Imagican in blue: Ok fran, let us start here:
You make it sound as if the Eighteen hundred year reign of the CC has ONLY been plagued with a 'few' renegades. You fail to offer that MANY of these 'renegades' were THE ONES that were 'creating' the doctrine that THE ENTIRE CHURCH was forced to live by. And these, at times, were willing and able to EVEN DESTROY THEIR VERY OWN for the sake of their OWN PERSONAL agendas.
I think it is up to YOU to offer ME the "many" renegades who were responsible for setting policy and "creating" doctrines that the entire Church were forced to live by. Merely making such a statement doesn't make it so! Where is the evidence of these "many" people in the upper levels of the Church ordering such things???
fran, (my replies are bolded)
I could spend the next couple of days going back and offering the actual names of the popes and bishops that instituted what you ask. Not needed. I have done the research and have come to the conclusions that I offer. If it matters, you too are able to do 'the SAME research'. If you simply choose to accept and follow instead, that is your folly.
And the 'marine' analogy doesn't quite cut it. If the marines were ordered to destroy American citizens for 'spitting on the sidewalk', ALL who followed this order WOULD BE cowards for NOT being able to discern what IS right and simply following orders so as NOT to 'rock the boat'. The path of LEAST resistance RARELY, IF EVER, is the proper path to follow.
You are totally changing the context of what I was trying to say, first of all. That is - that one or several bad examples do NOT undermine the entire organization. What are YOU talking about above? How does this have anything to do with the Catholic Church - destroying people for spitting on the sidewalk? A bit dramatic, don't you think?
Here is what pertains to the CC: Convert or DIE. Follow what we TEACH, NOT what we DO. Give as instructed or be labeled an heretic and we will then TAKE IT. Bow to our Pope. Worship Mary. It goes on and on. The spitting on the sidewalk was JUST an analogy disputing the validity of 'your' analogy.
Further more, I believe that this 'renegade' behavior, (as you describe it), was NOT only the fault of a 'few', but actually 'brought about' by 'false doctrine). If The Truth were being followed then a 'few' would NOT have been able to bring to acceptance that which IS FALSE. So SOMEWHERE the foundation of the CC was corrupt or there would have NEVER been these renegades allowed into the UPPER leadership of said organization. This system was DESIGNED, it DID NOT 'just happen'.
You know, Imagican, there have always been people wishing that the Church was absolutely holy, every single member. We (Catholics) have recently lived through such a period, the ill-effects of Jansenism that brought about an underlying concept that legalism was more important than faith, hope and love. Such rigidity and Pharissaic attitudes from holier-than-thou's is out of place within the bigger picture of things. The Church has dealt with such attitudes off and on since Montanism, c. 190 AD. And you would like to re-institute this heresy? That unless a person is absolutely holy, they don't belong in the Church?
fran, there IS a BIG difference between sinners and those that CHOOSE to follow 'their OWN' gods. And I guess if one were to choose to follow their OWN gods, then what they consider sin may be different than what it actually IS. We are not talking about simple lies or stealing. What we have examples of here are individuals deciding to take it upon themselves to completely alter The Word of God for thier 'own agenda'.
Christ came to save the sinners, not the "righteous". The Church has been called a hospital for sinners. The Church is called "holy" NOT based on its human members, but on the Head, Jesus Christ, who is an integral part of the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church.
OK
False doctrine causes individuals to sin? To crave power? To backbite? To cause dissent? I would say this is an excuse for people who would prefer to blame their sin on everyone else but themselves. Recall that the Church consists of sinners. This has nothing to do with the Church teaching false doctrine.
There MUST be false doctrine in order for a 'religion' to CONTRADICT the teachings of Christ and His apostles.
I don't accept the ENTIRE theology of Martin Luther anymore than your pope. He was banished from the CC for his views and simply carried MUCH of 'their' baggage right along with him. He was ONLY able to recognize that which was OBVIOUS. There was MUCH that he DIDN'T recognize for he WAS raised under their tutorage and was unable to completely separate himself to the point that he was able to START OVER with NO preconcieved notions concerning the traditions of the CC.
And quite naturally, if you were there, you could have corrected dear old brother Martin Luther. Do you realize how arrogant you sound? YOU are basically placing yourself over and above 2000 years of Tradition. Basically, you are saying that your superior intellect has derived the "true" meaning of what God intends through Scriptures.
First of all, seventeen hundred years of tradition. And YES, I certainly DO realize how arrogant I MUST sound to 'you'. Just as you would accuse Paul of 'being arrogant', I accept your view without even considering it to be an insult. And NO, it is NOT my intellect that offers what IS righteous but The Spirit which convicts.
fran, you speak to me as if I were some ignorant bafoon that had NO understanding of the history to which I refer. I don't simply 'spit out hatred' for the sake of 'self'. I try my best to offer what I have studied AS it 'TRULY EXISTS'. I take NO sides other than that of 'TRUTH'. And that that offends MANY, so be it. For the flesh would take NO responsibility for it's errors if so allowed. And the LAST thing that the flesh would accept is the 'blame' for ANYTHING.
I am not speaking to you as if you were a baffoon. I am, quite honestly, asking to see your evidence of the sad accusations you are making.
If you 'truly' desire to see and accept the evidence, simply ask ONE question at a time and I WILL offer, not only evidence, BUT PROOF of ANYTHING that I have offered.
You know, if you want to remain in your hatred of things Catholic, I can do nothing to change your mind - your heart is hardened. You claim you take no sides but the Truth. As Pontius Pilate said "what is truth"? In this case, it appears that you have some sort of uninterrupted flow of knowledge of the truth - according to Imagican... Do you honestly expect me to accept your "truth" based on your merely saying it is so? As to taking responsibility, that very statement can be applied to you, as well. I am presuming you are just as human as everyone else on this planet...
I don't know if I am 'just as human' as every other person on the planet or not. I DO know that there seem to be MANY that have bought into the churches to guide them instead of God. So, in this respect, I may NOT be as 'human' as 'some'.
Uninterupted? Hardly. But I DO have access to the ONLY true source of knowledge in the UNIVERSE.
No, fran, I do NOT expect you to accept ANYTHING simply because I offer it. It is UP TO YOU to discern the truth. I have simply planted the seed.
The CC has made cursory attempts to quell the populace of the world by admitting to some of it's blunders that IT CANNOT DENY without EVERYONE, (including their own), 'seeing' it's deception. And, they have often done as you attempt here; offer that it was 'just a few bad apples'. But, fran, you know what happens when JUST ONE 'bad apple' comes in contact with a group of 'fresh ones'? You got it.
And why haven't the Protestant communities reciprocated? I don't know why. Perhaps they aren't sorry and have not repented. Perhaps they desire not to accept any responsibility for the 1500's. Perhaps they REALLY think that they WERE burning witches! You have said that repentance is the first step. When are you going to take that first step, brother?
I can't answer for the Protestant community as a 'whole'. From my perspective the relationship between Protestant and Catholic churches is NO different than the relationship between the Arabs and Israelites. They ARE 'stepbrothers'. When Martin Luther separated from the CC, he carried MUCH Catholic baggage with him. So the Protestants are NOTHING more than an off-shoot OF the CC.
It would be HARD to show you this 'other church' that you ask for. For you KNOW as well as I that the RCC tried it's best to stiffle ANY opposition to it's teachings. Destroying, at times, ANY record of it's deeds.
Oh, boy. Another conspiracy theory. Whatever. Again, anything to prove that? And we DO have evidence of other "Christian" churches during the pre-Nicean days. Even in Scriptures. Do they still exist? Nope. Was it because of Rome? Some of these heresies died out BEFORE Rome came into political power. How exactly did a hunted religion with no political power manage to destroy another religion??? Again, your view of history is totally unrealistic and untrue.
The Christianity introduced into Roman culture by the likes of Constantine was NOT a hunted religion by THAT point in time. His OWN mother had become a Christian. Three hundred years is quite a long time. And their political power structure was formed over time. They were NOT as strong in the beginning as they became over time.
I have already tried to explain, fran, that the CC attempted to destroy ANY religious opposition and YOU KNOW THIS. That is EXACTLY where the policies concerning heresy CAME FROM. So I can GUARANTEE you that there WERE others that DID NOT accept their teachings or doctrine. As these were found they were 'weeded out' by the CC. This is HISTORY. NOTHING fabricated BY ME.
But let me offer this as a 'bit' of proof concerning the question that you posed: The FACT that the RCC used torture and murder to ELIMINATE those that resisted their teachings and power plays IS proof enough for those that so choose to understand. For Christ taught FORGIVENESS towards OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS, NOT torture and murder.
Again, the ENTIRE Church advocated torture and murder???
NO, those that were a 'part' of the church and were BEING flayed alive and boiled in oil CERTAINLY didn't advocate their OWN torture. But that the CHURCH in general condoned such behavior, YES, it could certainly be construed as THE CHURCH. There were CERTAINLY those that probably HATED The CC but by being FORCED to follow their doctrine played the game until such time as they were able to separate themselves. But at the PEAK of the CC's power, this was NOT an option. In many communities to speak out with ANY opposition to the CC was a ticket to a nightmare, at best, and death at it's worst.
You've been watching too many anti-Catholic movies, I think, believing that these movies are the way things happened. Any documentation acceptable to secular historians that say a Pope commanded that so-and-so group or heretical party be wiped out by murder?
Are you a Catholic? Is the Pope INFALIBLE? Just answer that one question concerning the Pope and you will find your answer.
fran, I am plenty capable of giving credit where credit is due. You would make an exellent attourney given the circumstances, (so long as the jury had NO idea of the 'truth'). You argue 'just as you have been 'taught' by the church. There MAY be some that read these posts and quite possibly be swayed by your offerings. However, those that have ANY knowledge of the 'truth' without being influenced BY THE CHURCH know full well that what I offer IS truth. The basis for your entire argument is NOT whether something happened or not, but, can you prove this COMPLETELY. And that is EXACTLY what a good attourney would offer in defense of a MURDERER. PROVE IT BEYOND ANY DOUBT. That is NOT needed. If you have chosen to ignore the truth for the sake of the church, so be it. But that is NOT what 'I' choose to do, (for ANY church).
And of course, I will ask you the same question regarding the English Reformation. THERE, we have absolute evidenceof Catholics being drawn and quartered (do you know what that means? Is there a worse way to die?) because they refused to give up their faith and accept the King as the highest power of religion in the land. We have a NATIONAL attempt to wipe out the Catholic Church. Murder of priests for celebrating the Mass - killed not for their doctrinal "impurity" (as you would say) but because they refused to consider Henry VIII as their religious leader.
You got a lot of gall coming to me and giving me a lecture about how the Catholic Church advocates murder...
And there is NO gall involved here. I state the 'truth' and you get mad because you don't 'like it'. Ah, so there is 'something' in there trying to get out? A bit of anger maybe? Or hatred for your brother, that you are so apt to make said accusations toward? No, fran, it doesn't take gall to learn and understand the 'truth'. And if my mother or father had been serial killers, I would probably take offense JUST AS YOU ARE if someone confronted me with the details of their crimes. They were STILL my parents and UNTIL I learned of their behavior, I KNEW NOTHING OF IT. I would STILL have my love for them EVEN after learning of their behavior and would probably want to 'fight' ANYONE that choose to belittle them.
Once again you try to invalidate my standing by labeling me a Protestant. So be it. If that's what you would like me to be I will accept your label. But in my heart, the ONLY thing that I ever Protested against was THE WILL OF GOD, before coming to the TRUTH. I am NOT a Protestant in the traditional sense that you seem to WANT me to be. I do NOT advocate murder in ANY form. And if it will make you 'feel' better, PLEASE, let me apologize for the Protestants out there. They ARE sorry for their treatment of the CC during the Reformation, I guess?
I do NOT blame you, fran, for ANYTHING that the RCC has perpetrated EVER. I do NOT blame the individuals that performed the nasty deeds that they are responsible for. What I do 'feel' however is that people need to be aware of The Truth. If that offends those with something embarassing from their past or things which they would lie to hide, then THAT is what further PROVES that this is a 'doctrinal fault' rather than that of 'an individual'. For if their doctrine was PURE, SOME would choose to follow The TRUTH REGARDLESS OF THE COST.
Well, I appreciate that I am at least innocent regarding the killing or torturing of a few souls during the Spanish Inquisition... However, I still do not see how a zealous inquisitor who kills a few heretics immediately overturns 1500 years of Catholic Tradition and Scriptures in one fell swoop... I say SCRIPTURES, as well, because you realize that the Catholic Church is the one that set the Canon of the Scripture. If you have absolutely no trust in the Church, it is totally illogical that you would trust its book of Scriptures.
Considering what King James had to go through in order to 'bring The Word' to the people, I would hessitate to accept your offering here. The Word was DENIED 'the people' for well over a thousand years. Given them ONLY through word of mouth by those that COULD tell them ANYTHING. Denying them the ability to read The Word and discern for THEMSELVES the meaning behind scripture. Just ANOTHER prime example of how the CC manipulated those under their control.
Regards
: 
