ST. John Calvin

and neither are you... you are very fair and balanced aren't you?

You want me to post the history channel for you? or are they biased towards the Church too?

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/1112-96/article4.html

"The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition," a 1994 BBC/A&E production, will re-air on the History Channel this December 3 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.


The Inquisition had a secular character, although the crime was heresy. Inquisitors did not have to be clerics, but they did have to be lawyers. The investigation was rule-based and carefully kept in check. And most significantly, historians have declared fraudulent a supposed Inquisition document claiming the genocide of millions of heretics.


What is documented is that 3000 to 5000 people died during the Inquisition's 350 year history. Also documented are the "Acts of Faith," public sentencings of heretics in town squares. But the grand myth of thought control by sinister fiends has been debunked by the archival evidence. The inquisitors enjoyed a powerful position in the towns, but it was one constantly jostled by other power brokers. In the outlying areas, they were understaffed - in those days it was nearly impossible for 1 or 2 inquisitors to cover the thousand-mile territory allotted to each team. In the outlying areas no one cared and no one spoke to them. As the program documents, the 3,000 to 5,000 documented executions of the Inquisition pale in comparison to the 150,000 documented witch burnings elsewhere in Europe over the same centuries.


The approach is purely historical, and therefore does not delve into ecclesial issues surrounding religious freedom. But perhaps this is proper. Because the crime was heresy, the Church is implicated, but the facts show it was a secular event.


One facet of the Black Legend that evaporates under scrutiny in this film is the rumor that Philip II, son of Charles V, killed his son Don Carlos on the advisement of the aging blind Grand Inquisitor. But without a shred of evidence, the legend of Don Carlos has been enshrined in a glorious opera by Verdi.


The special may be disturbing to young children. There are scenes of poor souls burning at the stake, and close-ups of the alleged torture devices. Scenes depicting witches consorting with pot-bellied devils are especially grotesque. For kids, this is the stuff of nightmares.


Discrediting the Black Legend brings up the sticky subject of revisionism. Re-investigating history is only invalid if it puts an agenda ahead of reality. The experts - once true believers in the Inquisition myth - were not out to do a feminist canonization of Isabella or claim that Tomas de Torquemada was a Marxist. Henry Kamen of the Higher Council for Scientific Research in Barcelona said on camera that researching the Inquisition's archives "demolished the previous image all of us (historians) had."


And the future of the Black Legend? For many it may continue to hold more weight than reality. There is the emotional appeal against the Church. The dissenters of today may easily imagine Torquemada's beady eyes as a metaphor of the Church's "dictatorial, controlling, damning" pronouncements. The myth is also the easiest endorsement of the secular state: "de-faith" the state and de-criminalize heresy. Who will be the revisionists in this case? Will the many follow Montanas' lead in rewriting history?


Our 20th century crisis of man playing God - usurping power over conception, life, and death - leaves us with no alternative but to qualify our demythologization of the Inquisition with a reminder: 3,000 to 5,000 victims are 3,000 to 5,000 too many.[/QUOTE]

Benedicta00 said:

Here Mont, here is the scripture that supports our ideal, that holy ppl are called Saint and holiness is revealed in love as well as faith, not hate like the way Luther and Calvin taught ppl to hate the Catholic Church. faith alone is not enough... you must have works, ie LOVE.

Here is the scripture that shows us that what we will be still remains to be seen because we all have to "work out" our salvation.

John teaches us that if we have hope for ourselves in Christ, that will sanctify us, we will be holy as God is holy.

He says what we are now is not yet revealed to us now, it is reveal to us when we are in heaven, (face to face) not in the here and now like the way you all mistakenly think.

We have zero evidence that Calvin or Luther is in heaven. We can hope they are but we can not say that they are because A) they did not show any of the fruits that John says a true holy person will have. And B) We have no documented miracles from them showing us they are with God face to face.

Click to expand...

You may not agree with what they stood for regarding the RCC teachings on many subjects but that doesn't mean they aren't saved.

No where in Scripture does it say we have to to do miracles (as the RCC teaches anyways) in order to be a Saint.


I'll have to go back and look for a response to the Scriptures I posted earlier regarding what the Bibles says makes us saints.



BTW
The History Channel is biased against Christians. I spend a lot of time watching it and they rarely get things right.

mont974x4 said:

You may not agree with what they stood for regarding the RCC teachings on many subjects but that doesn't mean they aren't saved.

No where in Scripture does it say we have to to do miracles (as the RCC teaches anyways) in order to be a Saint.


I'll have to go back and look for a response to the Scriptures I posted earlier regarding what the Bibles says makes us saints.



BTW
The History Channel is biased against Christians. I spend a lot of time watching it and they rarely get things right.

Click to expand...

I never said they were damned... the Church does not say they were damned... we have no idea if they found mercy with God or not. I sincerely hope that they did.

We do know they were baptized Christians, so of course they had the hope of salvation like the rest of us have, no one is ever beyond hope. We never presume to know or limit the mercy of God.

I still don't think you understand us fully, What we are saying. They may have be saved... but in no way do they deserve the honor Saint. They did nothing great in the Church's eyes to deserve that title. They did not display any of the fruits of the Holy Spirit to a true heroic extent.

We can also say with certainty that they were not guided and led by the Holy Spirit in theological matters because they taught error. They were no St. Paul... they did not receive any private revelation from the Holy Spirit telling them to to led us away from the true faith.

There is a difference between a living saint (one who is baptized and shows that they are growing in holiness) and a saint, one who is saved aka, in heaven with God face to face) and one who is Saint (a raised up extraordinary person who was given extraordinary graces, who lived the Christian life extraordinarily).

Luther and Calvin and the like in no way can be called a Saint. Hopefully they are in heaven with God but they are not honored on earth for what they did and shouldn't be because they did a really bad thing.

BTW
The History Channel is biased against Christians. I spend a lot of time watching it and they rarely get things right

Click to expand...

.

Not always, they present facts in such away it looks as though they are biased against Christianity. At times they may be, other times they may not be....

and if they are no friend to Christianity, aka the Catholic Church then they have no interest in clearing her good name by exposing the myths and lies told about the inquisition.

But I'm perplexed, you seem to be saying that the HC is anti Christian, thus they would be sympathetic to the Catholic Church?

Are you saying the Catholic Church isn't Christian? If so... You have to know how truly absurd that is. The creed you profess, that you believe in ONE God and in Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God... was given to you by the Catholic Church in defense of Arianism... The Catholic Church is who saved the faith from the threat of it no longer being Christian. And why was she able to do this? Because she is the Church that Christ sent out... because she is the Church that is His.

So how in the world can you consider the Catholic Church to be non Christian? That is truly illogical. If she is, then that means you are, do you even realize that?

Oxymoron?
"Holy Roman Emperor"

SZ,

Your learned biased against Catholicism has made you very intellectually dishonest. That Catholicism did not exist for the first 3 centuries is an abused premise... Martin Luther even never make such an absurd claim.

Why do you?

But yet you want to call him a Saint, see why you make no sense?

"We concede—as we must—that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received holy scriptures, baptism, the sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?"-- Martin Luther

Click to expand...

mont974x4 said:

What does Romans 1, 1 Cor 1, Eph 2, Col 1, and Jude tell us about who is a saint?

Click to expand...

Based on what these passages tell us, yes we can call them saints.


How many people did Paul call saints without the corroberation of the RCC? (not that it existed then as it does now)

mont974x4 said:

Based on what these passages tell us, yes we can call them saints.


How many people did Paul call saints without the corroberation of the RCC? (not that it existed then as it does now)

Click to expand...

but but we aren't denying that.

You just do not understand what we are saying.

There are saints and then they are Saints.

and you can't use scripture to disprove scripture Mont. John tells us, what we are remains to be seen, it is not revealed to us HERE and NOW but it will be revealed when we are "saved", when we see God in heaven face to face and who did Jesus say will get to see the face of God? the pure of heart.

Biblically we are either saints or we are not saints. The idea that there are saints and that there are Saints is a RCC teaching that no one has supported biblically.

I am not using Scripture to disprove Scripture, I am using Scripture to show the truth based on the applicable passages so we don't just take one and run with it...or worse yet, supercede Scripture with traditions that have no biblical basis.

The passages I posted tell us that if we are saved, if we are called by God, then we are saints.

mont974x4 said:

Biblically we are either saints or we are not saints. The idea that there are saints and that there are Saints is a RCC teaching that no one has supported biblically.

I am not using Scripture to disprove Scripture, I am using Scripture to show the truth based on the applicable passages so we don't just take one and run with it...or worse yet, supercede Scripture with traditions that have no biblical basis.

The passages I posted tell us that if we are saved, if we are called by God, then we are saints.

Click to expand...

Are you denying that God raised up extraordinary Saints like Paul and Moses?

They're are ppl certain ppl that God affords extraordinary graces to in order for them to do His will.

We all are not going to have that same honor as other ppl will have but in heaven (not here and now, Mont) it won't matter to us because we (all of us) can only be filled with as much glory as we have a captivity for.

There are ppl who have a much larger captivity for the glory that awaits in heaven and it is because God raised them up, gave them extraordinary grace so they can live the Christian life to an extraordinary degree.

We aren't all on parr with each other when it comes to holiness but that doesn't mean what we do have is inferior, it's just ordinary as opposed to extraordinary.

Yes he saw that Light through the fog that was Rome!

Click to expand...

Right...and he said you have to concede that you have Rome to thank for the faith you have ... so how you can reconcile that with your premise, I'll never know.

Well?

Click to expand...

Can't debate strawman and false premises.

Benedicta00 said:

Are you denying that God raised up extraordinary Saints like Paul and Moses?

They're are ppl certain ppl that God affords extraordinary graces to in order for them to do His will.

We all are not going to have that same honor as other ppl will have but in heaven (not here and now, Mont) it won't matter to us because we (all of us) can only be filled with as much glory as we have a captivity for.

There are ppl who have a much larger captivity for the glory that awaits in heaven and it is because God raised them up, gave them extraordinary grace so they can live the Christian life to an extraordinary degree.

We aren't all on parr with each other when it comes to holiness but that doesn't mean what we do have is inferior, it's just ordinary as opposed to extraordinary.

Click to expand...

The Bible says that God is not a respector of persons, He treats us all equally....and we should do the same.

Are there people we can see as good examples of a Christian walk? Yes, Paul tells us to imitate him as he imitates Christ...but this is not the same as the RCC bestowing Sainthood on someone and it doesn't call for the RCC to acknowledge our sainthood.


What do the passages I posted tell us? There are about 60 verses that us the term saint or saints...and none of them support what the RCC teaches on this.