Does anyone know of a good film about Luther that shows the Catholic side of the issue, the tensions and agonies that those opposing Luther endured? If anyone knows of such a work, I'd love to hear about it. You can email me at [email protected]. Maybe i should write such a film, or a novel about it. Thanks.
share[deleted]
sorry, it's really hard to make 'good guys' out of those who 'sold' salvation to those who could afford it and created, out of nothing, entire doctrines the Bible never mentions but is dogmatically enforced. not to mention those who kept the bible from the poor so they could find out what it says themselves. sorry, can't really feel sorry for the catholic church, they weren't the ones to be later persecuted and killed for their beliefs anyway.
shareMy, my I love the smell of revisionism in the morning.
1.) The Church was not selling salvation.
-a.Indulgences aren't tickets to heaven. They are remissions of temporal punishment due to sins already forgiven. In short, they limit time in Purgatory; not get out of hell free.
-b.Indulgences almost always have involved saying prayers, making pilgrimages anf giving to the poor. If you have a problem with that, might I suggest a new religion.
-c.The indulgences that were 'sold' were an abuse of power. Many monks who were entruested with the job got a little too zealous. The Church has condemned this practice before and after the 'Reformation.'
2.) What doctrines did the Catholic Church make up?
-a. Where in the Bible does it say that only something explicitly taught in the Bible is true?
-b. How can you make this accusation when Luther removed seven books out of the Bible and publically admitted to adding the 'word' alone next to Faith?
-c. How, again, can you say this when Luther taught doctrines that are explicity contradictory to the Bible such as the importance of Good Works?
3.) The Church did not keep the Bible from the poor.
-a. The poor were illeterate and couldn't read anyway.
-b. Before Luther's translation there were already vernacular versions of the Latin Vulgate in English, Gernman and Spanish.
-c. The purpose of the Church is to preach the Gospel, not hand it out and let everyone decide what they want to believe.
-d. The Bible itself warns that Scripture is not up for private interpriation and that only a competant authority can do the job. The thousands of new 'Christanties' since the Reformation show that the idea that everyone can have the Spirit interprit for them is absurd.
-e. If the Church had such a monoply on the Bible because they feared people would find out the the 'truth' why didn't they change anything to better suit their beliefs?
-f. Better yet, if the Church alone possessed the Bibel, how cna you know what is the Word of God or not?
-g. For you to declare what is or not the Word of God means you claim infallibilty in matters of Faith. Such a power is believed by Catholics to be reserved to the pope. Yet Protestants and Luther mock and ridicule such a notion.
4.) Yes the Catholics were persecuted for their beliefs.
-a. Luther was on the offensive side, calling for the people to 'wash their hands in the blood of bishops.'
-b. The early Protestants raided churches, destroying chapels, plundering monateries and calling for monks and nuns to renounce their vows to God.
-c. Greedy German princes joined Luther so they could shake off the pope and claim Churhc lands for themselves.
-d. Luther's revolt was an attack on society itself.
-e. Later he would regret such violence, because without the Catholic Church there was no free education for the poor.
-f. In other countries such as England under Henry and Elisabeth and France with Calvin, Protestantism brought persecutions, massacres, wars and overall misery.
5.) Did Catholics fight and persecute too?
-a. Yes, but it wa spurely defensive.
-b. Luther brought destruction and cleaved Christendom simply because the 1500 year old Church would not jump at his every word.
-c. Luther should not be praised or honored. He claimed more power and authority than any pope or council yet denoucned them for their authority. He is the worst hypocrite.
-d. Luther was also very rude, sexist and anti-semtic.
too much to respond to but...
-a.Indulgences aren't tickets to heaven. They are remissions of temporal punishment due to sins already forgiven. In short, they limit time in Purgatory; not get out of hell free
I think it's enough that you have to buy remittance for divine punishment (its funny how you laugh at me referring to tickets to heaven but this idea is just as ridiculous and also not mentioned in the Bible). It still comes down to poor illiterate people being told a twisted message of the Bible.
Don't have time to respond to the rest but attacking Luther's character doesn't really do much. I don't really care about Luther, I do care about the need for church reform at the time which just happened to involve this man. I really don't care if he as a person was wrong, his message was right. And you want to talk about persecution and destruction? look no further than Pope Urban II's crusades...
"It still comes down to poor illiterate people being told a twisted message of the Bible."
Indulgences are too much to go onto this board, but they are bibical and as old as the Churhc itself.
His message was revolt, death, destruction and disobedience. Luther was a revolutionary. What is Christ-like about that? How can you admire the message of such a deplorable man? Protestants say they only trust the Bible, not man. Yet they are unaware that their belifs come not from the Bible but from the traditions of Luther and Calvin.
Yes, reform was needed. But that's not what Luther called for. He called for the complete destruction of the Catholic Church. The validity of the Church aside, how can anyone expect the Churhc to listen to this uppity monk?
Many saints have called for reform and critised the heirarchy. Yet never did they call for new doctrines. They loved the Faith. They are the true heros, not Luther.
And what are yout alking about whith the Crusades? Urban II only called only one crusade. Perhaps you can enlighten me to all this 'persecution and destrcution'?
[deleted]
Yet the two contradict each other. How then are contradictions rooted correctly in Scripture? After all Islam has roots in scripture, but that doens't make it right?
And how do you know Luther and Calvin are correct? Were they infallible? Are you?
So I just want to quickly respond. I am a Lutheran and Luther was a very harsh guy especially to those who went against the good things of the Roman Catholic Church including Calvin. Luther even said he would receive communion from the Pope before he would receive it from Calvin. When I look at Luther and his reformation, I see that the people who supported him wanted war and revolution and Luther just wanted reform and if you look at the Roman Catholic Church today, you can see that reform whereas priests are held to a higher stander now and Popes are held to a higher standard. You also see more laity understanding their religion and fighting for their religion. Now you sound like a lay person just because of your one sided attack on Luther. If we were pre-reformation, you probably wouldn't understand Catholicism enough to make some of the interesting points you have made. One last thing, Lutherans are not Protestants and not Catholics as you see those stereotypes in the world today, we are the medium church. We believe in consubstantiation, justification through faith, and using our bibles as a source of God's word. Many of these things are not accepted by either side (not all but many of our doctrines). During Luther's time, the Roman Catholic Church was very corrupt and needed a wake up call. To tell you the truth, if Luther was alive today, he would probably be upset with the whole church on earth.
shareI'm not exactly sure what you are trying to get at. Though I will answer to a few points you made.
"One last thing, Lutherans are not Protestants"
I'm sorry but yes you are. Luther founded the so-called Protestant Reforamtion. Maybe you don't like be indentified that way and would just prefer 'Christian' but you are Protestant because you follow the traditions and interpritations of the Protestant movement.
"We believe in transubstantiation, justification through faith, and using our bibles as a source of God's word. Many of these things are not accepted by either side (not all but many of our doctrines)."
I cannot speak for you personal beliefs but the Lutheran Church does not believe in Transubstantiation. You may believe Jesus is present in the bread and wine upon recpetion of the 'sacramant' but that is not transubstantiation. Catholics believe that bread and wine literally become the Body and Blood of Jesus upon the words of Consecration.
Catholics also believe in Justification through Faith and the Bible as God's Word.
"During Luther's time, the Roman Catholic Church was very corrupt and needed a wake up call."
Perhaps but that doesn't justify Luther's stance. When the Isrealites sinned God sent foreign armies to punish them. Does that mean all the good Jews should have joined these armies and help plunder Isreal?
"If we were pre-reformation, you probably wouldn't understand Catholicism enough to make some of the interesting points you have made."
It is true that in pre-reformation days, a layperson may not have been well instructed in the theology of the Faith, but when you get down to it, it doesn't matter. I know Catholics who can be kinda ignorant in the history and reasons for Catholic dogma, yet they are much better Catholics than me, due to their unyielding devotion to God and the Church. All thiss tudying is good to fight against heresy, but when you are already so grounded in your Faith, it doesn't matter if a Protestant will try and say Catholicism is false. They know what's the Truth. They may not know how or why but they still know.
So one thing, I did misspeak. I meant to say consubstantiation. We are the ONLY Protestants that believe that Christ is present after the Words of Institution are said and we believe that the bread is 100% bread and 100% body and the wine is 100% wine and 100% blood. Read Luther's small catechism if you don't believe me. Now Luther was never sure about how this worked but that is what he taught and I personally view it as an OK thing to be a mystery. As for the other things, I stand by them. I would not classify Lutherans as Protestants; Protestants in the present day sense take things to far. I don't think Catholics are wrong, just different. What really matters in the end though, is not that we disagree on whether Luther was right but whether or not Christ's work on earth is done. I have yet to see a denomination that is truly Christian not live up to that standard. So didishroom, you’re not wrong, but you’re not right either. After the reformation, I think the whole church on earth (all denominations not just Roman Catholics) started to live up to this standard better then before. A better way to argue your point would to tell me how Lutheranism is not living up to the standard of being Christ's advocates on earth.
share[deleted]
So everytime I am asked this I answer in the same way. Lutherans can "pray" to the saints. We can honor the "saints" but we have a very different definition of the saints. Take for example, the feast of All Saints in the liturgical year, we celebrate all the persons that have died before us and are now with God in heaven. We give respect to past influential leaders in the church but we realize that no human is as devine as Jesus even in death and there is nothing a saint can do that God can't do.
shareIt does not matter really how the people in the denomiantion live up to the name 'Christian.' What mattas is which one was founfed by christ and teaches the Truth. Isreal fell into idolatry all the time, yet they were still God's chosen.
shareI don't think your right. My faith tells me that I am a christian. I am not a Roman Catholic Christian, I am a Lutheran Christian. Both of which have Christ's at it's roots. Catholics are not the one and only true church on earth, they are a part of the whole church on earth.
shareThat's a contradiction. There can be only one True Church just as there is One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. To suggest otherwise is blasphemy.
shareYour absolutly right. There is only one church on earth. The CHRISTIAN church not the Roman Catholic Church. You know maybe if you weren't so focused on the blasphemy that the Roman Catholic Church preaches you would see that there are other ways to worship the Lord then just the ways of the Roman Catholic church. One last thing, who died and made you God. You have absolutly no right saying what is the true church because NO denomination (which is all the Roman Catholics are) can say they have all athority from God only the whole christian church can say that. This is why Luther was needed, for stubborn people who think they can control who gets the benefits from God.
share"The CHRISTIAN church not the Roman Catholic Church"
There is no such generic Christian Church that has sub-churches called denominations. These denominations are all separate with different beliefs. Their schisms often resulted in bloodshed. Many believe that they are the only correct 'version' of Christianity and that all others are damnable. There is no unity among them.
Jesus prayed for His Church to be One as He and the Father are One.
Jesus said there is only One Flock.
There can only be One Church with One set of Beliefs.
"You know maybe if you weren't so focused on the blasphemy that the Roman Catholic Church preaches you would see that there are other ways to worship the Lord then just the ways of the Roman Catholic church."
Funny. Before you said that Catholics were 'just different' not 'wrong.' Now we are 'blasphemous.' And no, it is not up to us how we want to worship God. In the Old Testament hell swallowed those who tried to worship differently. I doubt God has new standards.
"One last thing, who died and made you God. You have absolutly no right saying what is the true church because NO denomination (which is all the Roman Catholics are) can say they have all athority from God only the whole christian church can say that."
1. I could say the same about you. Who are you to decide that all denominations are equal when almost none of them hold such a view(if that were true there wouldn't be any different denominatiations).
2. What is the Christian Church you're talking about? You mean the body of millions upon millions of Christians with different beliefs and leadership?
"This is why Luther was needed, for stubborn people who think they can control who gets the benefits from God."
That doesn't make sense. Are you saying the Catholic Church was keeping God's grace away from people? What man can do that?
Believe what you want. I have decided that you are just to enveloped by false practices to show that there is more then just the Roman Catholic church. I even tried to accept you but you won't accept any beliefs. In my book, that is not christian. So have fun with your corrupt clergy, a system where one man can change the whole church, and where lay people have very little say about their faith. I am sure that is what Jesus had in mind when he made his church on earth.
shareYou obviously have no idea what being 'Christian' is. Its not about getting along for the sake of gettiong along. Its not about accepting other beliefs. We are not in the Bible to not treat heretics with the same courtesy as Christians.
You also have no idea about Catholicisim, since the pope does not nor can change the whole church, and that whether the people have a say or not is irrelvant. Jesus came to bring Truth, not 'popular opinion.'
I have every idea what being Christian is. It is using my faith to do Jesus' work on earth. Which the whole lutheran church is doing. Did you ever look to see who is first on the scences at the natural disaster sites? That would be Lutheran World Relief. Have you ever questioned who is helping immigrants people who are new to our country? Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service. Ever wonder who opened the door to women having leadership roles in our churches so that all of God's children will be served? Again that would have to be the Lutherans. Believe what you want but I am more of a christian then you are being right now. For those of you that are reading this that are catholic, I am not speaking againist catholics, I am speaking against people who think that their DENOMINATION is the only denomination that is right and I am sorry if I come off that way. While I find Lutheranism to be the best way to practice my faith, I recognize that there are other ways and accept them as christians. Maybe if we would focus less on minor details in doctrine and worry about our faith in Jesus, we would find it easier to unite a broken church. May God have mercy on those who condemn everyone who isn't exactly like them.
shareTo be quite frank, Jason, I disagree with your following statement: "Believe what you want but I am being more of a Christan than you are being right now."
I very seriously doubt that Jesus Christ would have you claim to be a "better Christian" than your brother/sister-in-Christ. This is not what Christianity is about. Christianity, and thereby the Lutheran Church, is not about flaunting their good works. By flaunting all of the good deeds that the Lutheran Church does (which are many, I agree), you are, in effect, doing exactly what Martin Luther protested in the 1500's.
Christ said we are are ALL part of his Body. That includes Catholics and Orthodox, Lutherans and Baptist, Congregionalists and Methodists. So long as you proclaim Jesus Christ as your savior, you are a Christian. The small things don't really matter. I seriously doubt whether or not Jesus cares how you baptize or how you view Communion. I don't know that he really cares whether or not females are on the pulpit, or what the pastor wears up there. I am sure that religious titles and buildings make very little difference to Christ.
Oh. I am not sure, but I think it was the Congregational Church that first ordained a female. I'm not sure about that, but I thought that's what my history professor said.
Argue all you'd like. Insult me all you'd like. I have insurance:
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
God is Love,
Cody
Cody,
I think you need to read some of the things I was argueing to. I agree with you 100% about everything you said. What I was saying to the guy I was arguing with is that Lutherans are doing a lot of great things. I also think that many other denominations are doing great things and my point is that the point of being Christian is using your faith to do Christ's ministry on earth and not necesisarily following the Roman Catholic church. This is not to say that Roman Catholics aren't Christian. They are most definately a denomination in the Christian church. As for the woman being lifted up as leaders, I didn't really mean through ordination. I think your right that the congregationalists ordained the first woman, and even to this day parts of the Lutheran church in the world don't ordain woman. What I meant was that Luther was a fan of marriage and honoring the gifts of women which at the time and even some today that catholic church has a problem with. Again I don't condemn this, I just recognize that this isn't for me. Does this clarify things? Please respond if you don't understand but really I agree with you 100% so read up a few posts and you'll understand why I said some of those things.
"In the Old Testament hell swallowed those who tried to worship differently. I doubt God has new standards."
You do realise though, that the people who worshipped God in the Old Testament are jews, right? If you really think that, you should be a jew, because the catholic church sure does worship God differently.
"Luther was a revolutionary. What is Christ-like about that?"
What was Jesus if not a revolutionary? He completely opposed the status quo of the time, especially in the realm of religious law. He called the leading religious rulers of the time "white-washed tombs" and a "brood of vipers." He went into the temple and ended up turning over tables and chasing people out with a whip. He encouraged the inclusion of women in a chauvinistic time and culture. He ate with downtrodden subcultures like tax-collectors and prostitutes. Finally, he was executed by the Roman government because the Pharisees considered him a heretic. If that's not a revolutionary, I don't know what is.
We really should stop this fighting. We'll miss all the fireworks!
share
His message was revolt, death, destruction and disobedience. Luther was a revolutionary. What is Christ-like about that? How can you admire the message of such a deplorable man?
WOW. I've rarely seen such a display of self-delusion.
"purely defensive"
So all those people burned at the stake...that was defensive? How about the hundreds of thousands of Native Central and South Americans (and Californians) enslaved and tortured in the "missions" in the New World...purely defensive? And I guess the Catholic Church partitioned off the entire world west of the Atlantic in a purely defensive move?
"Luther was also very rude, sexist and anti-semtic."
This makes perfect sense, since the Catholic Church has such a deep history of kindly behavior towards all (I think the people I referenced above might have some opinions about that...if the Church hadn't MASSACRED them), feminism and love of the Jews. *nods* Yes, that must be it.
"because without the Catholic Church there was no free education for the poor."
Those would be the poor who were illiterate, yes? Bang-up job the Church did educating them!
"Where in the Bible does it say that only something explicitly taught in the Bible is true?"
You really don't get the hypocrisy in this statement, do you? If it holds for the Catholic Church, it holds for Luther as well. You can't defend the Church's teachings with this tripe and expect anybody to take your accusations of Luther making things up seriously. You know that saying about having your cake and eating it too? Learn to love it.
"Luther brought destruction and cleaved Christendom simply because the 1500 year old Church would not jump at his every word."
See my first point above. In the Western world, there has been no greater destructive force than the Catholic Church. They held a reign of terror over Europe for CENTURIES that has yet to be equalled. Hell, the whole of France threw over the very idea of public religion because of your buddies' shenanigans.
"If the Church had such a monoply on the Bible because they feared people would find out the the 'truth' why didn't they change anything to better suit their beliefs?"
Oh sweet weeping Jesus! You're kidding, right? Say you're kidding, please.
"What doctrines did the Catholic Church make up?"
Yet again, I just have to believe you're joking. How about: the miracle of transubstantiation, the idea of the Magdalene being a prostitute, the Immaculate Conception? That's just three. There are tons more.
If you're going to go on about the history of Catholicism, it would seriously behoove you to do some research so you'll not come off like YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. It's one thing to be a believer, it's another thing to be an uninformed moron.
Oh, and last but not least...
"He is the worst hypocrite."
Pot, kettle. Shake!
So all those people burned at the stake...that was defensive? How about the hundreds of thousands of Native Central and South Americans (and Californians) enslaved and tortured in the "missions" in the New World...purely defensive? And I guess the Catholic Church partitioned off the entire world west of the Atlantic in a purely defensive move? "
What do you mean by all those 'people'? Yes the Church tried people guilty of ostensible heresy and handed them over to the State which executed them mainly by burning at the stake. The idea of burning heretics comes from the Bible and was not made up by the Church. The Inquistion is alot to go into. but the fact of the matter is that that what you think you know about Inquistions is probably false. The Spanish Inquistion, known to be the most notorious, killed only 2 to 5 thousand in 200 years. The United States has executed more criminals in the 20th century alone.
As for the Indians in the New World. The Conquests were done by the Spainish not the Church. As Catholics the soldiers should ahve known better. But it must be remembered that these were rough soldiers thousands of miles from home and authority in very starnge lands. Of course they are going to abuse the natives! The Church was the only one protesting! Indian enslavement as well as the confiscation of their property was harshly condemned by Catholic clergy as well as Pope Eugene IV in his Sicut Dodum and Pope Paul III in Sublimus Dei.
The Domicans and Jesuits did all they could to stop the abuses of the Imperialism of Spain and Portugal. In fact, Fr. La Cassas even deliberately made exagerrated claims about the injustices inflicted on the Indians so as the rouse up sympathy. Many Indians travelled to Spain and became citizens. The Church's involvement in the New World made theologians bring up and formulate the doctrines of Universal Human Rights.
"Those would be the poor who were illiterate, yes? Bang-up job the Church did educating them!"
Schooling was not the same as it is today. Children had to stay and work on their parent's farms or master's lands. Those people did not get educated except perhaps in the catechism. However those that displayed great potential were sent to monasteries and universities to learn. This is where the Church was resposnible because besides being the inventor of universities she paid for the education of those who were too poor to send themselves to school. Luther acknowleged this when monasteries were seized by the State.
"You really don't get the hypocrisy in this statement, do you? If it holds for the Catholic Church, it holds for Luther as well. You can't defend the Church's teachings with this tripe and expect anybody to take your accusations of Luther making things up seriously. You know that saying about having your cake and eating it too? Learn to love it."
I really don't get what you are trying to say. Elaborate, please.
"See my first point above. In the Western world, there has been no greater destructive force than the Catholic Church. They held a reign of terror over Europe for CENTURIES that has yet to be equalled. Hell, the whole of France threw over the very idea of public religion because of your buddies' shenanigans."
Hahahahaha. This is hilarious! Where did you get this from? The Catholic Church was the salvation of Europe! While barbarians plunged Europe into darkness, it was the Church which preserved the Classics, brought scholastic learnigs through its monks and nuns and saved education as we know it. It was she who invented the universities and the hospitals institutionalizing Christian charity. It was she who fostered science and the equality of persons and worked to end slavery. This 'reign of terror' is a complete myth.
"Yet again, I just have to believe you're joking. How about: the miracle of transubstantiation, the idea of the Magdalene being a prostitute, the Immaculate Conception? That's just three. There are tons more. "
You really aren't as intelligent as you make yourself out to be. If the Catholic doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Immaculate Conception( Mary Magdalene being a prostitute is not a Catholic doctrine) were so obiously not in thr Bible, why would 1 billion Catholics be convinced otherwise?
If you're going to go on about the history of Catholicism, it would seriously behoove you to do some research so you'll not come off like YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. It's one thing to be a believer, it's another thing to be an uninformed moron.
Sorry but you are the uninformed moron. Your statements are nothing new or original. Just regurgitated myths and lies about the Church that have no basis in fact or history.
Uninformed moron, am I? Then blame the Catholic NUNS who educated me, and the Catholic PRIESTS who taught catechism at the Catholic SCHOOLS were I went, and the Catholic FAMILY I grew up in. You can also blame the books of Catholic THEOLOGY that I've read, and the histories of the Catholic Church, and all the rest of that. See, that's the problem with making assumptions about people - you show yourself to be an ass.
Your brand of Catholicism is probably that weird-ass born-again stuff that embarrasses real, old-style Catholics. People who understand that the *beep* the Church pulled for centuries was not cool, then or now, and is never to be defended. People who understand that the Inquisition was not "defensive", but ugly bigoted TORTURE and MURDER on a massive scale. There's nothing defensible about burning people, including children, alive for the aggrandizement of clerical egos and the entertainment of the masses.
Your sad cobbling of "they were TOO!!" grade-school tactics is really laughable. Maybe you should sit down with your parish priest and have a talk about this chip on your shoulder. He can quote you some stuff Jesus said about forgiveness and self-examination.
Oh, and the Magdalene? Has been referred to as a prostitute by the Catholic Church for millenia now. Don't believe me? Go look at just about depiction of her in all those paintings paid for by the Catholic CHURCH in Europe. You'll find the symbols of her status right there for all to see. If you don't know how to interpret said symbols, try picking up a book on art history.
But then, maybe that's too much work for you. I mean, getting educated is such a bother!
LOLOLOL
Yes, you are uninformed,because you don't have any facts straight. If you want to criticize Catholicism, make sure the fcats are right. The Inquisiton never questioned children. And the executions were never done a grand scale as I showed with the actual number killed.
That Mary Magdalene was a prostitute is not Church doctrine because it is not something a Catholic is bound to believe. But supposedly you are an expert because you went to Catholic school.
You are the only one who is making assumptions, especially false ones.
Uh, I was raised a Catholic and attended Catholic schools, and I have always been taught that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. And really, without making any judgement on Christian beliefs (which I happen to share), these are the same people who taught me that a guy rose from the dead. If I accept that, why on Earth would I have reason not to accept it when they told me that a prostitute was among Jesus' disciples? What, am I supposed to think, "LIES! Everybody knows that prostitutes are immoral, godless fiends! THIS CANNOT BE."
I don't have a particularly wide knowledge of the Inquisition so I can't make any comment on that, but this comment made me LOL:
"The Catholic Church was the salvation of Europe!"
AHAHAHAHAH no. Look, as is the case with most things in history, this is not a black-and-white issue. The Church was involved in some very positive things. It was also, however, at the centre of, let's see, THE CRUSADES?
Thank you. It's nice to know somebody around here isn't completely delusional.
If you don't know much about the Inquisition, count yourself lucky. I've read numerous books on it, including the "Malleus Malificarum" (Kramer & Sprengel's manual on witch-hunting, written with the approval of the Pope), and the horror and filth for which the Church was responsible during those centuries would give any civilized person nightmares. But any ADULT would admit to the history and reject the ugliness that was involved, not try to whitewash it ("questioning" - you know, that's exactly what the torturers called their sick games) or stick her fingers in her ears and yell LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU when it's brought up.
And yeah, the Crusades. We can thank the Church for that little endeavor, lasting hundreds of years and plunging the world into a cycle that is still being played out in blood and terror to this day. (Thanks for bringing it up, that one slipped my mind!)
I've read numerous books on it, including the "Malleus Malificarum" (Kramer & Sprengel's manual on witch-hunting, written with the approval of the Pope)
Get your history straight please. Kramer and Sprengel's book was rejected by the Catholic Church and the Inquisition, and certainly never received an imprimatur from the Pope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Malificarum I suspect what you really read was some of Dan Brown's fanciful fiction and you assumed it was well-researched.
Your knowledge of the Crusades is spotty too. One suspects you believe that the West did not wait until after the Byzantine defeat by the Turk at Manzikert before rousing itself to come to the aid of the Eastern Christians in the face of the military onslaught of the Seljuk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Manzikert Perhaps the residents of the Iberian Peninsula should not have struggled to drive out the Moorish conquerors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista, perhaps Charles the Hammer never should have stood at Tours http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_tours, or King Sobieski of Poland never should have moved to the defense of Vienna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna? Or perhaps you should study adult history and not the baby-I hate my parents-kind of history you are apparently drawn to.
Noli vinci a malo, sed vince in bono malum.
Uh, no. I read the translation of the Malleus published in the 80's. If you think I read Dan Brown, I must say that's a pretty interesting assumption there. How exactly would you know that? Familiar with his trash, are you?
And dude, if you're going to cite the Wikipedia as your source of info, I shall lose all possibility of respect for your opinion. That is NOT a scholarly resource, so find something else to wave around, thank you. And you say I'm the one resorting to spotty scholarship? SHEESH.
Just got to say that MICHAEL D - you are a fool, telling sparrow to get his facts straight and providing wikipedia links to back yourself up is one of the most foolish things i've ever seen. Now i'm not above looking at wiki on some subjects but then you have to go to reputable sites in order to back it up/get the truth. As ANYONE can change wikipedia, and it will never be accepted as a reliable source EVER!!! Have you never had a school/college assignment, any teacher will tell you not to use wikipedia EVER, its the most retarded thing to do. every single link you put forth to prove your argument is from the dodgiest site on earth. try again muppet
"*beep* me gently with a chainsaw" Heathers
"AHAHAHAHAH no. Look, as is the case with most things in history, this is not a black-and-white issue. The Church was involved in some very positive things. It was also, however, at the centre of, let's see, THE CRUSADES?"
Did I say it was entirely black and white? No, but even my Middle Ages course in a state College admitted this. I even read about a Jewish historian who would agree with me.And again, the Crusades saved Europe from being overrun by Islam and whatever wrongs or atrocities were committed by the Crusaders they were condemned as was the Sack of Constantinople by Pope Innocent and the massacres of Jews were condemned by St. Bernard of Clairvaux.
Purgatory?
share"Purgatory?"
What about it?
Well what's the biblical basis for it?
share
I don't have to time to really explain the whole thing. I have one article that is perfect but can't find it online so maybe these three will happen.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html
http://www.catholic.com/library/Purgatory.asp
http://www.lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=180
Fair enough. What about priest being able to absolve people of sin? Also whats the basis for claiming only priest have the authority to interpret the bible or the Holy Spirit?
share“Fair enough. What about priest being able to absolve people of sin? Also whats the basis for claiming only priest have the authority to interpret the bible or the Holy Spirit?”
He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. John 20:21.
And it is not that individual priests have the authority to interpret scripture, as Martin Luther was himself a priest, but the Church itself. I’m sure many Protestants get the idea that Catholics are not free to read or discuss the Bible. This is completely untrue. Those websites I gave to you before were all administered by layman. It is just that our beliefs must be consistent with Church teachings as thay have been handeled down from the Apostles.
The problem with the Protestant view that every man can and should interpret the Bible is that it is condemned by the Bible itself.
2 Peter 1-20: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2 Peter 3-16: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Acts 8-30: And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, understandest thou what thou readest? 31. And he said, How can I except some men should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
"He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. John 20:21.
And it is not that individual priests have the authority to interpret scripture, as Martin Luther was himself a priest, but the Church itself. I’m sure many Protestants get the idea that Catholics are not free to read or discuss the Bible. This is completely untrue. Those websites I gave to you before were all administered by layman. It is just that our beliefs must be consistent with Church teachings as thay have been handeled down from the Apostles. "
I don't see anything in your verse that suggests the power given to the Apostles was then transferable to anyone else. Also what is the basis for claiming that the catholic church is the sole authority for interpreting the bible?
"The problem with the Protestant view that every man can and should interpret the Bible is that it is condemned by the Bible itself.
2 Peter 1-20: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2 Peter 3-16: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Acts 8-30: And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, understandest thou what thou readest? 31. And he said, How can I except some men should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. "
Again, I don't see anything that suggest individuals are incapable of understanding or attempting to understand the Bible.
What is the basis for the claiming the pope is infalliable?
Given your....revisionist view on the inquistions, what are your thoughts on the fact that local bishops were given quotas of lands and properties to seize from alleged heretics who were executed?
What is the basis of your (presumed) belief in Sola Scriptura ("Scripture Alone")?
How do you know which books belong in the biblical canon?
What is the basis of your (presumed) belief in Sola Fide ("Faith Alone")?
And what do you make of the fact that every church that has been around long enough has committed atrocities or taken the "wrong side" in some social evil?
And finally, if you say "well organizations are wrong, but individuals are right" how do you deal with the fact that again, you don't have a biblical canon without a "authority" to determine it, and how do you deal with the fact that individuals interpret the Scriptures differently and come to often wildly contradictory interpretations, regardless of how much they seem to sincerely believe they are being guided by the Holy Spirit (while their opponents are not)?
This of course, if you claim yourself to be a Christian. If not, then we can ask why you seem to be assuming the foundation of an evangelical/fundamentalist Protestant narrow interpretation of what Christianity is...
Await your response (assuming you're still reading this). Anyone else who agrees with him 100%, feel free to post your answer!
http://www.historyversusthedavincicode.com/
History vs. the Da Vinci Code
By reading ramblings of yours and similar "religious nutjobs" I have degree that even in now know light of horrors caused by Marxism, Communism or Nazism you and your ilk are main advocates why mankind would be better off under those ideologies. At least then no one could claim to have ownership to metaphysical beings and use them as excuses for their actions.
Here is some thougts for you to ponder: There have been religions and GODs before invention of any form of christianity, What is supposed to happen to souls of these people after their death ? No christ, no catholic church, no road to heaven thru christ, no heaven and obiviously no hell either, so where souls of these people did go after their death ?.
After invention of christianity by Roman powers many aspect of religious teaching based on Judaic faith from which early christianity spring from were subverted to match those of "paganic" beliefs of pre-christianiced ROMANS (might be shock to you by Jesus did not born on Christmas day it just is day when christians celebrate the birth Jesus. All so noteworthy point to keep in mind is that that time of year "pagan" romans used celebrated birth of "pagan" God Saturn... Funny coinsidence or what). Later when this newly invented faith began spread it absorbed customs from other "pagan" religions of Europe.
Jesus was born jewish and raised as jewish and since Judaism is not mere religion and set of beliefs of do´s and don´ts but all so cultural upbringing and identity (not to forgot metion deep philosophical teaching incorprated in religious teaching) hence for Jesus was a Jew and also Jesus was a man. His post humous raise to status of "Son of God" we have to again thank those ever so imaginative romans. It suited well to powers to be in Rome to be able claim to speak behalf god when they spoke in name of Jesus.
To Jews Jesus is character of no significance. To people of Islamic faith he was mere prophet alas minor one. Both Judaism and Islam are truely Monotheistic religions but christianity and especially catholic christianity borderlines to polytheism (even thought teachings in bible contradics such behavior) with all the saint and stuff similar to minor gods of pre-christian roman pantheons which again is quite funny coinsidence. Even aspects of "pagan" gods have been known incorporated in post humosly fabricated characters of person that church have claimed to have become saint or granting sainthood to persons of minor historical significanse or both (as for example in case St Olaf or Olaf II of Norway) when it benefitted spreading of christianity. These subversive tactics were used before Church of Rome was able transform from spiritual power to earthly power. After that anyone thinking differently than "master plan" cooked up in Rome better watch ones hide.
Have you ever pondered why your church is called The ROMAN catholic church ? Not merely for that its head place happens to be located place called Rome or that same place happens to be crib of big cheese of that religion but for the fact that whole thing was invented by ROMANs. Yes the same people that granted the word ORGY in our vocabulary.
One more thing to ponder why do you think that in Europe influence of Church of Rome is lowest or no-excistant in areas where power of Roman Empire was lowest or non-excistant and vise verse in areas dominated by Roman Empire. Example in Sweden Church of Rome hold minimal power and Swedes never have been compleatly christianiced duiring the whole time (little less than 500 years) that Church of Rome held its power in Sweden and power of Rome were dismissed with easy and for over simple argument over nomination of bishop. Hence for protestant nation. Then What about King Henry th VII of England... I quess we all know that story.
Church of Rome and its leader who claims to speak behalf of God have Ok:ed to act against all of the TEN COMMANDMENTS if they themself have benefitted financially. Duiring certain times in history in certain regions Europe certain monasteries were run like brothels and for matter fact were brothels in all but name and all this happened with the blessings of the pope.
Thing that bothers me personally about in some catholics (well in like you or even worse cases) is the unsurmountable amount of hypocrisy. You are claiming that Luther caused all the evil in the world duiring the time of reformation. But what about all the other times where did "evil" and chaos come then ? Most people like you all ways fail to mention those "highly spiritual" Popes like: Pope Julius II, Pope Paul III, Pope Pius IV (all these three had illegimate children while in ecclesiestical state or as a POPE). Pope Sergius III (at least he was doing it whit his own child and whit daughter non the less), Pope Boniface VIII, Pope Urban VI, Pope Benedict IX (who among other things sold papacy), Pope Stephen VI, Pope Alexander VI (Borgia Pope...) and last but not least John XII. Leo X could be added to list for being totally incompetant dope that nearly bankcrupted whole affair that is Church of Rome. Coinsindentally he was Pope duiring times of Luthers reforms and main reason for them become reality. So who really was responcible for Chaos duiring that time ? Cause or consequence which is to blame ? Church of Rome made attemps to revert and supress Luthers reforms which hade become popular among the ordinary people in Germany that felt that they had been opressed by foreign body of government and there is reason for Chaos that you have been spoken.
Luther might not have been agrea-able sort or not even very nice person but CEOs of Church of Rome were even worse and beside wery few people duiring that time really met Luther or had much opinion about man but they read the book that he printed: THE BIBLE and realised them selves the rampart hipocracy of Church of Rome which was that only true goal of Church was fattening them selves on execpence of belivers. As saying goes: don´t hate the playa hate the game, so if want blame something over reformation and chaos spawned upon attempts to suppress it blame the BIBLE.
"By reading ramblings of yours and similar "religious nutjobs" I have degree that even in now know light of horrors caused by Marxism, Communism or Nazism you and your ilk are main advocates why mankind would be better off under those ideologies. At least then no one could claim to have ownership to metaphysical beings and use them as excuses for their actions."
Oh so racist ideologies of the greatest mass murderers in human history are more desirable than the tenets of a religion that was responsible for great charities, the emancipation of slaves, equality of human beings, and the flourishing of arts and sciences?
"Here is some thougts for you to ponder: There have been religions and GODs before invention of any form of christianity, What is supposed to happen to souls of these people after their death ? No christ, no catholic church, no road to heaven thru christ, no heaven and obiviously no hell either, so where souls of these people did go after their death ?."
My, secularists really crack me up with their anti-religions tirades. You ask these questions thinking that they are really deep and thought provoking and even challenging to Christian thought, yet they have been answered by Christianity from the beginning. The Bible and the Church both teach that before Christ the righteous went to hell. Not the fiery Gehenna we are familiar with, but a place non-suffering waiting. the Hebrews called it Sheol or the Grave. theologians call it Limbo. After the Crucifixion, Christ rescued them and brought them to heaven.
"After invention of christianity by Roman powers many aspect of religious teaching based on Judaic faith from which early christianity spring from were subverted to match those of "paganic" beliefs of pre-christianiced ROMANS (might be shock to you by Jesus did not born on Christmas day it just is day when christians celebrate the birth Jesus. All so noteworthy point to keep in mind is that that time of year "pagan" romans used celebrated birth of "pagan" God Saturn... Funny coinsidence or what). Later when this newly invented faith began spread it absorbed customs from other "pagan" religions of Europe."
In case you didn't know, over 11 million Christians were martyred by the Romans over a few hundred years of persecution. Jesus, His Mother, the early disciples, Peter, Paul and all the Apostles were Jewish.
"Both Judaism and Islam are truely Monotheistic religions but christianity and especially catholic christianity borderlines to polytheism (even thought teachings in bible contradics such behavior) with all the saint and stuff similar to minor gods of pre-christian roman pantheons which again is quite funny coinsidence."
Saints are not demi-gods. The Church has always and still acknowledges that they are holy men and women now in heaven who lived virtuous lives on earth. We follow their examples, read their writings, name our children after them(Muslims do the same thing as many of them have the name of their Prophet)and build statues and shrines to honor them and instill in Christians the image and personality of the saint. We ask them to pray for us. We do not worship. We know that they committed sins and like us were born with sin. When we talk to a saint, we invoke their name and say 'pray for us' but only to Jesus do we say 'have mercy on us.' If you actually knew anything about Catholicism you would that. veneration of saints and martyrs is as old as Christianity itself. If these practices were just pagan things incorporated into the religion as a compromise why did the Christians let themselves be tortured and killed than commit idolatry? Obviously they saw the distinction between worshiping the emperor and imploring a saint for help. Now ponder that.
"Have you ever pondered why your church is called The ROMAN catholic church ?"
No, because I already know that answer. The prince of the Apostles, Peter,established his final see there and died. All of his successors have claimed that diocese as his own.
"One more thing to ponder why do you think that in Europe influence of Church of Rome is lowest or no-excistant in areas where power of Roman Empire was lowest or non-excistant and vise verse in areas dominated by Roman Empire. Example in Sweden Church of Rome hold minimal power and Swedes never have been compleatly christianiced duiring the whole time (little less than 500 years) that Church of Rome held its power in Sweden and power of Rome were dismissed with easy and for over simple argument over nomination of bishop. Hence for protestant nation. Then What about King Henry th VII of England... I quess we all know that story. "
If you what you is true than it could be attributed to the fact that they had no tv or radio and communication took a long time. But nevertheless you are incorrect. It is too much history to go into, but whenever a country was Catholic, it was catholic in culture and beliefs. The Roman Empire fell and Catholicism still spread. The Magyars and Vikings help bring down the Carolingian empire and yet despite the barbarians being victorious they eventually were converted and pacified. Your little argument holds no water.
As for your last bit about accusing me and catholics of hypocrisy, some things should be established. Catholics are full aware of the bad popes and corrupt clergy. We don't pretend it didn't happen. You also don't see them on a list of canonized saints. Even very conservative Catholic historians will admit that Luther's revolt succeeded because of the corruption of the Church at the time. However, Luther was not simply addressing the wrongs of the clergy as many saints have done. He was attacking the Church itself as well as her sacraments and the whole concept of salvation. Yet people today think he was a poster boy for tolerance and only wanted to protect the people from the big, bad church. In fact Luther was a very complex man who had a grudge and lots of resentment. His divisions were not only spiritual but temporal.
"Oh so racist ideologies of the greatest mass murderers in human history are more desirable than the tenets of a religion that was responsible for great charities, the emancipation of slaves, equality of human beings, and the flourishing of arts and sciences?"
Actions of dictators and opressive governments can not justify their action by or hide behind some methaphysical entity like catholic church has done. Further more humankind have in some ways benefitted from even most horrifying things like nazi concentration camps since those ghastly experiments done there have undoubtly benefitted normal medical science. Equality of human beings and emancipation of slaves can just as well credited to marxism. Are you not forgetting that religions have still caused much strife than any political movement or dictator and among religions catholicism have the worst track record.
"My, secularists really crack me up with their anti-religions tirades. You ask these questions thinking that they are really deep and thought provoking and even challenging to Christian thought, yet they have been answered by Christianity from the beginning. The Bible and the Church both teach that before Christ the righteous went to hell. Not the fiery Gehenna we are familiar with, but a place non-suffering waiting. the Hebrews called it Sheol or the Grave. theologians call it Limbo. After the Crucifixion, Christ rescued them and brought them to heaven."
Naturally they went to mystical third place... As you stated that being teaching of church which is to say it is more or lass same nonsense that earth is center of universe.
"In case you didn't know, over 11 million Christians were martyred by the Romans over a few hundred years of persecution. Jesus, His Mother, the early disciples, Peter, Paul and all the Apostles were Jewish."
So they could have then been persecuted on account of their racial background and not all ways that they were christians. That is known to happen Jewish people time to time in history.
"No, because I already know that answer. The prince of the Apostles, Peter,established his final see there and died. All of his successors have claimed that diocese as his own."
And most of his successor just by coincidence happened to come from Roman nobility. It was common in pre-christian Rome to consuls and caesars to be nominated as gods after their death so as christian Popes they had opportunity be god earthly governor while living. Again pretty funny coinsidence
"If you what you is true than it could be attributed to the fact that they had no tv or radio and communication took a long time. But nevertheless you are incorrect. It is too much history to go into, but whenever a country was Catholic, it was catholic in culture and beliefs. The Roman Empire fell and Catholicism still spread. The Magyars and Vikings help bring down the Carolingian empire and yet despite the barbarians being victorious they eventually were converted and pacified. Your little argument holds no water."
Yes too much history which you obiviously have not studied. You really should consider reading something beside the Bible. The Roman Empire as empire did fell, how ever it still goes on in spiritual form of Church of Rome. There are records of some of early Popes to haven invoked name of Saturn to gain luck while gambling.
"As for your last bit about accusing me and catholics of hypocrisy"
Not catholics only you (you might not necessarily even be real catholic)
"big, bad church"
At that time it really was that. Not every priest hardly but as worldly superpower with corrupt leadership who had not a single thought for actual christians.
“Actions of dictators and opressive governments can not justify their action by or hide behind some methaphysical entity like catholic church has done. Further more humankind have in some ways benefitted from even most horrifying things like nazi concentration camps since those ghastly experiments done there have undoubtly benefitted normal medical science. Equality of human beings and emancipation of slaves can just as well credited to marxism. Are you not forgetting that religions have still caused much strife than any political movement or dictator and among religions catholicism have the worst track record.”
I just got a chill reading that.
“Naturally they went to mystical third place... As you stated that being teaching of church which is to say it is more or lass same nonsense that earth is center of universe.”
If you want to actually debate than just debate. Don’t just fling nasty insults believing that settles the matter. What I just said is in the Bible and is believed by all Christians regardless of denomination. As for your sneering comment about geocentrism-it is not nor ever was a Church dogma.
“So they could have then been persecuted on account of their racial background and not all ways that they were christians. That is known to happen Jewish people time to time in history.”
Don’t insult my intelligence with such a stupid remark. Christians were made up of Jews and Gentiles alike. Roman soldiers and their families as well as noblewomen made up a great deal of Christian martyrs. Christianity was persecuted by pagan Rome for the Christians refused to offer incense to the emperor. Rumors spread that they were hiding jewelry, practiced cannibalism and caused the eternal city to burn. This is grade school level stuff. Everyone knows this.
“And most of his successor just by coincidence happened to come from Roman nobility. It was common in pre-christian Rome to consuls and caesars to be nominated as gods after their death so as christian Popes they had opportunity be god earthly governor while living. Again pretty funny coinsidence “
From the writings of Church Fathers we know that before Christianity was legalized in the empire the bishop of Rome was head of all the churches. When the pope was granted temporal power he was not the emperor. Those who would insist that the Church and Sate were one need to crack open a history book. Throughout the history of Christendom, it was a constant battle between emperor and pope each fighting for what they believed were their rights.
The Caesars were emperors and high priest rolled into one. There was no distinction between the State and Church as it was in Christendom. Pope Innocent III was probably the most powerful pope in terms of temporal matters, yet he wrote that the Church was only to interfere when the State could not resolve matters and when it went against the people or the rights of the Church(such as placing bishops in dioceses and such).
“Yes too much history which you obiviously have not studied. You really should consider reading something beside the Bible. The Roman Empire as empire did fell, how ever it still goes on in spiritual form of Church of Rome. There are records of some of early Popes to haven invoked name of Saturn to gain luck while gambling.”
Funny, but I’ve demonstrated a much greater knowledge and understanding of history than you. You just keep spewing out slander.
“Not catholics only you (you might not necessarily even be real catholic)”
What’s that even supposed to mean?
"I just got a chill reading that."
You tried to attribute things which really can not be attributed them (Not solely or at all) to catholic religion and further more something good can come out even from most horrible deeds. This to be real discussion you would have be objective to your perspective and to against that perspective you oppose but instead all you have done so far is to spew up pro-catholic propaganda . It would fun start discussion about endless catholic mission (some have been up and running decades) in poor and suffering third world countries yet many times supraisingly little are achieved regardless resources spend but some how i do not thing you would find that funny.
"If you want to actually debate than just debate. Don’t just fling nasty insults believing that settles the matter. What I just said is in the Bible and is believed by all Christians regardless of denomination. As for your sneering comment about geocentrism-it is not nor ever was a Church dogma."
There is no proof there is god nor that there is not that is you BELIVE in god you do not know you BELIVE. Same not knowing apply to this supposed third place its existence can not be proven so arguing over utter nonsense is pointless but to claim like that is equal to claim that Elvis really were alien.
"Don’t insult my intelligence with such a stupid remark. Christians were made up of Jews and Gentiles alike. Roman soldiers and their families as well as noblewomen made up a great deal of Christian martyrs. Christianity was persecuted by pagan Rome for the Christians refused to offer incense to the emperor. Rumors spread that they were hiding jewelry, practiced cannibalism and caused the eternal city to burn. This is grade school level stuff. Everyone knows this."
Christian were not the first nor only group of belivers persecuted by Romans. Grade school stuff yes, but have you gone beyond that points (kind like doubt it) thought why those things were attributed to christians. Can you imagine how it must have felt to non-christian romans to have this sect surface up whose god was man and they regulary eated his flesh and drank his blood. That was too twisted even to non-christian romans.
"Funny, but I’ve demonstrated a much greater knowledge and understanding of history than you. You just keep spewing out slander."
True you have demostrated knowledge, understandning and religious narrow mindness. You undoubtly have much knowledge based on your religion but beyond that you are blinded by it. Slander you should know about since you seem to have spewn more than enought even in this board.
"What’s that even supposed to mean?"
You seem to be such extream case that you just might be in reality anti-catholic troll.
"You tried to attribute things which really can not be attributed them (Not solely or at all) to catholic religion and further more something good can come out even from most horrible deeds."
You're attributing some scientific progress to the Holocaust while he's noting all the acts of good will that the Catholic Church has done. Then you claim that your point is inherently more valid. Wow.
"This to be real discussion you would have be objective to your perspective and to against that perspective you oppose but instead all you have done so far is to spew up pro-catholic propaganda ."
All you've done so far is throw around anti-religious hate. why is it that people say they're the only unbiased ones when they themselves are as biased as any?
"It would fun start discussion about endless catholic mission (some have been up and running decades) in poor and suffering third world countries yet many times supraisingly little are achieved regardless resources spend but some how i do not thing you would find that funny."
Sometimes the fact that the aid comes from Catholics in a non-Catholic land rubs governments the wrong way. Check out all the missionary martyrs (St. Isaac Jogues, St. Francis Xavier, etc.) for more answers.
"There is no proof there is god nor that there is not that is you BELIVE in god you do not know you BELIVE. Same not knowing apply to this supposed third place its existence can not be proven so arguing over utter nonsense is pointless but to claim like that is equal to claim that Elvis really were alien."
Just curious as to what you would consider proof. Some people only need to look at the world around while others only need to hear it. You, I think need God to personally wait on you hand and foot and then NOT ask for a tip (why would God need $). Personally, it stems from one's ability and inclination (and upbringing)to believe.
"Christian were not the first nor only group of belivers persecuted by Romans. Grade school stuff yes, but have you gone beyond that points (kind like doubt it) thought why those things were attributed to christians. Can you imagine how it must have felt to non-christian romans to have this sect surface up whose god was man and they regulary eated his flesh and drank his blood. That was too twisted even to non-christian romans."
You bring up good points here, but Nero was more concerned with not receiving tribute than he was about the rumors. He was quite mad, you know. Also, it shows that the Romans didn't try to get to know the other side at all.
"True you have demostrated knowledge, understandning and religious narrow mindness. You undoubtly have much knowledge based on your religion but beyond that you are blinded by it. Slander you should know about since you seem to have spewn more than enought even in this board.
Why is it that scientists can argue and argue about their own beliefs as related to scientists (not just Christian scientists), present their own evidence, and still adhere to their own beliefs without being called ignorant or blind? That only seems to be thrown at religion and those who practice it. Also, you just pull the blind bit out of thin air. Not that I've never heard it, it just sounds like a cop-out in the middle of a debate. Lastly, about the slander, you've thrown out as much or more of that than he ever has. You compared the Catholic Church to the Holocaust and Communism and you called didishroom and all other people of faith blind. How is that not slander?
Point I seem to have missed earlier but still needing attention...
"In case you didn't know, over 11 million Christians were martyred by the Romans over a few hundred years of persecution."
This is myth created in 15th century by catholic church. No real evidence excist about christians being fed to lions on Colosseum by romans. Fact that there is absolutely not any kind of evidence of these alleged martyrings is odd since we are talking about most dynamic culture of its time which have left behind tons of records and instructions just about anything (even how the proper outhouse should be constructed).
Martyrologies were based on accounts written at the time. My history professor affirmed the horrible persecutions by the Romans. These are facts. The Church has the names of many of these martyrs. They weren't made up. But I guess it's ok to deny Christian persecution, but deny the Holocaust and you're Hitler.
shareSurely there have been struggles and strifes in conflict between catholics and "pagans" but the martyrologies were produced at much later time to serve Church of Romes political ambitions at the time when these books were "cooked up" and such they are hogwash. What comes to accounts written at the time of alleged persecutions they are not reliable source for non can be really presented and for the lack roman documantation about such incidents which surely would have excisted if those thing did happen cast huge shadow of doubt over martyrologies. Fifteen hundred years old rumors and allegations written as books are just books of rumours and allegation no more (Martyrologies can not really be compared or even dealt with same we as bible or any other religios book since they are not "word of god" or "the good book" but merely fictious documentation of things that never really happened). People fed to lions all most with out exeception were condemned criminals by pre-cristian roman standarts.
share How did I miss that...
"But I guess it's ok to deny Christian persecution, but deny the Holocaust and you're Hitler."
Firstly about Holocaust there is undeniable evidence about in all forms.
Secondly there is not real excisting evidence of persecution of christians by Romans (any evidence presented through Vatican channels if excisting are considered to be highly dubious since falsification, forgery, outright lying and harboring sexsual predators of minors are all in their book of M.O)
Thirdly you seem to be like one... Have you started any Pogroms jet ? judging by your attitude it was no wonder that duiring WWII most of the people aiding and helping Jews to avoid death camps were protestants and majority of Nazi collaborator were catholics.
Hoo boy, you are funny. "Questioned" children? No, they didn't question them, they BURNED THEM ALIVE. Look it up, honey. Your cute revisionism notwithstanding, it's a matter of record that victims of the Inquisition ranged from as young as four and five to as old as their eighties.
No, babe. I know about Catholic doctrine because I WAS A CATHOLIC. I was RAISED as a Catholic by an old-world Catholic family, and I went to Catholic school because my parents wanted me to keep being Catholic. So why exactly are YOU an expert?
Honey, I can smell the convert on you a mile off. Your overextension, hyper-hysteria and self-involved insistence on nonsensical "defenses" of a Church that certainly doesn't need any newbies defending it just reek of conversion. Perhaps after you've been in the Church for a couple of decades, you'll calm down and realize that your ranting does NOTHING to attract people to Catholicism. It's just making you look silly.
I'll bet you're a fan of Bill Donoghue, right?
Pick up some books on Catholic theology, sweetheart. And not the kind with half the words in full caps, either. I mean real theology. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Hans Kung, etc. And stop listening to those silly drive-time radio shows. They're filling your head with idiocies that any traditional Catholic would laugh himself silly at.
Children were never questioned. That's just a fact.
And no you don't know Catholic doctrine.
You can smell the convert off of me? Hahahahahahaha! I was born and raised into a Catholic family and went to twelve years of Catholic school!
And why are you telling me to pick on books on Catholic theology?
Children were never "questioned"? Yeah, I'd say that. They were put to the third degree - that's TORTURE. You really don't know anything about the history of the Catholic Church, do you? It's RECORDED. In their OWN RECORDS.
You're such a pathetic little dweeb.
And why am I telling you to pick up books on Catholic theology? Because you clearly know nothing about it. Your attitude tells me that right off the bat.
But this is silly. I'm tired of arguing with your wannabe-born-again ass. If you really did go to Catholic school (which I doubt, the nuns would have hammered the ass of a little nitwit like you), you clearly never paid attention.
I do hope you grow up someday. But I ain't gonna hold my breath for it.
Have a nice time getting bitchslapped by Jesus after you die. I'd love to be there for it, but I'm spending my eternity in the Blessed Isles. Way more fun, mostly due to the absence of pinheads like you.
Well thank you for a clearly intelligent mature debate on your part. I especially loved your calling me a liar and despite a complete lack of understanding of Catholic belief or it's history, you had the nerve to comment on it and tell a practicing Catholic for 19 years that they ignorant in such matters. Ciao!
I told myself over and over do NOT respond to this thread because it will just lead to a headache. These arguments are pointless and futile, people will always believe what they want. Until their own heart and mind leads them elsewhere. But *my* mind is simply blown away that someone would actually post these vast untruths.
I would like to put a disclaimer here, that I'm not against the Catholic Church as a faith. I find all ranges of faiths to be beautiful and inspirational. Im agnostic so I dont know what I believe, but Im also a lover of theology. I am, however, against the Catholic Church as a political organization. The same for any religion.
Didishroom, I take it you are a proud catholic and wish to defend it to the end. That can be admirable, and I'm sure you tire of the guilt people sometimes make you feel about your religion of choice. But ignoring and revising the bad leads nowhere. It's a disservice not only to others of faith, but to yourself.
Here we go (I will only comment on those I take issues with):
1.) The Church was not selling salvation.
-a.Indulgences aren't tickets to heaven. They are remissions of temporal punishment due to sins already forgiven. In short, they limit time in Purgatory; not get out of hell free.
-b.Indulgences almost always have involved saying prayers, making pilgrimages anf giving to the poor. If you have a problem with that, might I suggest a new religion.
The Crusades themselves were a form of indulgence, a complete penance. While it is true, most Indulgences were of a very benign nature like saying the rosary or listening to Scripture, the Church emptied whole prisons with granting absolution to fight their wars. The English government did this as well, so this was probably just an action of its time.
-c.The indulgences that were 'sold' were an abuse of power. Many monks who were entruested with the job got a little too zealous. The Church has condemned this practice before and after the 'Reformation.'
They got greedy. These were the times where having a beautiful church resurrected for God *in your name* was longed for by the clergy. Bishops had palaces, and to not have one was a deep embarrassment. Also, solid gold crosses, gem encrusted candlesticks and various earthly treasures were bought extensively. Monks or a Prior would seek advancement by 'granting' their church or their Bishop treasures or glory. And we cant forget simple personal greed.
2.) What doctrines did the Catholic Church make up?
-a. Where in the Bible does it say that only something explicitly taught in the Bible is true?
-b. How can you make this accusation when Luther removed seven books out of the Bible and publically admitted to adding the 'word' alone next to Faith?
Protestants have done their fair share of altering the Bible and religious texts. But the Catholic Church started this tradition. Have you ever read Gnostic texts? No? They were edited out. They literally had two versions of The Garden of Eden to choose between, two versions of the crucifixion of Christ and they chose whatever suited them best. The now 'biblical' version of the Garden of Eden has Eve being the downfall, the Gnostic version had Eve being the savior by granting knowledge. I wonder how they chose and why? Not to mention the MANY gospels simply put to the side. For starters, the Gospel of Phillip, of Mary and of Thomas. And the newly re-found Gospel of Judas. They say they were left out due to them being 'questionable'. But in the 300 years after the death of Jesus, ALL texts were questionable. They literally had a council and put out a Creed deciding what was 'real' or 'questionable' just to end the turmoil these questions brought about. It could have easily been the other gospels chosen, one where Jesus laughed and taunted his executioners on the Cross, one where Eve 'gave' us knowledge, not condemned us with it. What else was edited out that we are not even aware of? How different would the world be if they chose the others?
-c. How, again, can you say this when Luther taught doctrines that are explicity contradictory to the Bible such as the importance of Good Works?
Luther never contradicted good works, just that they should be used as a form of punishment or atonement.
3.) The Church did not keep the Bible from the poor.
Excuse me a second...HAHAHAHA. Wow...just wow. I'm trying to keep this too the point but I had a break down there.
-a. The poor were illeterate and couldn't read anyway.
Seriously? Thats an excuse? What if someone could read and wanted to take in the bible on their own? They would be refused because 'they couldnt read'? BUT the bigger issue was that they kept the bible in Latin, and since it was a dying language only scholars (usually monks and priests) could read it. It was heresy to translate the bible for centuries.
-b. Before Luther's translation there were already vernacular versions of the Latin Vulgate in English, Gernman and Spanish.
But against Church doctrine, and many were burned as Heretics for daring to translate it from Latin. In 1517, seven people were burned at the stake for teaching their children to say the Lord’s Prayer in English. In 1536, William Tyndale was burned as a heretic for translating the Bible into English. In 1555, John Rogers and Thomas Cranmer were burned at the stake for translating the Bible. Men and women were also burned for reading the English translation of the Bible.
-c. The purpose of the Church is to preach the Gospel, not hand it out and let everyone decide what they want to believe.
No, the purpose of the Catholic Church was to guide souls to God, and to help 'Shepard' his children. To be the collectors of knowledge, and to pass it on. Knowledge doesn't just come by word of mouth, it comes from viewing and reading. By making sure the bible wasn't held by the common man, they couldn't question the Churches rules and reasoning. They were essentially enslaved to the clergy, in fear of their eternal souls. THEY didn't write the Gospels. They were entrusted with them...allegedly. Envision the image of Jesus you have learned from youth. The one who preached to the poor, invited them to his table. The poor were among his first flock. Why would he keep the word from them? The Church did, and it was all political. But, I'm sure you say, they could become priests or monks if they wished to learn the word of God. Incorrect, with the exception of few, nuns, priests and monks had to literally buy their way into their positions. Granting lands and monies, usually a younger son or daughter from nobility or a wealthy merchant was given to the Church in hopes that it will advance them both politically and in the afterlife.
-d. The Bible itself warns that Scripture is not up for private interpriation and that only a competant authority can do the job. The thousands of new 'Christanties' since the Reformation show that the idea that everyone can have the Spirit interprit for them is absurd.
Once again, Church politics. By ensuring that the people needed them, the people had no choice but to pay for their lands and housing, their treasures and monuments. For hundreds of years the common person was unable to read the bible on their own. Who knows what was changed in the ensuing years. The only people who had access to them were Clergy, and it would be the Clergy who would have the most to gain by altering them. How can you ever really trust something written by man (even if it is remotely likely that God sent the message to them) and then kept in secret for hundreds of years, and to even be found translating it for the common man was an act so gruesome as to warrant death by burning.
-e. If the Church had such a monoply on the Bible because they feared people would find out the the 'truth' why didn't they change anything to better suit their beliefs?
Hmm, who's to say they didn't? If the common man never read the originals before years and years of alterations, who would ever know? And in these past years we have been finding more and more hidden texts, that directly contradict that Catholic (and Protestant) bible. 'Why didn't they change anything'...I believe thats a bit naive.
-f. Better yet, if the Church alone possessed the Bibel, how cna you know what is the Word of God or not?
That, my friend, is the question all of us Agnostics ask ourselves. And surely many Christians in a moment of reflection, or 'weakness' as the Church would view it. And the same with people of other religions and their religious tomes.
-g. For you to declare what is or not the Word of God means you claim infallibilty in matters of Faith. Such a power is believed by Catholics to be reserved to the pope. Yet Protestants and Luther mock and ridicule such a notion.
Is it infallibility of faith, or daring to question what another man tells you? Wouldnt the earlier people have had a better chance of making their own decisions if they had the opportunity to read the bible themselves? That is part of the heart of the Protestant movement, questioning what the Pope declares. The Pope is voted in by humans, not God. The Pope is not God, yet why is he the final say here on Earth?
4.) Yes the Catholics were persecuted for their beliefs.
-a. Luther was on the offensive side, calling for the people to 'wash their hands in the blood of bishops.'
Religious wars are never pretty, and the Protestants have MORE then their fair share of blood on their hands. Anyone that claims otherwise is being ridiculous. But the Pope has long been on the offensive side, merely questioning the Catholic faith was heresy. Sending people to death by fire is an act of repulsion, stronger then any 'words' Luther may say.
-b. The early Protestants raided churches, destroying chapels, plundering monateries and calling for monks and nuns to renounce their vows to God.
Yes very true, the Dissolution of the Monasteries is a very sad time in history. Beautiful churches and pieces of architecture ruined, texts destroyed (texts that may have been examined), art taken. Monks and nuns, some of whom I'm sure were wonderful people who believed in their God with full faith and did much for the poor, torn away from their home. But, what about the destruction of the religious landmarks in the 'Holy Land' during the Crusades? Did not the Catholics destroy and ransack their holy relics? Did they not destroy and steal from Solomon's Temple? If they did so for the 'good of the church' where are these relics today? Forced conversions are a long tradition, to the Moors and the Jews, on behalf of the Catholic Church. To blame the early Protestants for such abysmal acts (which we rightfully should), why should the Catholic Church be exempt for the same acts?
-c. Greedy German princes joined Luther so they could shake off the pope and claim Churhc lands for themselves.
As in most 'religious wars' politics play more of a part then not.
-d. Luther's revolt was an attack on society itself.
Yes, a society that was gripped in a strong hand by the Catholic Church. To change the Church, would be to change society. Just like society was changed when Christianity took root and flourished.
-e. Later he would regret such violence, because without the Catholic Church there was no free education for the poor.
Most of the students in monasteries and nunneries were from nobility and *maybe* wealthy merchants. Very few of the poor were ever actually schooled. Remember, they didn't want them to learn, to be able to read the bible in its original Latin. Those in various orphanages did have more luck however.
-f. In other countries such as England under Henry and Elisabeth and France with Calvin, Protestantism brought persecutions, massacres, wars and overall misery.
Hah, unlike the years under Mary? Where heretics were burned on the streets? Why do you think England grew to fear Catholicism so? The average person who had no stakes in politics? Just the mere thought of a Catholic king brought down Charles I and the Glorious Revolution occurred due to this. Elisabeth was actually pretty tolerant of many religions for her times, although there was a financial penalty for being Catholic. Holding mass could be punishable by death, but Elizabeth disliked such extremism so it was rarely if even ever acted upon. You could legally be Catholic, you just had to attend services at the Church of England every so often. Pretty much, if you attended the CoE once in a blue moon, behaved yourself and showed loyalty to her, she didnt care one way or another. Once again, it was not a perfect system and such intolerance is shudder worthy for most of us in these times, but they were far less radical then those people of the Catholic Church. She was one of the few who dared to question and fight the Inquisition. Remember that? Most of the misery of those years were borne from religious wars between Protestants AND Catholics. If the Pope would have let England be instead of fighting for land that would mean more money in his pocket, most of that misery would not have been. Elizabeth refused to let the Inquisition have a place in England, as ANY LEADER SHOULD HAVE. Being questioned on the rack for merely making love to your wife for pleasure instead of for the sake of procreation? Welcome to the Inquisition. And don't get me started on the French Religious Wars. The protestants aka Calvinists aka Huguenots persecuted the Catholics? Did you really say that? I introduce you to the topic of the Massacre at Vassy and the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre. Thousands of Huguenot's were killed outright on the streets of Paris. Do you know what the death toll was? 30,000-110,000. Holy war began in France, but was ended temporarily by Henry of Navarre, a catholic who did in fact grant equality to the Huguenots. In the end most had to leave their country to escape further persecution. To say the Calvinists perpetrated massacres in France shows a blatant disregard for history. Yes, they did kill people in holy and civil war. But NEVER in France did they cut them down in cold blood. (Although they were much more ruthless in Geneva.)
5.) Did Catholics fight and persecute too?
-a. Yes, but it wa spurely defensive.
Im speechless. I refer you to number 4 letter F of what I just wrote. They were defending themselves by cutting down thousands of sleeping Calvinists, dragging them out of their beds for slaughter for merely being suspected? Guess what, the Calvinists were keeping faith with their part of the peace, their only crime was demanding punishments for those who attempted to assassinate their leader Coligny. They demanded legally, NOT with their blade. How about the hundreds of Political wars sanctioned by the Pope? One of the Pope's favorite tools was putting an entire country under Interdict for their ruler not following the Pope's machinations. Do you know how many wars between England and France was instigated by the Pope? Guess. Is burning a man for reading a bible an act of Godly mercy? Is that a defense? Is sending Spain to convert England back to Catholicism, resulting in war, a defense? As a matter of fact, I want you to name one time (besides the first Crusade) where the Catholic church truly had to defend themselves after the year 1000. Can you think of one? Im not talking about political wars, but wars where they were being persecuted. Good luck with that. But heres one to prove you wrong, the Holy League. An alliance between the Pope, Venice and Ferdinand of Spain, which came about to exile the French from Italy. Then followed unbelievably bloody battles in Naples. Was this defense? Or was it a political war waged by the Pope?
-b. Luther brought destruction and cleaved Christendom simply because the 1500 year old Church would not jump at his every word.
Sounds familiar. Jump at his every word? At least people were able to read the word for themselves, instead of having to follow they every whim of the clergy.
-c. Luther should not be praised or honored. He claimed more power and authority than any pope or council yet denoucned them for their authority. He is the worst hypocrite.
He broke up the Catholic monopoly. Now, people had other options to follow their faith, instead of the every whim of the Church. He began a revolution that would change the course of history. There was another man who did the same...one that rarely enters into this wooly religion of Christianity. Is Luther Jesus? Doubtful, but he shook up the decadence and depravity of the ruling class, much like your Christ did. Were there much hypocrisies in the Protestant movement? But of course. Yet, it was a movement that needed to happen in those times.
Let me tell you something, the Pope you know today isn't the Pope of old. They had mistresses, sons which they placed into high church positions through obvious acts of nepotism. Daughters which they auctioned off to the highest bidders. Ever read up on Pope Alexander VI? The Borgia Pope? He was among the worst of his kind, yet the standard as well. Do you realize his reign as Pope was the final straw, one of the main reasons Luther acted?
-d. Luther was also very rude, sexist and anti-semtic.
Sigh, so were most men of his age. Do you really think that in a time where being a Jew costed greatly, that the Church wasn't anti-semitic? Sexism was prevalent in the Church, a pregnant woman couldn't even enter a Catholic Church for most of the early years. Now, my friend, you are just reaching.
There are many things to praise the Catholic Church for, but not ones that are blatant untruths. Their contributions to architecture, art, governance in the darker ages, balancing the might of Kings as in England and the humility of Henry I after the murder of Thomas Beckett. They had their place in the advancement of the world and society. Yet in turn, kingdoms had to later balance the might of the Church. Monasteries helped feed the poor, and treated those in sickness. Many nuns and monks gave their lives to those victims of the plague. While they did withhold the bible from the common man, they did collect great texts and books which exist to this day. They were also prolific writers. The Saints of the Catholic Church are sainted for a reason, for they did great acts.
Love your faith, but accept it with it's warts and all. To deny truths in an attempt at defense is just lunacy, and casts the Catholic Church in a worse light...are they still teaching revisionist histories in their churches and private schools? Is that what you want the world to think?
Didishroom,
Xjennilostx's response to your seriously-fallible assertions in his/her post seems to have silenced you. Your points that xjennilostx responded to are poorly researched. Those of us reading this interminable thread all wait for you to debate XjennilostX's facts with your rhetoric...you've had a whole year to respond...what's the matter? The 'facts' got your tongue?
Until then...
On one of your points, (that xjennilostx brilliantly rebutted) there is more to say:
"-b. Before Luther's translation there were already vernacular versions of the Latin Vulgate in English, Gernman and Spanish."
Let's explore further, specifically, 'what' English edition of the Bible 'existed' prior to Luther's 1525 German Bible:
The English edition you ignorantly refer to is John "The Morning Star of the Reformation" Wycliffe's [circa] 1384 English Bible translated from the Catholic Latin Vulgate.
But how did your Church respond to its existence?
On May 14, 1415, your Church declared Wycliffe was [posthumously] a heretic, and ordered all known copies of his Bible to be burned.
Your claim that "there were already vernacular versions of the Latin Vulgate in English..." suggests that anyone in Catholic-ruled Europe could just meander into a bookseller shop of their choice to purchase and read away without any repercussion.
Your comment also suggests that because of the existence of the 'other' Bibles, that Luther's Bible was unnecessary.
Wow. While you are fervently critical to Luther and the Reformation, you are exceptionally 'forgiving' of the acts of your own church...almost to the point of cognitive dissonance!
Wycliffe's Bible was banned and the penalties for 'reading' or 'possessing' ranged from torture by the rack, imprisonment or excommunication and subsequent death by being burned at the stake.
Sure...the Wycliffe Bible did exist...but in secret for fear of what your Church officials would do to those in possession of it!
And one last point:
Your own Pope Martin V decreed in 1428 that Wycliffe's corpse (long since-deceased in late 1384) should be exhumed and burned at the stake as a [posthumously] heretic! This was done and his ashes were unceremoniosuly scattered in the River Swift!
Christ taught "As I have loved you, love one another." I'm still struggling to find the section in the Bible where it authorizes the Christian Church of Christ to burn heretics. I can't seem to find the word 'purgatory' in there either. Or 'Pope'.
Though I still have tremendous respect for the late Pope John Paul II, and count many Catholics as my friends, history shows that your church has--quite often--questioned progress, both scientifically, and spiritually, whenever it has reared its head; (Galileo springs to mind as does Tyndale's ignominious death). Yet, when the shoe is on the other foot, and individuals and movements have sprung up to question Papal authority and your 16th century scriptural monopoly, the Catholic Church has responded with Draconian severity. See the disparity?
I still think there's a great story to be told in a film about Catholics (Father Damien's mission in Hawaii is very inspirational and deserves more attention)...but let's not fudge the facts or gloss over uncomfortable details.
Thousands of people were murdered--in cold blood, for opposing your church. But every faith has a 'skeleton in the closet'...
Please be more respectful to the Christian martyr's by being more informed because if you are as informed as you constantly claim you are...you're really embarrassing yourself and your Church by not displaying it.
[deleted]
The Catholics persecuting people was purely defensive?!
Obviously you have never heard of the Inquisition, where those who were accused of not believing were brutally tortured. Things done to people under the advisement of the Inquisition included intimidation, burning, boiling suspects in oil, cutting their tongues out, and other forms of torture.
This was purely defensive how? Because they didn't want to have less power than the government?
You are ignorant.
5.) Did Catholics fight and persecute too?
-a. Yes, but it wa spurely defensive.
That's where you lost me completely. I am an Ex-Catholic who is now an Agnostic and your full of *beep* The Vatican was corrupted and functioned out of greed, plundering its wealth from innocent lives, the innocent were subjected to torture, murdered by inquisitions and indoctrinated through forced conversions. How many men and women of science were persecuted for their beliefs? Was it not blasphemy to say that the Earth revolved around the sun? how much *beep* did the Catholic Church spew in its time? How many were falsely condemned as witches? And all this you think is purely out of defensive tactics? the Popes then and now continue to preach their subjective words by putting them in the mouth of God, passing down nonsense laws. The Roman Catholic Church had transformed itself into a political cult brainwashing the mass to give out their earnings to the worlds largest welfare donor who could care less about peace and love. Criminals who serve the Church are pardoned while gays are persecuted and vilified while child molesting priests get a slap on the wrist. People should have the ability to self excommunicate themselves from this vile diseased indoctrination.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Artigas has a point. But...he misses the bigger point. As a priest, Luther had avenues to discuss his grievances and enter into a debate with his superiors. Instead, he decided to become a trouble-making rabble-rouser, causing the deaths of thousands.
It just seemed odd to many Catholics of the day for this guy Luther to come around and say, "Well, I disagree with some of the church's teachings, so I'm basically gonna form my own religion, where I get to pick and choose what I want to do and don't do."
Around the same time, Henry VIII did the same thing.
I kind of doubt that the Catholic church itself will ever look good, because it's an institution. You can of course have individual Catholics look good, but not the church itself. The church is essentially evil; salvation comes by the grace of God, and Christians then make the church. The church does not make Christians. Nope. Never gonna happen.
How could you possibly make the Catholic church look good, when it's telling people they're too stupid to understand the Gospel, and the Popes and clergy are so insanely corrupt as an institution. Of course there were good individuals, but overall... Yeah...
Good luck with writing that!
-- Do you have any tobacco?
Sparrowhawk, didishroom, have fun fighting the Christian civil war. Not very productive. We disagree on matters as protestants and catholics. Fine. Get over it. We believe what we believe for reasons we believe them. (Can you believe that?) We're all still followers of Jesus Christ.
JankaJaakari, we believe what we believe for different reasons, and as a protestant I will not get into what the Catholic church says or what catholics claim to believe. All I can say is that I believe in Jesus Christ because he's made a difference in my life only I can know. And what you call a "man" voluntarily died on a cross, for you, and this "man" inspired so many others to lay down their lives at great cost also, never renouncing the faith, and why? Because he showed his love in an unsurpassed act of self-sacrifice.
Theres a lot more to Christianity than what you read on a web forum board for a movie at imdb. You can believe all you want in your head but sometimes you have to experience things for yourself in life. There will always be misrepresentations of faiths, and that includes Islam and the other religions in the world. In fact, atheists can be misrepresented by other atheists who display a lack of morals (and this comes up a lot in debates about whether atheists can have morality). At any rate, part of having an open mind involves finding the roots of the belief and deciding whether you can agree with them or whether something could ever make you agree with them.
And if you decide you can never agree with it, God bless you, I'll still tell you Jesus loves you, and you can deny it all you want or laugh at Christians all you want. We're supposed to NOT call you a "retard" or "misinformed fool" or whatever these forum trolls have been spewing. As a Christian we're supposed to respect you and your opinion, and continue to love you for who you are. Sure, we continue to badger you with "Jesus loves you" and "Jesus died for your sin" and things you don't care to hear. But realize we do this (or rather, we SHOULD do this) as an act of love, to show we do want you to go to heaven. Whether you decide to go is your own choice. God sends nobody to hell, people send themselves. Hell's just wherever God's not. You can believe hell is a great place. I maintain that its not.
So without further ado, I will say this:
Jesus Loves You. So Much.
God bless you.
i believe the word catholic means universal. which something for all churches to inspire to that the visible church and the invisible church would be one.
visible church referring to churches, denominations where as the invisible church refers to all people who claim jesus christ as the son of God part of the triune God , their lord and savior who died for them on cross that he might take their sin upon himself because he was blameless and be a mediator between us and God. that jesus rose on the third day and is now seated at the right hand of God in heaven.
catholic church got itself in trouble by trying to be a civil government as well as the church. That gave them too much power and too many worries. Churches should not have to worry about defending their lands and raising armies, but should focus on understanding scriptures and spreading the gospel.
catholic church used religion to gain money like taxes. God asks us to freely give to the church so that the church can function and to remind ourselves that all things that we claim to own already belong to God.
Luther was used by God not to destroy the Church, the church being all those who claim with peter "YOu are the Son of God", but to improve it. God would have preferred that there would have been no need for the lutheran church to be created but the Roman Catholic Church refused to yield.
I look forward to heaven when all Christians from Adam to Eve to the last one saved will rejoice as one. Let protestants, catholics, non demoninational churches not bicker among ourselves but preach to the lost and encourage and sharpen one another that all might know the love of christ.
-There are not two churches, visible and invisible. There is only one which can be joined by Faith and Baptism.
-The Church has always taught the Gospel.
-Luther did not destroy the Churhc because Christ promised Peter that would never happened.
-Luther had no right to tell what the Church should do. He was not calling for reform but revolution. The Church had comittd abuses but her doctrine cannot change. If it did than Jesus is a liar.
[deleted]
Luther divided it within the West. With Orthodoxy, they had been drifting apart so long there wasn't much difference when they officially left. Not to mention it was a clean swift division. It was just as sad and horrible but Luther's revolt turned Europe itself upside down.
shareYeah we got it only Catholics are good and got heaven... That is probably why Pope Pius XI blessed Mussolinis forces before they went Abessinia to exterminate natives with poison gas...
shareI don't know any reasons behind that but knowing that Pius XII went against Hitler by secretly saving over 30,000 Jews, I doubt he favored Mussolini.
And it's irrelevant. Pius XII could have eaten babies for breakfast and the Church would still be the Church of Christ.
...and same time Vatican was helping nazi warcriminals to escape to Argentine. I am not much of beliver but when ever I meet nutjob like you I thank god deeply about reformation. You can hold and cheris your Church of Christ and shove it where sun wont shine. So much shjt have been done by Church of Rome in name of Christ that Christ ought to come down and kick all your collective asses.
shareYeah I'M the nutjob.
share Well I have met more moderate Shias in IRAN than you are as western Catholic cultist.
Even if reformation caused strife in Europe and even if it broked the earthly power of the Roman Cult (and thats in reality is one of the most beneficial changes in history of mankind) any evils and sufferings caused by Luther are thousands fold minor when compared to harms and strifes caused Church of Rome. This is for you and many other one eyed religious nutjobs: essence of bible in three words DO NOT HARM.
Didishroom, don't bother arguing with these nimrods. Debating with a Protestant, atheist, or muslim is like debating with a wall.
I mean think about it, they are basically cut out of the same mold. They claim they honor the Bible and what it says. They bash us by throwing bible verses at us. But their whole structure is unbiblical.
'But their whole structure is unbiblical.', oh, how i love the good old roman-catholic 'holier-than-you' mentality that reeks out of this.
But seriously: xjennislostx made some, very valid, points that I see based on facts (on both sides, raised roman catholic myself). And these aren't even be picked up by any of the catholic revisionists. This could mean two things: They looked the facts and historical interconnections up for themselves in quoteworthy sources and counterchecked them, leading to the understanding that many of the statements made were borderline to lies to say the least. This would be good.
But, unfortunately, more likely is that they known this from the beginning and now are silent just to peter themself out of the questions raised by this. Which means that given statements weren't anything else than propaganda.
Don't Protestants realize that it was the Catholic Church that put the Bible together? There was NO Bible before the 3rd Century. Did that mean all Christians were not saved since they couldn't live according to the Bible's teachings?
I am so tired of the ignorance that Protestants show in Bible and doctrinal history and development. Few if any have ever read the teachings of the first "Fathers" of the Church whose teachings clearly point to the modern teachings of Catholicism. Please, everybody, wake up and search for truth, not the opinions you've heard since childhood. The same ignorance has caused racism.
The Council of Carthage in 397 set down the books of the bible. There was no Roman Catholic Church back then it was THE CHURCH.
Before you start talking make sure you have your information straight. And yes there was no official standard Bible over time books were added and dropped.
And if you want to be snotty, let's bring up the fact that in the Middle Ages, Renaissance and the Reformation families didn't own bibles or read the holy fathers, only scholars, the rich and the church. And Catholics are just as ignorant on not only the Bible but their own church history.
Your comments are just as ignorant as those who say the Catholic Church should be brought down and is evil. This is wrong, the church is led by men who are not perfect and make as many mistakes as others.
I actually think this movie was good at showing both sides of the story. The cardinals and the emperor might have come across as this movie's villains. But you can understand where they were coming from. They simply wanted to maintain the old Catholic customs and keep all Christians in one church. There's also the scene, where the peasants revolt and destroy churches and throw munks and nuns out of their convents, because someone had interpretated Luther's words wrongly. But the fact remains, as already has been mentioned, that by the 16th century. the Catholic church had become awfully corrupt, and many countries (including Sweden, my own country) no longer wished to stay under Rome's rule. Even the Catholic church itself had to realise its short-comings and went through a reform.
The Reformation brought a lot of good changes to us in the Protestant countries. The priests started spreaching in our languages in the churches, so the common man could understand what was said. Bibles in every country's own language also made it possible for more people to learn how to read. Priests were also finally allowed to marry. But we also lost some good things from the Catholic era, like the saint cults and the convent system. Only the Orthodox churches seem to have found that balance between national independence and married priests on one side and saints and convents on the other side.
Intelligence and purity.
Who wants to watch a film choosing the side of bad( not bad, just crookedness) The Catholic Church deserved what happened to them. They reap what they so.
Flocke: Come with me, and I promise, I'll tell you everything.
I'm just throwing this out there please don't attack me for this...
I am a protestant, that's just my personal belief. My family is Catholic, and they love God and believe in salvation just as much as I do. I think all Christians need to just get along and stop splitting hairs on doctrine issues, it's turning the world away! We are never going to reach others for Christ if every denomination is at each others throats. Sorry to rant, I just had to get that out :)
Hmm..
The good side about the Catholic Church?
Im christian, but no Catholic, so Im not a expert in the area.
What I do know about Catholics is this:
1. Celibacy is a requirement for being a catholic priest. Which I personally find very unnatural and the cause of much dismay.
2. Catholic priests have a high percentage of pedofiles and gays.
3. Pay 5 bucks for forgiveness.
4. You can buy a splinter of Jesus' cross for more bucks
5. You can buy a piece of jesus bones for a lot more bucks.
6. If you add up the splinters from THE cross. Jesus would have had to carry a house.. not a cross. Same mostly likely goes for the bones. Graverobbery ftw.
7. The cake is a lie.
8. My religion is better and more true than yours kk. True story! Remember, you have to prove it wrong, rather than prove it right.
It is despicable with these massive amounts of catholic priest pedofile cases going on.. But then again. You know what the difference is between a pedagogue and a catholic priest? The priest 'really' loves kids.
They were tense from learning that they couldn't keep the world under their thumb forever.
They were in agony because of the lack of fine wine, jeweled scepters, funny hats, and young boys.
Fin.
I'm a Catholic too but I agree- it's hard to find "good guys" among the depicted Catholics of the 16th century... Though Luter wasn't exactly a saint either.
What should be noted that Luther also started counter-Reformation that helped Catholic church to reform itself;. It also created the Society of Jesus, Jesuit order. If Lutherans want to see Luther as the "good guy" of the period, it's Ignatius of Loyola for me.
Really, if you wanted Catholic Church to be depicted like "good guys" here, you need to shoot the movie about Jesuit order's beginnings.