Question about the RCC teaching of Outside the Church...

[Defensor Christi]

So, now you're saying, for example, the 1950 de fide marian dogma really doesn't matter, as far as true and false is concerned. Rather, you think that 1950 reflects the fulness of faith? To what end? Who cares?

Anyway, glad we agree RC is not the one true church. Spread the news. May we say that the fulness is found in His Body?

I dont see the correlation between my comments and the Marian Dogma...please elaborate.

The Fullness is found within the confines of the Holy Catholic Church, that is in full communion with the Bishop of Rome...does that answer your question?

Again, your glancing blows of "spread the news" is just a ridiculious attempt to draw some sort of reaction from me...it will always fail.

And please do not "put words" in my mouth...

 

[Lysimachus]

I'd give a Jesuit higher marks for credibility then I'd give your claims.

I'm curious as to know what your justification is for all the lives the Jesuits took away from people during the Inquisition and Dark Ages. So far, the weakest argument I've heard yet is that Protestants also persecuted and burned Catholics or that they burned and persecuted each other. But in comparison to the broad scope of the Dark Age history, the numbers are minuscule. I'd be interested to see how you justify, for example, the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, where thousands of Huguenots were slaughtered on that day by Catholic instigation?

 

[Lysimachus]

A Lamp In The Dark:untold history of Bible ~ Full Film - YouTube

 

[Defensor Christi]

I'm curious as to know what your justification is for all the lives the Jesuits took away from people during the Inquisition and Dark Ages. So far, the weakest argument I've heard yet is that Protestants also persecuted and burned Catholics or that they burned and persecuted each other. But in comparison to the broad scope of the Dark Age history, the numbers are minuscule. I'd be interested to see how you justify, for example, the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, where thousands of Huguenots were slaughtered on that day by Catholic instigation?

The Iquisition is set up like a court...a heretic is brought in and tried before an ecclesiastical tribunal..They judged heresy alone, using the local authorities to establish a tribunal and to prosecute heretics...

FYI...the Dominicans were appointed to carry out the inquisitions...not the Jesuits.

 

[Standing Up]

I dont see the correlation between my comments and the Marian Dogma...please elaborate.

The Fullness is found within the confines of the Holy Catholic Church, that is in full communion with the Bishop of Rome...does that answer your question?

Again, your glancing blows of "spread the news" is just a ridiculious attempt to draw some sort of reaction from me...it will always fail.

And please do not "put words" in my mouth...

c/u around

 

[Lysimachus]

The Iquisition is set up like a court...a heretic is brought in and tried before an ecclesiastical tribunal..They judged heresy alone, using the local authorities to establish a tribunal and to prosecute heretics...

FYI...the Dominicans were appointed to carry out the inquisitions...not the Jesuits.

But why kill them for disagreeing?

Did Christ or the Apostles persecute and kill people for disagreeing with them? For not accepting them?

Are there any records in the Holy Scriptures where any of the heretics that were cast out of the congregation by the Apostolic Church tried and THEN put to death after found to be guilty?

I'm just trying to understand this example.

Disfellowshiping and casting out of the congregation is one thing. Executing the sword of the state is another.

I don't care how "heretical" a professed Christian might be. You rebuke them with love and kindness, but you don't kill them for disagreeing. Such action makes the persecutors out to be "far more heretical" in the eyes of God than those teaching false doctrine. You could be a Satanist, but in the eyes of God, the Christian who is using the sword to kill other professed Christians is in far worse condition.

Sadly, Calvin and his counsel at Geneva carried with them this same method. They had not completely shaken off Rome's methods of dealing with heresy.

 

[Rhamiel]

But why kill them for disagreeing?

Did Christ or the Apostles persecute and kill people for disagreeing with them? For not accepting them?

Are there any records in the Holy Scriptures where any of the heretics that were cast out of the congregation by the Apostolic Church tried and THEN put to death after found to be guilty?

I'm just trying to understand this example.

Disfellowshiping and casting out of the congregation is one thing. Executing the sword of the state is another.

I don't care how "heretical" a professed Christian might be. You rebuke them with love and kindness, but you don't kill them for disagreeing. Such action makes the persecutors out to be "far more heretical" in the eyes of God than those teaching false doctrine. You could be a Satanist, but in the eyes of God, the Christian who is using the sword to kill other professed Christians is in far worse condition.

Sadly, Calvin and his counsel at Geneva carried with them this same method. They had not completely shaken off Rome's methods of dealing with heresy.

the idea is that a murderer kills the body, the heretic kills the soul, by spreading his false teachings to others

I am not saying that it was right to burn people at the stake
but in the mind of the medieval people, the heretic was as bad as a murderer, worse even
allso, the idea is that the heretic was a traitor, in the medieval political system, the King ruled by the grace of God
to question the Church was to question the foundation that the government was set up on

 

[OpenDoor]

The Iquisition is set up like a court...a heretic is brought in and tried before an ecclesiastical tribunal..They judged heresy alone, using the local authorities to establish a tribunal and to prosecute heretics...

FYI...the Dominicans were appointed to carry out the inquisitions...not the Jesuits.

Are we talking about the Inquisition during the Dark Ages?
If so I think its important to remember that it was not "set up like a court" as most courts are today. The whole torture to get answers and confession thing...

 

[bbbbbbb]

I'd give a Jesuit higher marks for credibility then I'd give your claims.

I would also give Opus Dei higher marks for credibility than the Jesuits.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Pfffftttt....is this what this forum is all about? Thanks for making my coffee shoot out of my nose laughing...

Would you put that on YouTube for us?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm curious as to know what your justification is for all the lives the Jesuits took away from people during the Inquisition and Dark Ages. So far, the weakest argument I've heard yet is that Protestants also persecuted and burned Catholics or that they burned and persecuted each other. But in comparison to the broad scope of the Dark Age history, the numbers are minuscule. I'd be interested to see how you justify, for example, the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, where thousands of Huguenots were slaughtered on that day by Catholic instigation?

My recollection is that the Dominicans ran the inquisition, not the Jesuits.

By the way, it was the "middle ages" and they were not dark.

St. Bartholomew's day was a post protestant revolt action on the part of the French crown, it was not a middle ages thing.

Tell me, Lysimachus, do you personally remember any of the events you're writing about? Do you feel any special need to justify (or not) what happened 500 years ago?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I would also give Opus Dei higher marks for credibility than the Jesuits.

Yes indeed, I would rate the credibility of Opus Dei above the credibility of your claims in the post to which I previously referred.

 

[MoreCoffee]

<youtube url removed>

Do you really expect anybody to watch a video clip of more than two hours length?

 

[KimberlyAA]

Apparently belonging to the Church saves you. Not only belonging to Christ. Just another 1 of the reasons I'm no longer Roman Catholic.

 

[Rhamiel]

Apparently belonging to the Church saves you. Not only belonging to Christ. Just another 1 of the reasons I'm no longer Roman Catholic.

in the Bible, the Church is refered to metaphorcaly as the Body of Christ

there should be good faith between people when they talk to eachother
the idea that the other person is being honest
when people just boil down church teaching to a sound bite, it really does not help anyone

even if you do not agree with the Catholic Church
you should atleast try to understand what the teachings are

 

[MoreCoffee]

Apparently belonging to the Church saves you. Not only belonging to Christ. Just another 1 of the reasons I'm no longer Roman Catholic.

Have you read THE GREAT CONTROVERSY?

 

[Rick Otto]

My recollection is that the Dominicans ran the inquisition, not the Jesuits

I'm not old enough to recall anything about it. (lol)

 

[Rick Otto]

Apparently belonging to the Church saves you. Not only belonging to Christ. Just another 1 of the reasons I'm no longer Roman Catholic.

Me too,... one of MANY reasons.

 

[Lysimachus]

The expression, "Dark Ages" reveals that there was a great lack in knowledge of the scriptures, and many Christians throughout Europe were prevented from reading God's Word. It should not be expected of me, I would hope, to produce such material, as the old libraries are filled with the evidences--that families were burned to death at the stake for possessing copies of the Bible.

Let's look at Paul's admonition here:

"A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject" (Titus 3:10)

"If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. O Lord, come!" (1 Cor 16:22)

"And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means. The Lord be with you all." (2 Thess. 3:14-16)​

It is interesting to note here Paul's method of dealing with unbelievers. Notice that in Titus 3:10, we are to "reject" heretics. That's it! Nothing more! We are not to place violent hands upon them. God will deal with them. It is not our duty to hurt them. This is why God says "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." (Romans 12:19)

In 1 Cor 16:22, notice that Paul says that those who do NOT love God, let them be accursed. Once again, nothing is given concerning any violent action to be taken against them.

In 2 Thess 3:14-16, Paul is very clear---we are not to have company with the one that does not obey the Word. Yet we are not to count him as an "enemy", but admonish him as a "brother". How different the Papacy looked at things during the Middle Ages! It is also too bad that many of the Protestants that separated from Rome continued to carry this trend with them for a while, but eventually they did completely quit killing people for disagreeing.

The question should be asked: Did the Papacy eventually quit persecuting other professed Christians for disagreeing with them because they grew in knowledge of the Bible, and later saw the truth on this matter?

Or did they quit because they lost their Temporal Power over the kings of Europe in the mid 18th century, and now had no choice but to "behave"?

Had the Papacy continued to hold its Temporal Power throughout Europe, would it have continued its persecutions?

I welcome any thoughts on the matter.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The expression, "Dark Ages" reveals that there was a great lack in knowledge of the scriptures, and many Christians throughout Europe were prevented from reading God's Word.

There was not a lack of knowledge of the scriptures as the many commentaries and other books of the middle ages indicate. Nor were people prevented from reading the bible most could not read so they did not own any books or seek to own them and books - because they were hand made and hand copied - were extremely expensive. The printing press was not available in Europe until the fifteenth century.

It should not be expected of me, I would hope, to produce such material, as the old libraries are filled with the evidences--that families were burned to death at the stake for possessing copies of the Bible.

Claims made without supporting evidence are opinion and nothing more. The levels of literacy in middle ages Europe are, I think, generally known but I can give you URLs to back the claim that I made of low levels. And I can back my claim that the printing press was not available in Europe until the fifteenth century. You are being asked to back your claim that "many Christians throughout Europe were prevented from reading God's Word" rather than merely being unable to read. And "throughout Europe" does not mean in one diocese or one province in this or that kingdom it means most kingdoms and many people in those kingdoms and it also means that they were prevented by somebody or something outside of them selves not merely by their own inability to read.

Let's look at Paul's admonition here:

"A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject" (Titus 3:10)

"If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. O Lord, come!" (1 Cor 16:22)

"And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means. The Lord be with you all." (2 Thess. 3:14-16)​

It is interesting to note here Paul's method of dealing with unbelievers. Notice that in Titus 3:10, we are to "reject" heretics. That's it! Nothing more! We are not to place violent hands upon them. God will deal with them. It is not our duty to hurt them. This is why God says "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." (Romans 12:19)

In 1 Cor 16:22, notice that Paul says that those who do NOT love God, let them be accursed. Once again, nothing is given concerning any violent action to be taken against them.

In 2 Thess 3:14-16, Paul is very clear---we are not to have company with the one that does not obey the Word. Yet we are not to count him as an "enemy", but admonish him as a "brother". How different the Papacy looked at things during the Middle Ages! It is also too bad that many of the Protestants that separated from Rome continued to carry this trend with them for a while, but eventually they did completely quit killing people for disagreeing.

What you've said about Paul's methods and recommendations regarding heretics and those who do not love God is correct. No violent action ought to be taken and none is sanctioned by Paul's writings as quoted above.

However when you get to your rhetorical commentary against Catholic practice in the middle ages you stray into territory that is not so well documented in your post and that is not entirely credible. The truth is that for the majority of Europe's kingdoms the civil authority was distinct from and largely independent of direct Church rule or control. And while it is true that the civil authorities did claim to be Christians and to be faithful sons (and daughters) of the Church history shows that may were not. Nor were the bishops, priests, monks, and nuns in such kingdoms always Christians either in conduct or in attitudes.

There is no doubt in my mind that many heinous things were done by religious people in the middle ages and that many heinous things were done by Christians in the current age too. Being a Christian, it seems, does not exempt one from wickedness and that, I believe, explains why Christian murderers, liars, thieves, and all manner of criminal and dishonest people are found in christian religious groups. This is not limited to the Catholic Church, and it certainly is present in the Catholic Church, but it is present in every group no matter how large or how small. Sin is at work within the church and always has been. Even Jesus chose a Judas, and Judas proved to be both a betrayer and a killer as well as a thief.

None of the above excuses wickedness in the church or in the denominations but it is salutary to keep these facts in mind lest they be unduly emphasised and become a cause for the abandonment of religion altogether simply because some (or many) fail to reach whatever standard our imaginations may set for others to reach.

The question should be asked: Did the Papacy eventually quit persecuting other professed Christians for disagreeing with them because they grew in knowledge of the Bible, and later saw the truth on this matter?

Or did they quit because they lost their Temporal Power over the kings of Europe in the mid 18th century, and now had no choice but to "behave"?

I do not have much doubt that had the Pope remained the civil ruler of the papal states then in those states religious intolerance would eventually have come to an end but it may have come to an end more slowly. However, what I have just written is only an opinion and ought not to be given any special significance or credibility because I have not really researched the state of the law in the papal States prior to their dissolution at the hands of the Italian and French armies in the 19th century (1870 to be precise)

Had the Papacy continued to hold its Temporal Power throughout Europe, would it have continued its persecutions?

I welcome any thoughts on the matter.

The general civil moral climate had begun to change significantly once the enlightenment era began and even kingdoms with absolute monarchs slowly granted rights and protections to their citizenry until by the middle of the 19th century most states in Western Europe were not too far from being liberal democracies. It is one of the sad facts of Christianity that Christian moral conduct never really seems to be far from the moral conduct of the surrounding culture.