Peter the First Pope?

[DArceri]

I was a Catholic for 40 years of my life...Guess what, I never really knew Christ in all those years.

 

[Trento]

How about chewing on the Spanish Inquisition for awhile.

And you should have read a little more closely. I was referring to Pious IX (9), not Pious XII (12).

Again, for an "infallible" Papacy, there sure seem to have been a LOT of mistakes made over the years.

Everone know that the BBC is not a mouthpiece for the Vatican as it has attacked it in many editorials.

The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition," a 1994 BBC/A&E production, will re-air on the History Channel this December 30 at 10 p.m. It is a definite must-see for anyone who wishes to know how historians now evaluate the Spanish Inquisition since the opening of an investigation into the Inquisition's archives. The special includes commentary from historians whose studies verify that the tale of the darkest hour of the Church was greatly fabricated.


In its brief sixty-minute presentation, "The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition" provides only an overview of the origins and debunking of the myths of torture and genocide. The documentary definitely succeeds in leaving the viewer hungry to know more. The long-held beliefs of the audience are sufficiently weakened by the testimony of experts and the expose of the making of the myth.

The Inquisition began in 1480. Spain was beginning a historic reunification of Aragon and Castile. The marriage of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile created a unified Hispania not seen since Roman times. Afraid that laws commanding the exile or conversion of Jews were thwarted by conversos, i.e. synagogue-going "Catholics," Ferdinand and Isabella commissioned an investigation or Inquisition. They began the Inquisition hoping that religious unity would foster political unity, and other heads of state heralded Spain's labors for the advent of a unified Christendom. The documentary clearly and boldly narrates the historical context, which intimates that the Spanish were not acting odd by their contemporary standards.
The Inquisition Myth, which Spaniards call "The Black Legend," did not arise in 1480. It began almost 100 years later, and exactly one year after the Protestant defeat at the Battle of Mühlberg at the hands of Ferdinand's grandson, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. In 1567 a fierce propaganda campaign began with the publication of a Protestant leaflet penned by a supposed Inquisition victim named Montanus. This character (Protestant of course) painted Spaniards as barbarians who ravished women and sodomized young boys. The propagandists soon created "hooded fiends" who tortured their victims in horrible devices like the knife-filled Iron Maiden (which never was used in Spain). The BBC/A&E special plainly states a reason for the war of words: the Protestants fought with words because they could not win on the battlefield.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

Everone know that the BBC is not a mouthpiece for the Vatican as it has attacked it in many editorials.

The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition," a 1994 BBC/A&E production, will re-air on the History Channel this December 30 at 10 p.m. It is a definite must-see for anyone who wishes to know how historians now evaluate the Spanish Inquisition since the opening of an investigation into the Inquisition's archives. The special includes commentary from historians whose studies verify that the tale of the darkest hour of the Church was greatly fabricated.


In its brief sixty-minute presentation, "The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition" provides only an overview of the origins and debunking of the myths of torture and genocide. The documentary definitely succeeds in leaving the viewer hungry to know more. The long-held beliefs of the audience are sufficiently weakened by the testimony of experts and the expose of the making of the myth.

The Inquisition began in 1480. Spain was beginning a historic reunification of Aragon and Castile. The marriage of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile created a unified Hispania not seen since Roman times. Afraid that laws commanding the exile or conversion of Jews were thwarted by conversos, i.e. synagogue-going "Catholics," Ferdinand and Isabella commissioned an investigation or Inquisition. They began the Inquisition hoping that religious unity would foster political unity, and other heads of state heralded Spain's labors for the advent of a unified Christendom. The documentary clearly and boldly narrates the historical context, which intimates that the Spanish were not acting odd by their contemporary standards.
The Inquisition Myth, which Spaniards call "The Black Legend," did not arise in 1480. It began almost 100 years later, and exactly one year after the Protestant defeat at the Battle of Mühlberg at the hands of Ferdinand's grandson, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. In 1567 a fierce propaganda campaign began with the publication of a Protestant leaflet penned by a supposed Inquisition victim named Montanus. This character (Protestant of course) painted Spaniards as barbarians who ravished women and sodomized young boys. The propagandists soon created "hooded fiends" who tortured their victims in horrible devices like the knife-filled Iron Maiden (which never was used in Spain). The BBC/A&E special plainly states a reason for the war of words: the Protestants fought with words because they could not win on the battlefield .

I simply cannot believe you are actually DEFENDING the Spanish Inquisition!

Conservative estimates point to well over 30,000 Church sanctioned executions during the Spanish Inquisition!

It would seem to me that the single most appropriate response, from Catholics, would be an apology - not a defense of the Spanish Inquisition!

 

[DArceri]

Though most popes were men of integrity and high moral character, many were wicked and corrupt. What is more, these facts can be easily substantiated by secular, Protestant, and even Catholic sources!(1)
As shocking and unbelievable as it may seem, many popes were guilty of committing nearly every crime in the catalog of sin (2) including rape, adultery, fornication, incest, murder, assassinations, robbery, conspiracy, bribery, fraud, perjury, and the purchase of the papacy with money (3). The corruption and gross immorality of twenty-nine popes was so flagrant that Rome has listed them as "anti-popes" in order to minimize the scandalous testimony of the papacy and erase this notorious blot from their history.

I googled this...here is my source if anyone wants to debunk the source...http://www.biblicist.org/bible/catholic.shtml

 

[Trento]

I simply cannot believe you are actually DEFENDING the Spanish Inquisition!

Conservative estimates point to well over 30,000 Church sanctioned executions during the Spanish Inquisition!

It would seem to me that the single most appropriate response, from Catholics, would be an apology - not a defense of the Spanish Inquisition!

What planet do you live on?

JIM LEHRER: There was an extraordinary event in Rome yesterday as Pope John Paul II issued an apology for errors of his church over the last 2000 years. Our coverage begins with a report from Peter Morgan of Independent Television News.


What is documented by the BBC is that 3000 to 5000 people died during the Inquisition's 350 year history.Because the crime was heresy, the Church is implicated, but the facts show it was a secular event. Executions of the Inquisition pale in comparison to the 150,000 documented witch burnings elsewhere in Europe over the same centuries.

 

[jckstraw72]

I was a Catholic for 40 years of my life...Guess what, I never really knew Christ in all those years.

thats your fault, not the fault of the Catholic Church. if Russians could find God while enslaved in gulags, you could find God in what you believe to be a deficient Church. At least you had a Church and a place to worship in community. Don't blame the Catholic Church.

 

[Trento]

Though most popes were men of integrity and high moral character, many were wicked and corrupt. What is more, these facts can be easily substantiated by secular, Protestant, and even Catholic sources!(1)
As shocking and unbelievable as it may seem, many popes were guilty of committing nearly every crime in the catalog of sin (2) including rape, adultery, fornication, incest, murder, assassinations, robbery, conspiracy, bribery, fraud, perjury, and the purchase of the papacy with money (3). The corruption and gross immorality of twenty-nine popes was so flagrant that Rome has listed them as "anti-popes" in order to minimize the scandalous testimony of the papacy and erase this notorious blot from their history.

Christ promised that he'd protect His Church and the Pope from officially teaching error. He did not guaranty us that the Church would be never be ruled by corrupt men. (Matt.16:19, 23). So regardless of these men and their lack of personal holiness, the Church is still here.
If anything this is a witness that the Holy Spirit is at work in keeping the Church doctrinally pure. No other institution would have survived this kind internal corruption, for such prolong periods.

There have been about 30 or 40 Antipopes in the 2000-year history of the papacy.
An Antipope is a person claiming to be Pope who was not duly elected or proclaimed while a duly elected Pope was still in office.
Since Antipopes by definition base their claims on defiance of proper Church authority, all have been harmful to the Church, though a few have later reformed after giving up their claims.

 

[DArceri]

thats your fault, not the fault of the Catholic Church. if Russians could find God while enslaved in gulags, you could find God in what you believe to be a deficient Church. At least you had a Church and a place to worship in community. Don't blame the Catholic Church.

Bad argument....

You need to read the link I gave... Here's a start:

There are hundreds of millions of Roman Catholics world-wide, yet many are largely unaware of the dramatic differences between the official teachings, practices, and positions of the Catholic Church, and the clear teaching of the Holy Bible. There are multitudes of dedicated Catholics who are spiritually uninformed concerning these differences because of a lack of sound biblical instruction and exposure.

The tragic reality is that the overwhelming majority of Catholics have either never personally studied the Bible, or have only done so under the strict supervision and scrutiny of their church. Many have not been exposed to the clear, simple truths of the Bible because they have been repeatedly warned to rely on the official interpretations, opinions, and traditions of the church.

PS. I did find Christ and that is the reason why I left the Catholic Church...

 

[jckstraw72]

There are hundreds of millions of Roman Catholics world-wide, yet many are largely unaware of the dramatic differences between the official teachings, practices, and positions of the Catholic Church, and the clear teaching of the Holy Bible. There are multitudes of dedicated Catholics who are spiritually uninformed concerning these differences because of a lack of sound biblical instruction and exposure.

there are only differneces according ot the interpretation of those outside the Catholic CHurch. The Catholic Church could explain it all to you quite easily methinks if you were willing to listen to an informed Catholic.

If you dont know God its bc of yourself, dont blame others.

 

[DArceri]

there are only differneces according ot the interpretation of those outside the Catholic CHurch. The Catholic Church could explain it all to you quite easily methinks if you were willing to listen to an informed Catholic.

If you dont know God its bc of yourself, dont blame others.

I chose the ORIGINAL apostalic scriptures the Church pulled together. They should have just based everything on scripture instead of going off on a tangent with all this tradition stuff ...ie..... "The external ritualism of Roman Catholicism, superficial, religious display designed to impress the natural senses, the lack of the transforming power of the gospel and the Spirit of Christ to change the heart or save a soul from hell."

 

[jckstraw72]

I chose the ORIGINAL apostalic scriptures the Church pulled together. They should have just based everything on scripture instead of going off on a tangent with all this tradition stuff ...ie..... "The external ritualism of Roman Catholicism, superficial, religious display designed to impress the natural senses, but lacks the transforming power of the gospel and the Spirit of Christ to change the heart or save a soul from hell. .

i think all the Catholics who have been transformed and saved would like to disagree with you.

 

[DArceri]

i think all the Catholics who have been transformed and saved would like to disagree with you.

I still don't know if Catholics beleive they are saved... Don't they have to do all these works and HOPE to go to purgatory 1st.

 

[jckstraw72]

I still don't know if Catholics beleive they are saved... Don't they have to do all these works and HOPE to go to purgatory 1st.

you said the Catholic Church does not have the power to transform and save....are you contending that no Catholic has ever been saved?

Catholics rightly believe they are BEING saved from their sinful nature.

 

[Trento]

I chose the ORIGINAL apostalic scriptures the Church pulled together. They should have just based everything on scripture instead of going off on a tangent with all this tradition stuff ...ie..... "The external ritualism of Roman Catholicism, superficial, religious display designed to impress the natural senses, the lack of the transforming power of the gospel and the Spirit of Christ to change the heart or save a soul from hell."

Let us say that we are people living in 40 AD. How would we know about this man Jesus? How would we know His teachings? How would we know His TRUE teachings? One cannot go to the Scriptures then and find about this man. He would have to go to the Church. When the Apostles died, revelation ceased. Now, who would know what the Apostles taught? Who would know about what their true teachings were? Where did their authority go? Did it cease?
We see in the NT Scriptures that the Apostles passed their authority on. One example is Paul passing his teaching authority to Timothy (1 Tim 1:3; 3:2; 4:11-16; 5:17; 6:2ff; 2 Tim 1:13-14). Timothy will also pass on his authority (2 Tim 2:2). And from that day on, we have many that have their authority. One might ask, "Where can we find Jesus' teachings?" The answer will be just like the answer in 40 AD. The Church. You will not find one passage where the Apostles passed their authority to their Gospels or their Epistles. It is also impossible because a book cannot bind and loose.

 

[DArceri]

They passed on scripture yes, it wasn't until 100's of years later that traditons of the ROMAN Catholic church claimed authority over scripture.

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.​

We are to examine scripture to see if it is taught correctly...Paul called the Bereans noble for there efforts of determining if Paul was teaching correctly. The RCC doesn't want anyone to interpret scripture... I wonder why?

 

[ParsonJefferson]

Let us say that we are people living in 40 AD. How would we know about this man Jesus? How would we know His teachings? How would we know His TRUE teachings? One cannot go to the Scriptures then and find about this man. He would have to go to the Church. When the Apostles died, revelation ceased. Now, who would know what the Apostles taught? Who would know about what their true teachings were? Where did their authority go? Did it cease?
We see in the NT Scriptures that the Apostles passed their authority on. One example is Paul passing his teaching authority to Timothy (1 Tim 1:3; 3:2; 4:11-16; 5:17; 6:2ff; 2 Tim 1:13-14). Timothy will also pass on his authority (2 Tim 2:2). And from that day on, we have many that have their authority. One might ask, "Where can we find Jesus' teachings?" The answer will be just like the answer in 40 AD. The Church. You will not find one passage where the Apostles passed their authority to their Gospels or their Epistles. It is also impossible because a book cannot bind and loose.

Read Acts 2:42-27.

It's crystal clear what they did.

 

[jckstraw72]

Read Acts 2:42-27.

yeah they got together as the Church and worshipped.

 

[Trento]

I chose the ORIGINAL apostalic scriptures the Church pulled together. They should have just based everything on scripture instead of going off on a tangent with all this tradition stuff ...ie..... "The external ritualism of Roman Catholicism, superficial, religious display designed to impress the natural senses, the lack of the transforming power of the gospel and the Spirit of Christ to change the heart or save a soul from hell."

They passed on scripture yes, it wasn't until 100's of years later that traditons of the ROMAN Catholic church claimed authority over scripture.

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.​

We are to examine scripture to see if it is taught correctly...Paul called the Bereans noble for there efforts of determining if Paul was teaching correctly. The RCC doesn't want anyone to interpret scripture...

Well these Protestant Bibical and Historical scholars disagree.

Philip Schaff, a major Protestant church historian from last century writes in his History of the Christian Church --

"The church view respecting the sources of Christian theology and the rule of faith and practice remains as it was in the previous period, except that it is further developed in particulars. The divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; AND the ORAL TRADITION or LIVING FAITH of the catholic church from the apostles down, as opposed to the varying opinions of heretical sects -- TOGETHER FORM THE ONE INFALLIBLE SOURCE AND RULE OF FAITH. BOTH are vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ; with this difference in form and office, that the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the KEY TO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse." (volume 3, page 606)

J.N.D. Kelly, a major Protestant church historian from this century writes in his Early Christian Doctrines -- (after many examples)

"It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture AND tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the SUREST CLUE TO ITS INTERPRETATION, for in TRADITION the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an UNERRING GRASP of the real purport and MEANING of the revelation to which Scripture AND tradition alike bore witness." (page 47-4

Thus in the end the Christian must, like Timothy [cf. 1 Tim 6:20] 'guard the deposit', i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and CORRECTLY interpreted in the Church's UNERRING tradition." (page 51)

Every Protestant Historic Bibical scholar will admit that when the New Testament Canon of Scripture was put together,that the critiria for authentication was Apostolic Tradition,because even the Gnostics claimed they lined-up with the "Infallible,and Inerrant Word of God".

Apostolic Tradition was the only weapon they had to combat that,and many other heresies.

 

[DArceri]

yeah they got together as the Church and worshipped.

I go to church too.......

 

[DArceri]

Well these Protestant Bibical and Historical scholars disagree.



Every Protestant Historic Bibical scholar will admit that when the New Testament Canon of Scripture was put together,that the critiria for authentication was Apostolic Tradition,because even the Gnostics claimed they lined-up with the "Infallible,and Inerrant Word of God".

Apostolic Tradition was the only weapon they had to combat that,and many other heresies.

Who is denying what was pulled together. Are you saying all these protestants you listed agree with the RCC traditions over scripture? I THINK NOT. (otherwise they wouldn't be protestants.)

PS. I don't see church tradition included in SCRIPTURE.... Scripture is God's WORD ON HOW TO FIND SALVATION. ...I don't think Jesus taught tradition as a prerequisite to salvation. If you can find it, I'll follow it.