sans-serif] — Paul Johnson, History of Christianity, © 1976 Athenium, pgs. 253-255. [/FONT][/FONT]

"The Inquisition did occasionally use torture, but torture was back in vogue in secular systems as well, and Inquisition torture was much less vigorous than secular torture."

You tried this minimization before, but which is no more an excuse for such than it is for Protestant use of the sword of men against theological opponents, since they learned it from Rome and the world.

Pope Pius XII actually harbored and hid many Jews during the time of Nazi persecusion of the Jews.

And other popes were responsible for the killing and repression of Jews, and whose blood Luther also is culpable for due to the words of his exasperated animosity.

In The Popes Against the Jews : The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism, historian David Kertzer notes,

the legislation enacted in the 1930s by the Nazis in their Nuremberg Laws and by the Italian Fascists with their racial laws—which stripped the Jews of their rights as citizens—was modeled on measures that the [Roman Catholic] Church itself had enforced for as long as it was in a position to do so” (9).
In 1466, in festivities sponsored by Pope Paul II, Jews were made to race naked through the streets of the city. A particularly evocative later account describes them: “Races were run on each of the eight days of the Carnival by horses, asses and buffaloes, old men, lads, children, and Jews. Before they were to run, the Jews were richly fed, so as to make the race more difficult for them, and at the same time, more amusing for the spectators. They ran from the Arch of Domitian to the Church of St. Mark at the end of the Corso at full tilt, amid Rome’s taunting shrieks of encouragement and peals of laughter, while the Holy Father stood upon a richly ornamented balcony and laughed heartily. Two centuries later, these practices, now deemed indecorous and unbefitting the dignity of the Holy City, were stopped by Clement IX. In their place the Pope assessed a heavy tax on the Jews to help pay the costs of the city’s Carnival celebrations.

But various other Carnival rites continued. For many years the rabbis of the ghetto were forced to wear clownish outfits and march through the streets to the jeers of the crow, pelted by a variety of missiles. Such rites were not peculiar to Rome. In Pisa in the eighteenth century, for example, it was customary each year, as part of Carnival, for students to chase after the fattest Jew in the city, capture him, weigh him, and then make him give them his weight in sugar-coated almonds.

In 1779, Pius VI resurrected some of the Carnival rites that had been neglected in recent years. Most prominent among them was the feudal rite of homage, in which ghetto officials, made to wear special clothes, stood before an unruly mob in a crowded piazza, making an offering to Rome’s governors.

It was this practice that occasioned the formal plea from the ghetto to Pope Gregory XVI in 1836. The Jews argued that such rites should be abandoned, and cited previous popes who had ordered them halted. They asked that, in his mercy, the Pope now do the same. On November 5, the Pope met with his secretary of state to discuss the plea. A note on the secretary of state’s copy of the petition, along with his signature, records the Pope’s decision: “It is not opportune to make any innovation.” The annual rites continued.

When all is said and done, the [Roman Catholic] Church’s claim of lack of responsibility for the kind of anti-Semitism that made the Holocaust possible comes down to this: The Roman Catholic Church never called for, or sanctioned, the mass murder of the Jews. Yes, the Jews should be stripped of their rights as equal citizens. Yes, they should be kept from contact with the rest of society. But Christian Charity and Christian theology forbade good Christians to round them up and murder them.” See more in part 5 of a series (1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5, 6 .[/FONT]

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Thus we enter the morass of Catholic soteriology. On one hand, the Pope claims as many Christians as he possibly can hope to, but on the other hand limits salvation only to the very select few who meet all of the stringent requirements of Catholic dogma. Thus, when the Catholic Church insists that all must believe its Marian dogmas to be saved, that automatically excludes all Protestants, so it is an empty idea that Protestants can be saved simply because the Pope accepts their baptism as valid.

But which dies the death of a multitude of qualifications and interpretations combined.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I rather think that, given the rationale, the Pope would gladly claim jurisdiction over all humanity.

As the shepherd, yes, he does, indeed, have jurisdiction. It's up to the individual, though, to assent to it, and that's what determines how that jurisdiction is developed.
The president of the US, for what it's worth, claims jurisdiction over the entire population, whether or not all of them voted for him, or not. Jesus came to save everyone, and left Peter in charge of that operation.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Thus faced with the reality that the body of Christ extends beyond visible organic formal bodies, esp. that of Rome which make to the only body of Christ, then your only recourse is delusion. And your use of "subject" is not that of papal teaching as which meaning obedience, and contrary to you, excludes from salvation all who are not.

How many bodies of Christ do YOU believe there are?

We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” - We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
...no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” — Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (Seventeenth Ecumenical Council)
..in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. - Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos
Which is directly contrary to what is documented. Thus other RCs hold that any Prot must become a Catholic before he dies in order to be saved. However, RCs manifestly have a great deal of liberty to interpret both the Bible as well as Rome.

Actually, not. I've explained the distinction, you just refuse to recognize it. By the way, being Catholic doesn't automatically save you, so the rest of what you wrote, cut, and pasted is kind of irrelevant. We understand TODAY what the body of Christ is, and what it isn't. It's not an exclusive club. We accept any trinitarian baptism as valid, and that's really what saves a person.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Another example of protect-the-pope deception, for the pope did not merely "allow" torture, but commanded,

The head of state or ruler must force all the heretics whom he has in custody,{8} ...to confess their errors and accuse other heretics whom they know, and specify their motives, {9} and those whom they have seduced, and those who have lodged them and defended them, as thieves and robbers of material goods are made to accuse their accomplices and confess the crimes they have committed. - Ad extirpanda, papal bull, promulgated on May 15, 1252, by Pope Innocent IV.

Moreover, implying civil law is to be blamed for the use of torture does not provide an excuse.

Indeed, and i usually mention such had to be unlearned by early Prots, which does not excuse either. There is yet more that needs to be unlearned from Rome.

So quit pointing fingers when you, yourself (as a group), are as guilty as any. It is irrelevant to the discussion of SS anyway.
It was incumbent of Catholic rulers to keep their charges Catholic, and to convert any that strayed, just as it is incumbent on a shepherd to go find the lost sheep while leaving those who obeyed him alone. Just as it is incumbent on one who has fiduciary responsibility of a body, regardless of size, to provide for that body what he is responsible for.

Which sums up your response to your sophistry being exposed and reproved.

 

[Root of Jesse]

little or no?! How can you say that with a straight face except in ignorance, or by defining "massacre" to exclude it from applying to Rome, or relegating all researchers who describe Crusaders as engaging in massacres as being anti-Catholic bigots whose research is to be blithely dismissed in favor or some Catholic answers-type sophistry, driven by cultic protection of her?

You can and should have argued that not all the bloodshed by Crusaders has papal sanction, and in fact sometimes was contrary to it, though he set it in motion and provided motivation, but you simply cannot say that in Crusades there was no massacre at all. Rather than describing all such, that of the First Crusade should suffice for now.

It's obvious you don't know what the Crusades was. You should remember that most of the rim of the Mediterranean Sea was Christian within 250 years of Christ's death, and that Mohammed, after finding his religion, left a marauding horde to go and kill, rape, and plunder the entire North African coast, including Spain, and occupied Spain for 700 years, nearly invading and occupying France. Muslims are not peaceful people, have never been, and the Pope was the only one powerful enough to bring a group of rag-tag leaders and their soldiers together to unite for one purpose-to push back the threat to Europe of Islam. Also, I did say that the pope didn't sanction doing what the Muslims were doing. But the reports of massacre are way overblown.

...the Crusade had evolved into a ponderous machine made up of various elements: the greater nobility, the lesser nobles such as Count Emicho of Leiningen, and the people. It was the last element which proved particularly receptive to the anti-Jewish slogans spreading rapidly among its ranks and it was less amenable to discipline. Although the bishops and prominent nobles were generally opposed to such ideas, they had no wish to see Christians fight Christians over the Jews. Frequently their assistance to the attacked Jews was passive at the most. It was in the region where the crusaders assembled that violence broke out, ...

On the 23rd of Iyyar (May 18, 1096) Worms suffered a similar fate. The crusaders first massacred the Jews who had remained in their houses, then, eight days later, those who had sought an illusory refuge in the bishop's castle. The victims numbered about 800; only a few accepted conversion and survived, the great majority choosing to be killed or suicide rather than apostasy. Hearing of the massacre, the Jews of Mainz asked for the bishop's protection, paying him 400 pieces of silver to this end.

When the crusaders, led by Emicho, arrived outside the town on the third of Sivan (May 27, 1096), the burghers hastened to open the gates. The Jews took up arms under the leadership of Kalonymus b. Meshullam. Weakened through fasting, for they had hoped to avert the disaster through exemplary piety, the Jews had to retreat to the bishop's castle; however the latter could do nothing for them, as he himself had to flee before the combined assault of crusaders and burghers.

After a brief struggle, a wholesale massacre ensued. More than 1,000 Jews met their deaths, either at the enemy's hands or their own. Those who managed to escape were overtaken; almost no one survived.

A comparable disaster occurred in Cologne, where the community was attacked on the sixth of Sivan (May 30, 1096). The bishop dispersed the town's Jews in order to hide them in nearby localities: at Neuss, Wevelinghofen, Eller, Xanten, Mehr, Kerpen, Geldern, and Ellen. The crusaders located them and a bloodbath followed.

At Trier the bishop could not protect his Jews, as he himself had to go into hiding, and he consequently advised them to become Christians. The great majority refused, preferring suicide. At Regensburg , all the Jews were dragged to the Danube where they were flung into the water and forced to accept baptism. At Metz , Prague , and throughout Bohemia , one massacre followed another. These came to an end when Emicho's crusaders were decisively halted and crushed by the Hungarians, who, incensed by their excesses when they poured through the country, had risen against them...

...the crusaders had reached Jerusalem (June 7, 1099), and the siege had begun. The city was captured on July 15, with Godfrey entering it through the Jewish quarter, where inhabitants defended themselves alongside their Muslim neighbors, finally seeking refuge in the synagogues, which were set on fire by the attackers. A terrible massacre ensued; the survivors were sold as slaves, some being later redeemed by Jewish communities in Italy. - http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/crusades.html

Which is pure insolence, as valid an argument as when a Holocaust deniers say the like. In this esteemed tribunal court system, papal teaching instructed that witnesses, even the whole neighborhood if necessary, be forced to testify to the inquisitors, and extort from all heretics by torture a confession of their own guilt and a betrayal of all their accomplices.

Roman Catholic author Paul Johnson describes this system based on the records of it:

Ever since the eleventh century, secular rulers had been burning those who obstinately refused to fit in with established Christian arrangements; the Church had opposed capital punishment, successive councils decreeing confiscation of property, excommunication, imprisonment or whipping, branding and exile. But in the 1180s, the Church began to panic at the spread of heresy, and thereafter it took the lead from the State, though it maintained the legal fiction that convicted and unrepentant heretics were merely 'deprived of the protection of the Church', which was (as they termed it) 'relaxed', the civil power then being free to burn them without committing mortal sin. Relaxation was accompanied by a formal plea for mercy; in fact this was meaningless, and the individual civil officer (sheriffs and so forth) had no choice but to burn, since otherwise he was denounced as a 'defender of heretics', and plunged into the perils of the system himself...

Convictions of thought-crimes being difficult to secure, the Inquisition used procedures banned in other courts, and so contravened town charters, written and customary laws, and virtually every aspect of established jurisprudence. The names of hostile witnesses were withheld, anonymous informers were used, the accusations of personal enemies were allowed, the accused were denied the right of defence, or of defending counsel; and there was no appeal. The object, quite simply, was to produce convictions at any cost; only thus, it was thought, could heresy be quenched. Hence depositors were not named; all a suspect could do was to produce a list of his enemies, and he was allowed to bring forward witnesses to testify that such enemies existed, but for no other purpose. On the other hand, the prosecution could use the evidence of criminals, heretics, children and accomplices, usually forbidden in other courts...

Torture was not employed regularly until near the end of the thirteenth century (except by secular officials without reference to the Inquisition) but suspects could be held in prison and summoned again and again until they yielded, the object of the operation being to obtain admissions or denunciations. When torture was adopted it was subjected to canonical restraints - if it produced nothing on the first occasion it was forbidden to repeat it. But such regulations were open to glosses; Francis Pegna, the leading Inquisition commentator, wrote:

'But if, having been tortured reasonably (decenter), he will not confess the truth, set other sorts of torments before him, saying that he must pass through all these unless he will confess the truth. If even this fails, a second or third day may be appointed to him, either in terrorem or even in truth, for the continuation (not repetition) of torture; for tortures may not be repeated unless fresh evidence emerges against him; then, indeed, they may, for against continuation there is no prohibition.'..

The methods used were, on the whole, less horrific than those employed by various secular governments - though it should be added that English common lawyers, for instance, flatly denied that torture was legal, except in case of refusal to plead.

Once a victim was accused, escape from some kind of punishment was virtually impossible: the system would not allow it. But comparatively few were executed: less than ten per cent of those liable. Life-imprisonment was usual for those 'converted' by fear of death; this could be shortened by denunciations... A spell in prison was virtually inevitable...

Food was the prisoner's own responsibility, though the bishop was supposed to provide bread and water in the case of poverty. [FONT="times new roman" , serif][FONT="arial" , sans-serif] — Paul Johnson, History of Christianity, © 1976 Athenium, pgs. 253-255. [/FONT][/FONT]

You tried this minimization before, but which is no more an excuse for such than it is for Protestant use of the sword of men against theological opponents, since they learned it from Rome and the world.

And other popes were responsible for the killing and repression of Jews, and whose blood Luther also is culpable for due to the words of his exasperated animosity.

In The Popes Against the Jews : The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism, historian David Kertzer notes,

the legislation enacted in the 1930s by the Nazis in their Nuremberg Laws and by the Italian Fascists with their racial laws—which stripped the Jews of their rights as citizens—was modeled on measures that the [Roman Catholic] Church itself had enforced for as long as it was in a position to do so” (9).
In 1466, in festivities sponsored by Pope Paul II, Jews were made to race naked through the streets of the city. A particularly evocative later account describes them: “Races were run on each of the eight days of the Carnival by horses, asses and buffaloes, old men, lads, children, and Jews. Before they were to run, the Jews were richly fed, so as to make the race more difficult for them, and at the same time, more amusing for the spectators. They ran from the Arch of Domitian to the Church of St. Mark at the end of the Corso at full tilt, amid Rome’s taunting shrieks of encouragement and peals of laughter, while the Holy Father stood upon a richly ornamented balcony and laughed heartily. Two centuries later, these practices, now deemed indecorous and unbefitting the dignity of the Holy City, were stopped by Clement IX. In their place the Pope assessed a heavy tax on the Jews to help pay the costs of the city’s Carnival celebrations.

But various other Carnival rites continued. For many years the rabbis of the ghetto were forced to wear clownish outfits and march through the streets to the jeers of the crow, pelted by a variety of missiles. Such rites were not peculiar to Rome. In Pisa in the eighteenth century, for example, it was customary each year, as part of Carnival, for students to chase after the fattest Jew in the city, capture him, weigh him, and then make him give them his weight in sugar-coated almonds.

In 1779, Pius VI resurrected some of the Carnival rites that had been neglected in recent years. Most prominent among them was the feudal rite of homage, in which ghetto officials, made to wear special clothes, stood before an unruly mob in a crowded piazza, making an offering to Rome’s governors.

It was this practice that occasioned the formal plea from the ghetto to Pope Gregory XVI in 1836. The Jews argued that such rites should be abandoned, and cited previous popes who had ordered them halted. They asked that, in his mercy, the Pope now do the same. On November 5, the Pope met with his secretary of state to discuss the plea. A note on the secretary of state’s copy of the petition, along with his signature, records the Pope’s decision: “It is not opportune to make any innovation.” The annual rites continued.

When all is said and done, the [Roman Catholic] Church’s claim of lack of responsibility for the kind of anti-Semitism that made the Holocaust possible comes down to this: The Roman Catholic Church never called for, or sanctioned, the mass murder of the Jews. Yes, the Jews should be stripped of their rights as equal citizens. Yes, they should be kept from contact with the rest of society. But Christian Charity and Christian theology forbade good Christians to round them up and murder them.” See more in part 5 of a series (1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5, 6 .[/FONT]

What some crusaders did has no relevance as to what the purpose of the crusade was. Regarding the relationship of the Catholic Church to 'the Jews', you should have a look at Roy Schoeman's website http://www.salvationisfromthejews.com/

 

[PeaceByJesus]

How many bodies of Christ do YOU believe there are?

Why do you ask unless you have not read or remembered what i said? Such as,

since only the mystical body of Christ always and only consists of believers, while the visible particular bodies inevitably becomes an admixture of both, then the "one body" Eph. 4 refers to is the former, and does not wholly only subsist in any of the latter.

Actually, not. I've explained the distinction, you just refuse to recognize it.

Actually, no, you have not explained how "There is only one Catholic Church, the one Christ founded, to which Paul referred (One faith, one baptism, one Lord)" and yet that "Every baptized Christian is, however imperfectly, part of the one Body" can be consistent with magisterial teaching that clearly states that "whoever abandons the See of Peter..trusts falsely that he is in the Church," that in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors," that "subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful."

By the way, being Catholic doesn't automatically save you, so the rest of what you wrote, cut, and pasted is kind of irrelevant.

How is RC teaching irrelevant, unless you think it is saying that being Catholic automatically saves you?

We understand TODAY what the body of Christ is, and what it isn't. It's not an exclusive club. We accept any trinitarian baptism as valid, and that's really what saves a person.

It is indeed an exclusive club for it only and always consists of born again, blood-washed souls, which become such by the faith which is behind baptism.

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43)

And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:8-9)

Thanks be to God.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Glitch

 

[PeaceByJesus]

It's obvious you don't know what the Crusades was.... But the reports of massacre are way overblown.

It's obvious that your statement that there were "little to no massacres" is wrong, and which is the other extreme of overblown, which some, not all, may have been. Certainly Islam fosters murderers also, and civil powers are right in combating them by the use of the sword.

In The Popes Against the Jews : The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism, historian David Kertzer notes,

"Regarding the relationship of the Catholic Church to 'the Jews', you should have a look at Roy Schoeman's website...

So after marginalizing the role of lay Catholics you invoke one as if he represents historical Catholic treatment of the Jews?

I left off with The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism, and while we could look at the Catholic persecution of the Jews in Inquisitions, let us look at Rome attitudes toward the Jewish homeland:

Until 1948 the Pope was motivated by the traditional Vatican opposition to Zionism. Vatican opposition to a Jewish homeland stemmed largely from theological doctrines regarding Judaism.[40] In 1904, the Zionist leader Theodor Herzl obtained an audience with Pope Pius X in the hope of persuading the pontiff to support the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The pope's response was: "Non possumus"--"We cannot."

In 1917, Pius X's successor, Pope Benedict XV, equally refused to support any concept for a Jewish state. Minerbi writes that when a League of Nations mandate were being proposed for Palestine, the Vatican was disturbed by the prospect of a (Protestant) British mandate over the Holy Land, but a Jewish state was anathema to it.[27][41]

On 22 June 1943, Amleto Giovanni Cicognani, the Apostolic Delegate to Washington D.C. wrote to US President Franklin Roosevelt, asking him to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. ...
If the greater part of Palestine is given to the Jewish people, this would be a severe blow to the religious attachment of Catholics to this land. To have the Jewish people in the majority would be to interfere with the peaceful exercise of these rights in the Holy Land already vested in Catholics.
It is true that at one time Palestine was inhabited by the Hebrew Race, but there is no axiom in history to substantiate the necessity of a people returning to a country they left nineteen centuries before.[42]

The Vatican view of the Near East was dominated by a Cold War perception that Arab Muslims are conservative but religious, whereas Israeli Zionists are modernist but atheists. The Vatican's then Foreign Minister, Domenico Tardini (without being even a bishop, but a close collaborator of Pius XII) said to the French ambassador in November 1957, according to an Israeli diplomatic dispatch from Rome to Jerusalem:

"I have always been of the opinion that there never was an overriding reason for this state to be established. It was the fault of the western states. Its existence is an inherent risk factor for war in the Middle East. Now, Israel exists, and there is certainly no way to destroy it, but every day we pay the price of this error."[45]

by initially siding with Palestinian claims for compensations on political, social and financial levels, the Vatican shaped its Middle Eastern policy since 1948 upon two pillars. One was based on political and theological reservations against Zionism,... the Holy See has also maintained reservations of its own. The more established the Zionist Yishuv became in Mandatory Palestine, the more political reservations the Vatican added to its initial theological inhibitions.[51]

On 26 May 1955, when the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra performed Beethoven's Seventh Symphony at the Vatican as an act of respect for Pius XII, the Vatican still refrained from mentioning the name of the State, preferring instead to describe the orchestra as a collection of "Jewish musicians of fourteen different nationalities."[53]

Paul VI was Pope from 21 June 1963 to 6 August 1978. He strongly defended inter-religious dialogue in the spirit of Nostra Aetate. He was also the first Pope to mention the Palestinian people by name...On 15 January 1973, the Pope met Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir at the Vatican, which was the first meeting between a Pope and an Israeli Prime Minister. At the meeting, the Pope brought up the issues of peace in the Middle East, refugees and the status of the holy places, but no agreement was reached.[58] According to Meir's own account of the meeting, the Pope criticized the Israeli government for its treatment of the Palestinians, and she said in reply: Your Holiness, do you know what my earliest memory is? A pogrom in Kiev. When we were merciful and when we had no homeland and when we were weak, we were led to the gas chambers.[59]

Relations since 1993[edit]
The opening towards the State of Israel by the Vatican was partially a result of Israel's effective control over the entire Holy City since 1967. This forced the Vatican to introduce a pragmatic dimension to its well-known declaratory policy of political denial. Hence, since 1967, Vatican diplomacy vis-à-vis Israel began to waver between two parameters:[/FONT]​

• A policy of strict and consequent non-recognition of Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem, far beyond the usual interpretation of international law, as the Holy See still embraces its own ideas regarding the special status of Jerusalem.[/FONT]​

• A pragmatic policy, through which Catholic interests can best be served by having a working relationship with the party who exercises effective authority and control in Jerusalem.[/FONT]​

The establishment of full diplomatic relations in 1993–94, on the other hand, was a belated political consequence of the theological change towards Judaism as reflected in Nostra Aetate. It was also a result of the new political reality, which began with the Madrid COnference and later continued with the Oslo peace process, after which the Vatican could not continue to ignore a State that even the Palestinians had initiated formal relations with.
Pope Benedict XVI has declared that he wishes to maintain a positive Christian-Jewish and Vatican-Israel relationship. Indeed, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Jewish state, Benedict stated: "The Holy See joins you in giving thanks to the Lord that the aspirations of the Jewish people for a home in the land of their fathers have been fulfilled,"[72] which may be seen as a theological justification of the return of the Jewish People to Israel – indeed, an acceptance that has placed all previous Catholic denials of Zionism in the shade. On the other hand, he has also stressed the political neutrality of the Holy See in internal Mideast conflicts. Like John Paul II, he was disappointed by the non-resolution of the 1993 Fundamental Accord; and like his predecessor, he also expressed support for a Palestinian state alongside Israel. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See–Israel_relations[/FONT]

► Evangelical support for Jews.
In contrast, 46% of white evangelical (blacks only make up 6% of evangelicals) Protestants, versus 33% of Prots and only 21% of Catholics say that the U.S. is not providing enough support for Israel. (2014) — http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...or-israel-in-u-s-cuts-across-religious-lines/
As for the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, asked whether they sympathize with either side, 72% of white evangelicals sided with Israel, versus 56% of Prots and 46% of Caths overall. — http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/3-19-13 Foreign Policy Release.pdf
Of course, this is consistent with the stats which shows 82% of white evangelical Protestants say that Israel was given to the Jewish people by God, versus 64% of Prots and just 34% of white Catholics, while 45% of Catholics outright deny that it was (others do not know). — http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ews-say-god-gave-israel-to-the-jewish-people/

► Egregious ecumenism in contrast;
In addition, Rome being "friendlier"to Israel means not simply affirming Jews and the right to live in peace but also means affirming that Muslims worship the same God as Jews and Christians, that together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” (Lumen Gentium 16, November 21, 1964)

Which is blasphemous. For with Allah, we are not dealing with an utterly ambiguous "unknown god" as in Acts 17, which had no express revelation and could said to be the true God they were looking for. But Allah is much a distinct God, and in the name of this false deity are the contradictory and skewed Biblical stories of the Qur'an, besides adding its own, and which denies the very essence of the gospel, that of the Divine Son of God procuring salvation with His own sinless shed blood! Yet again and again popes comfort Muslims by assuring them they have the true God, while any gospel is largely replaced by platitudes for peace.

Rome says Muslims the worship the same God as Catholics, "the one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth," and "strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God’s plan." -Second Vatican Council, Nostra Aetate 3, October 28, 1965

And,
We feel sure that as representatives of Islam, you join in our prayers to the Almighty, that he may grant all African believers the desire for pardon and reconciliation so often commended in the Gospels and in the Qur’an... We gladly recall also those confessors of the Muslim faith who were the first to suffer death, in the year 1848, for refusing to transgress the precepts of their religion.” — Paul VI, address to the Islamic communities of Uganda, August 1, 1969.

I deliberately address you as brothers: that is certainly what we are, because we are members of the same human family, whose efforts, whether people realize it or not, tend toward God and the truth that comes from him. But we are especially brothers in God, who created us and whom we are trying to reach, in our own ways, through faith, prayer and worship, through the keeping of his law and through submission to his designs...

Dear Muslims, my brothers: I would like to add that we Christians, just like you, seek the basis and model of mercy in God himself, the God to whom your Book gives the very beautiful name of al-Rahman, while the Bible calls him al-Rahum, the Merciful One.” - John Paul II, address to representatives of Muslims of the Philippines, February 20, 1981

As Christians and Muslims, we encounter one another in faith in the one God, our Creator and guide, our just and merciful judge. - John Paul II, address to representatives of the Muslims of Belgium, May 19, 1985

We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection...Both of us believe in one God, the only God, - John Paul II , address to the young Muslims of Morocco, August 19, 1985

Christians and Muslims, together with the followers of the Jewish religion, belong to what can be called ‘the tradition of Abraham.’..Our Creator and our final judge desires that we live together. Our God is a God of peace, who desires peace among those who live according to His commandments. Our God is the holy God who desires that those who call upon Him live in ways that are holy and upright. -John Paul II, address to Islamic leaders of Senegal, Dakar, February 22, 1992 -http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/interreligious/islam/vatican-council-and-papal-statements-on-islam.cfm[/FONT]​

 

[Bible2+]

Root of Jesse said in post 1529:

We accept any trinitarian baptism as valid, and that's really what saves a person.

That's right in the sense that sola scriptura shows us that in order to be saved ultimately, believers must get water-immersion (burial) baptized into Jesus' death for our sins (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21, Romans 6:3-11, Colossians 2:12, Galatians 3:27, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16). If people believe with all their heart that Jesus Christ is the human/divine Son of God (Acts 8:37), they can get baptized anywhere there is water (Acts 8:36) into which they can be fully-immersed (buried) (Romans 6:3-11, Colossians 2:12). They need to make sure to be baptized in the name of God the Father; and of the Son, Jesus Christ; and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38). Believers can get water-immersion baptized at, for example, a Baptist-type congregation.

Besides getting water baptized, believers can get Holy Spirit baptized (Acts 11:15-16, Acts 10:44-46). They usually have to ask to receive the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13b) baptism, for it is usually not given to them automatically at the moment that they become believers. That is why Paul the apostle asked some believers: "Have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed?" (Acts 19:2).

Believers usually receive Holy Spirit baptism through prayer accompanied by the laying on of hands, subsequent to water baptism (Acts 8:15-17, Acts 19:5-6). Holy Spirit baptism won't result in speaking in tongues for everyone (1 Corinthians 12:30), but for almost everyone, as tongues are one of the Spirit's lesser gifts (1 Corinthians 12:8-11,28; 1 Corinthians 14:5). Many believers haven't yet experienced Holy Spirit baptism simply because they haven't yet asked for it, under the principle of "ye have not, because ye ask not" (James 4:2b). Many believers haven't yet asked for it because they have come under the influence of mistaken teachings which say that it is no longer in effect. Believers can get hands laid on them to receive Holy Spirit baptism at any Pentecostal-type congregation, or at any charismatic-type congregation, which can be of almost any denomination (even Catholic).

Root of Jesse said in post 1529:

We accept any trinitarian baptism as valid, and that's really what saves a person.

Regarding water baptism, some people feel that it can't be required for salvation, because baptism is a work, and salvation isn't based on works, but on faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). But baptism is a kind of circumcision (Colossians 2:11-13, Philippians 3:3, Romans 2:29). Just as Abraham, who is a model for Christians, was initially saved by faith alone, prior to his circumcision (Romans 4), so Christians are initially saved by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, Romans 4:2-5), prior to their baptism (Acts 8:36-38, John 20:31). But just as Abraham was ultimately saved by his works (James 2:21-24), so Christians will be ultimately saved by their works (Romans 2:6-8, James 2:24, Matthew 7:21, Matthew 25:26,30, Philippians 2:12b, Philippians 3:11-14; 2 Corinthians 5:9, Hebrews 5:9, Hebrews 6:10-12; 2 Peter 1:10-11, John 15:2a; 1 John 2:17b), which must include getting water-immersion (burial) baptized (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21, Romans 6:3-11, Colossians 2:12, Galatians 3:27, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16).

 

[Rick Otto]

As the shepherd, yes, he does, indeed, have jurisdiction. It's up to the individual, though, to assent to it, and that's what determines how that jurisdiction is developed.
The president of the US, for what it's worth, claims jurisdiction over the entire population, whether or not all of them voted for him, or not. Jesus came to save everyone, and left Peter in charge of that operation.

Thus, it is only a valid jurisdiction upon informed, uncoerced consent.

Government by consent is the only lawful government.
Lincoln removed that. Consent is manufactured by fraud and coercion routinely. That's why are courts administer the UCC instead of constitutional common law.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, so "legal definitions" we're invented to camouflage conflict of interest and other statist abuses of our God given rights... most of all, to establish jurisdiction.

 

[MennoSota]

I love reading the OP in regard to Sola Scriptura and then seeing what this thread has become. Thanks for making me smile.

 

[BobRyan]

This is not going to be some long winded word game. It is easy.

1) God's Word is True, incontrovertibly true.
2) Scripture is God's Word.
3) Scripture is incontrovertibly true.

4) Prove another source of incontrovertible truth.
5) No other physical source of incontrovertible truth on earth has been proven.

By default, there is only Sola Scriptura.

Yes, there have been multiple threads on SS. The problem is that all the attacks on SS put the burden to prove there are no other source of incontrovertible truth on the holders to SS. How ridiculous is that? The burden is on those that believe in another source of incontrovertible truth. Despite being asked multiple times in other threads, no proof has been given for incontrovertible truth in any other earthly source.

So if you think anything but SS, I challenge you to prove to me another source of incontrovertible truth.

Well I agree with testing all doctrine and tradition "Sola Scriptura" which is what the Bible demands in Isaiah 8:20 and in Acts 17:11 and in Galatians 1:6-9 and is what Christ does in Mark 7:6-13.

But you have a slight error in your OP.

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from GOD"

GOD is the "source" of incontrovertable truth.

Thus we 39 books of the OT at the time Matthew and Mark are writing their Gospels - and all the NT writers are also writing each adding to the Canon of scripture -- at the same time we 1 Cor 12 and 1Cor 14 where a host of others are also outside the Bible receiving messages from God.

God is the "source" of incontrovertable truth today and He was in the first century as well.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

So the Holy Spirit told YOU specifically that the Bible is the written word of God? Ok, thats fair, then let me ask you this, exactly where did the Bible come from? When was it first introduced to the world?

"ALL of scripture" is mentioned here Luke 24:27 -- are you aware of it??

 

[Root of Jesse]

Why do you ask unless you have not read or remembered what i said? Such as,

since only the mystical body of Christ always and only consists of believers, while the visible particular bodies inevitably becomes an admixture of both, then the "one body" Eph. 4 refers to is the former, and does not wholly only subsist in any of the latter.

So what's your problem with Catholics saying we are the body of Christ (of course, showing it as well)?

Actually, no, you have not explained how "There is only one Catholic Church, the one Christ founded, to which Paul referred (One faith, one baptism, one Lord)" and yet that "Every baptized Christian is, however imperfectly, part of the one Body" can be consistent with magisterial teaching that clearly states that "whoever abandons the See of Peter..trusts falsely that he is in the Church," that in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors," that "subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful."

I didn't say there was only one Catholic Church, though that is true. I said that there is only one Body of Christ, and that is catholic, and the Catholic Church is the original church of Christ.
I guess you don't understand what "abandon the See of Peter" means to us, today, do you...

How is RC teaching irrelevant, unless you think it is saying that being Catholic automatically saves you?

It is indeed an exclusive club for it only and always consists of born again, blood-washed souls, which become such by the faith which is behind baptism.

Well now you're defining what the Church Christ instituted is. Good! Progress.

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43)

And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:8-9)

Thanks be to God.

Amen.