ChristiansUnite Forums

Have a look at the immense construction of the Image of the Beast in Canberra, Australia at end time prophecy site www.martyrsofrevelation.com. Give any thoughts and comments.

I wouldn't describe Parliament House as the most beautiful building in the world, but satanic it is not.  Shame your images don't work, but I've seen the building for real anyway.

Go and find another bridge.

Sorry to disappoint but Masonic and occultic symbolism is strongly evident in the Canberra design. Academics and commentators have concurred - I refer to Associate Professor Peter Proudfoot of the New South Wales University 'The Secret Plan of Canberra, 1994, UNSW Press' and Beck H. Parliament House Canberra, A Building for the Nation, 1996, The Watermark Press. Also try downloading the free online book that has selected blueprints and photos in chapter 10.

I suggest you take the advice of G Polya 'It is foolish to answer a question that you do not understand'.  

You do know Ebia is located in New Zealand, right? ::)

I also don't see what makes the picture so Satanic. I didn't know Satan invented the Pyramid. ::)

I'm also glad to know Bush is the Antichrist. I was not aware of this. ::)

The occult and Freemasonry have greatly employed the use of symbolism. I realise that many do not recognise or know the meaning of their spiritual significance. Nonetheless the fact remains that occultists and the like use and recognise symbolism. A number of symbols or images have been integrated into the Canberra design and the New Parliament House. The Image you are referring to is of the Goat of Mendes with headdress or crown and is the best known representation of Lucifier in occultism. I would recommend researching the topic and related issues on the internet etc to gain a greater appreciation of it's significance.  

As for Ebia located in New Zealand - I fail to see the point. Many people living in Canberra itself would be equally ignorant of the influences that shaped it's design.  

FWIW, I'm in Victoria, not N.Z.

Look hard enough, and you can "find" this sort of stuff anywhere.

Thanks Dawn.

I don't quite see what you're referring to in the pictures.

But I can only agree that as our governments become increasingly amoral or atheistic/pagan, that the resulting vacuum will only be replaced.  It's simply a reversion to where we were when/before Julias Caesar happened upon the Druids.  It's no surprise to see such effects to once again appear.

All of the western governments, of which I believe NZ has been at the notable vanguard, have descended gradually into the socialism mandate--a replacement of faith in God to faith in our worldly governement/s.  Couple this with an increased enchantment with interfaithism and the occult.   America is certainly setting itself up for such.

So if there are any occult effects there, it would be only predictable, to my mind.

Thanks for your comments and you are totally correct. It certainly is a sad state of affairs in the world. Regarding the building, there is more than just one 'image'. Masonic symbols have been incorporated into the design of Capital Hill and the Parliament House building itself, to the extent that the building is a Masonic temple, although it functions as a Parliament. To give an example, in the House of the Temple in Washington D.C. (33rd degree Supreme Council of the Masonic Lodge - see their web site for photos) there is a black granite altar in the Temple Room, likewise there is the same stone in the Member's Hall Parliament House. The architectural layout is that of a temple (see online book for correlations with St. Peters in Rome and Masonic temples). The geometric floor in the Great Foyer has been taken from the Pantheon in Rome - temple to the pagan gods. The columns from the Palace of Persepolis in Persia and the front portico from the Temple of Queen Hatshepsut, Upper Egypt. Finally take a look at the map of Canberra at the end of chapter 10 - where the major roads form the Masonic pyramid as depicted on the US Great Seal (reverse side). The Parliament is located in Capital circle - the location of the All Seeing Eye on the US Great Seal. It is the image of Washington - Canberra is aligned to face Washington - the final temple of the Antichrist and his image. What Revelation 13 says is that the Image receives delegated authority to give the decree of Rev. 13. So have a closer look at the info in the online book at www.martyrsofrevelation.com.

Yep, we're descendents of all the ancient orders.  

Tomorrow(oops, today) the new ICC (in Belgium?), Internat'l Crim'l Court, is deciding on the 400-mile long concrete and steel wall Israel is building.

--a world court deciding on something major Israel is doing.

Couple this with Mel Gibson's "Passion" coming out this week.

And the new disregard by gays in San Francisco(Gov Swarz "asked" the state's Atty Gen to step in; he declined).  Rumor this eve that Chicago is next--predicting a national gay sweep--a possible nightmare for the Democrats, and this being an election year--the next eight months critical.

A convergence of major events, global, simultatneously.

Matt Drudge this evening on his radio program, saying that people are already planning to see the Passion again--and they haven't even seen it the first time yet.   Speculation on the movie's gross--he asked, What If--What If it breaks all box office records??

On Masonic--I recall a two volume book set--c. about 1888, when I was researching the Masons, a full page lithograph of George Washington, in Masonic garb(the mason's apron)...and insignia...

Which proves what - granite (black or otherwise) has been used for for all sorts of things for a very long time.   If I knew a satan worshiper called Dawn, would that prove that you are also a satan worshipper?


So it looks a bit like the world's most famous Church, therefore it's dedicated to satan?   ???    Masonic Temples also take some of their design from churches, so if Parliament House takes some of it's inspiration from churches (a good thing) then it's bound to have certain similarities to masonic temples.


And also a great piece of art.

LOL

Whatever it is you're taking, I wouldn't take so much of it if I were you.

No thanks.  If you want to discuss it, discuss it here and stop plugging the book.

Ebia, In order to discuss the topic one must be at least acquinted with the subject matter - hence the references to some academic sources and the online book - which I might add is free out of concern for persons like yourself - that they may at least be aware of it and have the opportunity to examine it. So please don't shoot the messenger. The design of the New Parliament House and it's parallels with Masonic design is no coincidence as the chief architects Ehrman B Mitchell Jr. and Romaldo Giurgola, born and trained in Rome, were high degree Freemasons. The Masonic design is self-evident. As for some aspects of the design (e.g. black granite altar stone etc), anyone who is a Freemason or familiar with religious and occultic history will immediately recognise it's spiritual significance. The designer of Canberra - Walter Burley Griffin from Chicago was also a Freemason and delved into mysticism and the occult. As Associate Professor Proudfoot from the NSWU says 'Inspiration for the Griffins' Canberra design is drawn from both ancient spiritual ideas and the Griffins' understanding of geomancy...Canberra, therefore, as affinities with Stonehenge, sacred Glastionbury, ancient Egyptian temples and pyramids..' p.4. You may think that the Pantheon features some great pieces of art - I might remind you that the Pantheon was built as a temple (rebuilt by Hadrian in the 2d century) to the pagan god's of Rome and worshipped in by the very same Roman Emperors that persecuted and butchered Christians by the thousands. In 609 AD it was disgracefully consecrated as a 'church' by the Roman Catholic Pope - the very church that would undertake its own persecution of Protestants during the Inquisitions. So this is no light matter or a joke - this information is extremely important for Christians to know. Before hastily writing do some homework.  

If you want to debate it in a public forum (ie here) then you'll have to bring the arguments here and discuss them yourself, not just point people off to a couple of books all the time.


When any one says anything is self-evident, I usually get very suspisious or cynical, or both.


Even if true, the onus is on you to prove that symbolism is:
a.  deliberate
b.  intended to be interpreted the way you interpret it.


As an archtect, I expect
he'd have had a hard time of it if he wasn't a mason.  Now I'm no fan of the masons, but its been pretty hard to progress in some professions without at least nominal membership.

You've got to demonstrate that this symbolism is deliberate and intended.  The fact that you're claiming symbolism from everything from the masons to pagans to christianity (the RCC) doesn't make your case look strong.


As an architect I'd expect him to draw on this sort of range of places.  BTW, Glastonbury's status is as much fueled by its christian links as anything else, and Stonehenge is an amazing place - a perfectly reasonable source of inspiration.



Doesn't stop it being great art.


What's this got to do with the price of fish?



So far, you've failed to give me one consistent reason why I should.

Ebia, any good argument is supported by sources and facts not just diatribe. I am sure many people will find the references helpful. Obviously your discussion is descending into point scoring and emotions, perhaps with some sensitivities regarding Freemasonry and pagan sites. You certainly do not seem to acknowledge the occultic or satanic undertones or the influence it exerts. I found some of your answers disconcerting especially if you are a Christian - if I may ask - are you a Christian? Paganism (Stonehenge included) and Freemasonry do not mix with biblical Christianity.

This earlier posting by Symphony is a key to understanding why so many Masonic symbols have been used in Washington D.C. and even on the US dollar bill. Many of the founding fathers were Freemasons. Out of interest, the All-Seeing Eye depicted within the capstone on the US Dollar bill, is actually the Ut Chut (also spelled Wedjat) Eye and is associated both with Osiris and the god Horus (Ra Hoor Khuit). An ancient Egyptian coffin text refers to it as the All Seeing Eye of Horus (Lucifer).

I should also say that many Freemasons of the lower degrees do not realise the full extent of occultism in the Lodge. But Jesus Christ calls them out and we must pray that many will have the spiritual darkness over their eyes broken through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the Cross of Calvary.

why not expened this much energy on learning about Jesus and let the devil building go.

Of course I looked at your devil building and I don't see the devil there.  It is a pretty big building, and has a lot of nice features.

But is it not counter productive to build a religious building down under.  it would make more cents to build it in the middle east, say, somewhere like Isreal, for instance.  or even Iraq and maybe, but this is just a guess, Rome or Greece;  why not try Iran.

INMYOPINION
Early57

Matt 7:7-8

7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
KJV

Have you ever been to Stonehenge?  If it doesn't impress and inspire you, then you are really missing something.  Sure, it was built way before Christ was born by a people that had no information about the true and living God, who were doing their best to seek that God however they could.  If someone were trying to recreate their ceremonies in Canberra, that I would be worried about, but an architect using at as inspiration?

You might as well say that the building has right-angles - an obvious link to the Pythagorean religion and to Islam.  Oh, and the phone numbers begin with 0 - more links to Islam.   ::)


If you want to look for satan in our parliament, forget the building and look to the behaviour of a government that (acting on our behalf) stands by while a boat full of refugees sinks,  that locks up innocent children behind wire fences for years, that pays pacific islands to do our dirty work for us.

I think ultimately that Dawn's image of the beast will be in literal fashion, as Dawn is intimating, don't you, ebia?  

Certainly we all here in western culture are the descendents or benefactors of a long history of ancient orders, customs, symbolism, etc.

I'm seeing a convergence of different themes, one of which is the occult and  world religions, which is what Dawn's focus is.  So we'll see a merging, like of  homosexuality, with the occult.  Indeed, listening to talk shows this weekend, gay proponents are all over the lone defenders of traditional marriage like flies on a carcass--some of them are nearly hysterical with rage at Christians or even just pseudo-Christians who might think that marriage should be heterosexual only.  And the other now global trends--the geometric explosion of technology, and travel and global politics--the "World Court" deciding on Israel's business(in fulfillment of prophecy, I might add... ;))--who knows, will the ICC be indicting the US soon, for having our Border Patrol along the Rio Grande?   ANd, worldwide socialism.  And international finance.  And the U.S. courst, for instance, are increasingly taking their cues from European courts, etc.

So we see one grand convergance of differing themes gradually overlapping and agreeing with one another--basically, that "man" is the center of the universe.  I suppose then we'll presume to make war on God himself--at least that's the scenario seeming increasingly likely--renegade creatures once and for all doing away with that pesky little nuisance known as "our Creator".

So Dawn is just pointing out one or several of those trends and the possible symbolism of it... it seems to me...??

And I might add, on the "beauty" of the art, of like the Romans, and their architecture.  Yes, it is striking, what the Romans could accomplish.  But I think the bottom line, and I think this is true of most worldly govenments up really until just fairly recently, they were all built on slave labor--and many time, very cruel, unforgiving slave labor.  Any "greatness" ascribed to them, I think, has to be done so with great care; I don't think there really has been that much "nobility" or real beauty, down through the ages, actually, without being too cynical about it.

If you look hard enough, you can see monsters in every shadow.  

I think it's all generally true, though, ebia--don't you think?

True, it's not the ultimate point; Jesus Christ is the ultimate point, all revolving around Him, and His salvation for us...

No.

... and the way's He asks us to respond to him.

No.


I don't suppose you'd care to expound on that?


    ???

Step back a bit, and all these "signs" aren't significant at all.  They are either a figment of people's imaginations and/or are the kind of thing that is going on all the time.   You can sit down and find as many of these "signs" as you want in any time and place if you look for them as hard as you guys are looking.

Perhaps, ebia.


But how do I know it's just that maybe you don't want them to be true, or significant?


Hmmmmmmmm??

Indeed, when I do step back, they loom larger than ever--the general themes.

Look at the previous century, world-wide, the most violent this world has ever known, in recorded human history.  Two world wars...people killed in the millions--47 million under Stalin, some 53  million in WWII...

And the major events now taking place are global--an International Criminal Court--has the world ever seen that that--ever??

Technology, transportation, communications--all multiplying geometrically(not arithmetically)...

Politics and economies all now move in reference to the globe, not just a locale or region...

Everything today is "global"... (including anti-Semitism  ::))
 
That's not being "alarmest" or paranoid or speculative.  It's just true.


     ???
   

Whether or not I want them to be true doesn't affect their truth.   Believing something because we want it to be true isn't somehow better or worse than disbelieving it because we don't want ti to be true.


Technology has enabled us to create bigger single attrocities than were possible before, and far more people live now than ever lived before - I forget the figures, but something like more people have lived in the last 100 years that the previous rest of history put together.   So of course the attrocities can be worse.  Never the less, major attrocities have happened in the past - for instance I believe its true to say that more poeple died in the battle when Hanibal defeated the main Roman army than has ever died on a single battlefield in a single day before or since.  Wars have been going on in most of the world pretty much non-stop since before Christ was born.

Also note, that both world wars were nearly 60 years ago now.  

So everything is more global - what does that prove?

 Anti-semitism is certainly not at anything like the worst levels it has reached in the past - opposing the policies of the modern state of Israel is not anti-semitism.
 
And irrelevent.

  Dawn in post #7:
<< Finally take a look at the map of Canberra at the end of chapter 10 - where the major roads form the Masonic pyramid as depicted on the US Great Seal (reverse side).  >>

  It took me awhile to unjumble things from opposite sides of the world here...
  I assume you're talking about the same Masonic pyramid that people who believe in the Illuminati believe is on the U.S. dollar bill. It is actually the reverse side of the U.S. Great Seal.
   In reply: The pyramid is a symbol of strength and permanence and the eye is the Eye of Providence. The pyramid does not represent the pyramids of Egypt. On the contrary, it has thirteen layers because it represents the strength and permanence of the original thirteen states.
  In short, the claim that the eye on the pyramid of the U.S. Great Seal is the Masonic All Seeing Eye is a false claim.
  It seems that everything you are saying is based on the assumption that Freemasonry is evil, something that you have not demonstrated to be true.

 Dawn in post #10:
<< I might remind you that the Pantheon was built as a temple (rebuilt by Hadrian in the 2d century) to the pagan god's of Rome  >>

  The Parthenon was built to Athena, the Greek goddess of wisdom.
  The Parthenon was blown up by the Turks when they occupied Greece. Does that make the Moslems our allies?
   You may know that there is a replica of the Parthenon in Nashville, Tennessee, the home of country music.

Dale (posts 25 & 26),

Firstly the Parthenon is in Athens whilst the PANTHEON is in Rome.

The pyramid with the all-seeing eye is indeed a Masonic symbol (symbol used by the Grand Master of the Lodge) and can be clearly traced back to pagan ancient Egypt. It certainly does not have Christian origins. The all-seeing eye is actually the Ut Chut (also spelled Wedjat) Eye and is associated with Osiris and the god Horus (Ra Hoor Khuit). An ancient Egyptian coffin text even refers to it as the 'all-seeing eye of Horus'.

Regarding Freemasonry being evil - Freemasonry contains false doctrines contrary to biblical Christianity. See http://www.equip.org/free/DM166.htm for a concise article on the incompatibility of Freemasonry and Christianity.

I'm FOREVER getting those two confused--parthenon, pantheon.  


   *sigh*   :P

  Dawn in post #27:
<< The pyramid with the all-seeing eye is indeed a Masonic symbol (symbol used by the Grand Master of the Lodge) and can be clearly traced back to pagan ancient Egypt. >>

  Give me one reason to believe that this has anything to do with the U.S. Great Seal. Who do you believe is responsible for this Masonic influence? Can you name one believable historian who believes that the Great Seal is a Masonic artifact?

  I assume that you know that the library at the University of Virginia, designed by Thomas Jefferson, is a smaller version of Rome's Pantheon. What significance do you see in that?

The reverse side of the seal was officially rejected in 1883 by an official committee. A consultant to that committee was Professor Charles Elliot Norton of Harvard University. The reason cited by Professor Norton for rejecting the reserve side with its 'all seeing eye' and 'pyramid' was:

'it is greatly to be regretted that the device adopted by Congress in 1782 is of so elaborate and allegorical a character. As to the reverse...it can hardly (however artistically treated by the designer) look otherwise than as a dull emblem of a Masonic fraternity'.

The all-seeing eye represents the Egyptian gods Osirus and Horus - the Egyptian sun god. Freemasonry uses that ancient pagan symbol and high degree Freemasons are well aware of it's origins as Albert Pike noted 'The Blazing Star has been regarded as an emblem of Omniscience, or the All-Seeing Eye, which to the Egyptian initiates was the emblem of Osiris, the Creator' (Pike, Morals and Dogma'. p16-26).

So the fact is that the all-seeing eye is a pagan symbol (regardless of the Freemasonry aspect) used by the ancient religions. Many of the symbols and secrets of Freemasonry have descended from ancient Egypt whose mysteries descended from ancient Babylon.

You did not honestly think that the designers of the Great Seal just come up with the symbol by themselves, did you?

Regarding the University of Virginia and Pantheon - I see the New Roman Order imitating the Old Roman Order.

Did you read the article yet on the incompatibility of Freemasonry and Christianity?

  Dawn in reply #30:
<< The reverse side of the seal was officially rejected in 1883 by an official committee.    >>
  Then why is it on the dollar bill today? The Great Seal of the U.S. was adopted by the Continental Congress in 1782, not rejected in 1783. It sounds like you are quoting a member of the Anti-Masonic movement of the early American Republic. Their views are not representative and cannot be trusted.

  << The all-seeing eye represents the Egyptian gods Osirus and Horus - the Egyptian sun god. Freemasonry uses that ancient pagan symbol and high degree Freemasons are well aware of it's origins as Albert Pike noted 'The Blazing Star has been regarded as an emblem of Omniscience, or the All-Seeing Eye, which to the Egyptian initiates was the emblem of Osiris, the Creator' (Pike, Morals and Dogma'. p16-26).  >>

  Osiris in not a creator god in Egyptian mythology. Ra is the closest thing they had to a creator, and Ra is also the sun god. (Not that it's easy or safe to generalize about Egyptian mythology.)


  << Many of the symbols and secrets of Freemasonry have descended from ancient Egypt whose mysteries descended from ancient Babylon.  >>
  This cannot be true since Egypt is older than Babylon.
  According to the Encyclopedia Brittannica, 1946, organized Freemasonry was founded in London in 1717, although some of the fraternal clubs that joined this organization may go back to the 14th Century.

  << You did not honestly think that the designers of the Great Seal just come up with the symbol by themselves, did you?  >>
  The reverse side of the Great Seal was designed by William Barton, an expert in heraldry and numismatics.

  One of the reasons this concerns me is that the claim that there are pagan Masonic symbols on the U.S. Great Seal, and so on the dollar bill, is spread by those who want people to believe that the Federal Constitution of 1791 is somehow anti-religious. Oddly, many of those who have picked up this rumor are the same religious conservatives who keep telling us that the Founding Fathers were all devout Christians.
  This leads to complete confusion.

  It is true that Benjamin Franklin was a Mason. However, Franklin had little influence on our national symbols: he thought the bald eagle was a poor choice!

  << Did you read the article yet on the incompatibility of Freemasonry and Christianity?  >>

  No, and you haven't shown me much reason to think I should.

Dale in reply to posts 31, 32 and 33

Yes the final version of the design was approved and adopted by an act of Congress on June 20 1782. Within weeks dies were cast of the front of the Great Seal, but not the reverse side. A second engraving in 1841 was ordered by Secretary of State Daniel Webster. A third engraving was prepared in 1885 under Secretary of State F.T. Frelinghusen and cut by Tiffany & Co.  

A committee appointed by Secretary of State F.T. Frelinghuysen, consisting of Theodore F. Dwight (Chief of the Bureau of Rolls and Library of the State Department), Justin Winsor (historian), Charles Eliot Norton (Harvard Professor), William H. Whitmore, John Denison Chaplin, Jr. and James Horton Whitehouse (designer for Tiffany and Co. NYC), decided that a die for the reverse side of the seal would not be produced and used as an official seal. Norton called it a 'dull emblem of a Masonic fraternity'. So the reverse side was not rejected per se (being officially approved by Congress in 1782), the committe merely decided that a die would not be produced - at least not in 1885.

I hope that I have clarified the issue.

As for Osirus being called the 'creator' - you will have to take that up with Albert Pike whom I was quoting.

Regarding Egypt and Babylon. You are quite right in the sense that Babylonia (c.2000-1600 B.C.) was later than ancient Egypt (old kingdom 2705-2213 B.C.). However the foundation of BABYLON THE CITY was much earlier. From the Zondervan Encyclopedia Vol.1 p.444 Zondervan Publishing House 1976 'Genesis 10:10 ascribes the founding of Babylon to Nimrod and makes it contemporary with early Erech (Warka) and Accad (Agade)'. Babylon was also a city of the Sumerians (c3100-c2000 B.C.). Thus Babylon is one of the oldest cities of the world. Nimrod built the city Babel, later to be known as Babylon, in the plains of Shinar.

Regarding Freemasonry - its symbols, rituals and mysteries are heavily drawn upon from the ancient pagan religions of Egypt and Babylon. It's irrelevant when Freemasonry was founded. The origins of the symbols and their meanings are ancient and can be very easily verified with historical sources and artifacts.

In defending Freemasonry you are unfortunately calling evil good 'Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness...' Isaiah 5:20. I would suggest you take a look at that article regarding it's incompatibility with Christianity before continuing to strain at gnats.

Of course many Freemasons are not aware of the full extent of occult in the Lodge. So we must pray for God to lift the veil of spiritual blindness to call them out.

  Dawn in post #34:
<< As for Osirus being called the 'creator' - you will have to take that up with Albert Pike whom I was quoting.  >>

  I suggest that you look up Osiris in a reference book. Then look up Ra.

  Dawn:
<< The origins of the symbols and their meanings are ancient and can be very easily verified with historical sources and artifacts.  >>

  I've seen pictures of Egyptian buildings, inscriptions and artifacts from many sources. Every encycopedia has a few photos. I've recorded documentaries on Egypt, read books on the architecture, read translations of a few of the manuscripts.
  Now about the "All Seeing Eye" ... never heard of it, as an Egyptian idea. If you're claiming that the All Seeing Eye was part of the Egyptian belief that the Freemasons adopted, then show me one photo from Egypt with an "All Seeing Eye."
  I don't believe there is one.

The eye of Horus or all seeing eye was one of the most common amulets of ancient Egypt. As a starting point try the British Museum at http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk and do an object search for wedjat eye or eye of Horus etc to see Egyptian artifacts depicting the all-seeing eye. Try also a basic internet search.

This symbol represents the eye of the Egyptian god Horus. The Masonic all seeing eye, the Eye of Providence symbol on US dollar bill are all derived from the Eye of Horus.

I have sent a photo to your email of just two artifacts from the British Museum of the Faience Wedjat Eye amulet from the Third Intermediate Period 1068-661 BC and Faience pectoral c.1250 BC that depicts the all-seeing eye.

I had some free time so thought I would amuse myself with some of the conspiracy writings on the forum and ran across the above item which I just had to respond to.  I am just getting around to reading the entire thread, and would normally wait to catch completely up, but this is too good to pass by.

The Inquisitions ran from the mid 1200's to the mid 1500's  The Reformation started in the 1500's.  There was no persecution of Protestants during the Inquisitions because they didn't exist yet.

The Inquisitions were for prosecuting Catholics who had taken up heretical teachings and was handled on a local level.

How these crazy ideas like yours get started one will never know.

And why would Masons wish to draw inspiration from St. Peter's when Rome itself has repeatedly made pronouncements against Freemasonry?

In 1738, Clement XII declared any Catholics who join the Freemasons as excommunicated. The following is just a sampling of the documents speaking out against Freemasonry:

Clement XII, Const. "In Eminenti", 28 April, 1738;
Benedict XIV, "Providas", 18 May, 1751;
Pius VII, "Ecclesiam", 13 September, 1821;
Leo XII, "Quo graviora", 13 March, 1825;
Pius VIII, Encycl. "Traditi", 21 May, 1829;
Gregory XVI, "Mirari", 15 August, 1832;
Pius IX, Encycl. "Qui pluribus", 9 November, 1846;
Pius IX, Alloc. "Quibus quantisque malis", 20 April, 1849;
Pius IX, Encycl. "Quanta cura", 8 December, 1864;
Pius IX, Alloc. "Multiplices inter", 25 September, 1865;
Pius IX, Const. "Apostolicæ Sedis", 12 October, 1869;
Pius IX, Encycl. "Etsi multa", 21 November, 1873;
Leo XIII, Encycl. "Humanum genus", 20 April, 1884;
Leo XIII, "Præclara", 20 June, 1894;
Leo XIII, "Annum ingressi", 18 March, 1902 (against Italian Freemasonry);
Leo XIII, Encycl. "Etsí nos", 15 February, 1882;
Leo XIII, "Ab Apostolici", 15 October, 1890.


Additionally, I have a good friend at church who is a former Mason. He described himself as having been very high in the organization (30th rank or some such..) and conveyed that anti-Catholic bigotry is pervasive throughout the organization.

Dawn, would you care to enlighten us as to where you got your information from? It sounds like an interesting read, to say the least...

Yes you are right - the Roman Catholic Church has in the past denounced Freemasonry. Nonetheless there is compelling evidence that suggests that it is controlled by Freemasonry and from time to time this has surfaced - the P2 scandal is an example.

There may be anti-Catholic bigotry but the Masonic Lodge accepts brethren from all faiths and there are many Catholics who are Freemasons.

My research was done over 40 years using copious sources from a broad cross section of fields and found in libraries and archives. However, in order to tie everything together, the most important source has been the Scriptures.

I am always amazed at the boldness of revisionist historians.

The term 'Protestant' came into being in the aftermath of the Second Diet of Speyer (1529), to refer to those who objected to the Diet's intolerance towards evangelical attitudes within Germany. But the fundamental Christian beliefs and practices which became predominant in the sixteenth-century Reformation predated it.

It is quite clear that the Vaudois, Albigenses, Waldenses and other groups who endured the terror of the early Inquisitions were heretics to Rome but their beliefs were much like those of the Reformers i.e. they were the forerunners of the Protestants and this was acknowledged by the reformer Martin Luther.

You also seem to have forgotten the Catholic Counter-Reformation.

Pope Gregory IX (1227-41) declared it the duty of every Catholic to persecute heretics. A heretic was anyone who did not give allegiance to the Roman Catholic Church.

The Inquisitions (Roman, Medieval and Spainish) endured for centuries - the Spanish Inquisition had to be suppressed by Napoleon as late as 1809!. In his History of the Inquisition, Canon Llorente, who was Secretary to the Inquisition in Madrid from 1790-92 and who had access to the archives of all the tribunals, estimated that about 300,000 condemned were burnt at the stake - including Protestants, Jews and Moors.

The Medieval Inquisition was given permanent status by Pope Paul III in 1542, as the first of Rome's Sacred Congregations, the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Inquisition. Not one of the eighty Popes from the thirteenth century disapproved of the Inquisition. The persecution, torture and killing of 'heretics' has never been repudiated by the Roman Catholic Church.  

The greatest tragedy is that these martyrs have either been forgotten or worse yet, their faithfulness to Christ in the face of torture and death is subjected to revisionist amateur historians like yourself. The Inquisitions and the martyrs (including Protestants and like-minded groups) are not part of some conspiracy theory for your amusement. I find your statements not only historically erroneous and misleading but repugnant.  

It is not revisionist history to require you to use a term properly.  The term Protestant was never applied to any group prior to the Reformation.  So there were not Protestants persecuted by the Catholic Church during the Inquisitions.  That is just a ploy used by some to garner sympathy for their position and raise hatred and bigotry against Catholics.


So you admit your error.


Forerunners are not the same as actual Protestants otherwise Luther would simply have joined them as they were still in existance at the time.


I have not forgotten the Counter-Reformation but it's intent was again to clean up the Church from the inside.  It was not directed at Protestant but at Catholics, just as the Inquisition was.

As for your claim concerning some directive given by Pope Gregory IX, I will have to see the actual quote and a verifiable source since you have proven yourself so unreliable thus far to provide accurate historical accounts.


Yes 3 centuries approximately.  The mid 1200's to the mid 1500's


But the Pope had terminated it in the mid 1500's it was the local government authorities that continued it against Papal instruction.  It was later revived temporarily with the proviso that there was to be no torture or killing.


I would like to see a specific verificable reference to this text as its veracity is questionable.

We also have to remeber that those who were killed during the Inquisition were killed by the civil authorities for treason.  

The Catholic Church limited the treatment of the accused to torture which was not regarded as a mode of punishment, but purely as a means of eliciting the truth.

It was not of ecclesiastical origin, and was long prohibited in the ecclesiastical courts. Nor was it originally an important factor in the inquisitional procedure, being unauthorized until twenty years after the Inquisition had begun. It was first authorized by Innocent IV in his Bull "Ad exstirpanda" of 15 May, 1252, which was confirmed by Alexander IV on 30 November, 1259, and by Clement IV on 3 November, 1265. The limit placed upon torture was citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum -- i.e, it was not to cause the loss of life or limb or imperil life. Torture was to applied only once, and not then unless the accused were uncertain in his statements, and seemed already virtually convicted by manifold and weighty proofs.

How many victims were handed over to the civil power cannot be stated with even approximate accuracy.  It is a matter for historians to argue and choose which numbers best fit thier inherent biases as you have clearly done in your amatuer historical research.

We have nevertheless some valuable information about a few of the Inquisition tribunals, and their statistics are not without interest. At Pamiers, from 1318 to 1324, out of twenty-four persons convicted but five were delivered to the civil power, and at Toulouse from 1308 to 1323, only forty-two out of nine hundred and thirty bear the ominous note "relictus culiae saeculari". Thus, at Pamiers one in thirteen, and at Toulouse one in forty-two seem to have been burnt for heresy although these places were hotbeds of heresy and therefore principal centres of the Inquisition. We may add, also, that this was the most active period of the institution. These data and others of the same nature bear out the assertion that the Inquisition marks a substantial advance in the contemporary administration of justice, and therefore in the general civilization of mankind. A more terrible fate awaited the heretic when judged by a secular court. In 1249 Count Raylmund VII of Toulouse caused eighty confessed heretics to be burned in his presence without permitting them to recant. It is impossible to imagine any such trials before the Inquisition courts. The large numbers of burnings detailed in various histories are completely unauthenticated, and are either the deliberate invention of pamphleteers, or are based on materials that pertain to the Spanish Inquisition of later times or the German witchcraft trials (Vacandard, op. cit., 237 sqq.).


Again the reinstatement of Medieval Inquisition is directed at Catholics within the Church and its permanent status is in no way similar to the original Inquisitions as the civil authorities are being kept completely out of the process and again no torture being allowed.

The Church has denounced the acts of the Inquisition as extreme, even though they occurred in different times under different sensibilities than we hold today.  However they were no worse than the persecutions under the Protestants during the Reformation.

That such intolerance was not peculiar to Catholicism, but was the natural accompaniment of deep religious conviction in those, also, who abandoned the Church, is evident from the measures taken by some of the Reformers against those who differed from them in matters of belief. As the learned Dr. Schaff declares in his "History of the Christian Church" (vol. V, New York, 1907, p. 524),

"To the great humiliation of the Protestant churches, religious intolerance and even persecution unto death were continued long alter the Reformation. In Geneva the pernicious theory was put into practice by state and church, even to the use of torture and the admission of the testimony of children against their parents, and with the sanction of Calvin. Bullinger, in the second Helvetic Confession, announced the principle that heresy could be punished like murder or treason."

This does not make what the Catholic Church did right but it reflects that those were different times and that they were not alone in their errors.

Dawn,


Please provide more details.


Not so. As Clement XII stated very clearly in the constitution In Eminenti, Catholics are under penalty of excommunication ipso facto for simply joining or even promoting a masonic society.

But in the end, we still don't have a better understanding of why the freemasons would wish to draw inspiration from one of the most highly recognized symbols of Roman authority, i.e. St. Peter's, given Rome's consistent and public opposition to freemasonry.

Michael Legna

You have told me nothing new - Roman Catholic apologists deceitfully try to absolve their Church of any responsibility in the actual burnings of heretics, claiming that the Inquisition was the work of the state etc etc. And so it goes on.

Nonetheless it remains historical fact that the Roman Catholic Church has been one of the greatest persecutors of both Jews and bible-believing Christians. There remains no admission or apology for the atrocities committed and of course anyone who has the courage to confront Rome on the issue is called a bigot! Rome is faced with a choice - either her slaughter of Christians is something to be proud of or is something to be ashamed of.

The Church still has not changed has it? Still the same old arrogance and avoidance of responsibility whilst clinging to the doctrine of infallibility.

Indeed Rome is that city of seven hills 'drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus' Rev. 17:6. 'And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities' Rev. 18:4-5.

God has remembered her iniquities and you can be assured that there will be divine recompense for the death of His saints.

As a starting point have a look at the book In God's Name by David Yallop. The P2 scandal was well known in Italy at the time with all the major newspapers reporting on it.  

Regarding the building and it's inspiration - have a read of the online book for more info.

Ohhhhh... You're implying JPI was murdered by a clandestine masonic-loving Vatican organization, that JPII is a closet marxist, and that Rome helped Reagan get the Catholic vote in exchange for cash. All the while the CIA was protecting JPII from attempted murders courtesy of the Jesuits who were unhappy with his pontificate, and that P2, the CIA, the Illuminati, the Vatican and Freemasons are all part and parcel of the same grand cover-up/conspiracy.

Why not just say so?

The following article might shed some light on Mr. Yallop and his book:

http://www.crisismagazine.com/julaug2003/miesel.htm (http://www.crisismagazine.com/julaug2003/miesel.htm)

Something isn't an historical fact until it is supported by evidence and sources that have no vested interest in the outcome.  You will find that there are no main stream secular historians that hold to any of this garbage of yours.  

So you have shown me nothing new, just another Protestant claiming exaggerated numbers with no supporting evidence or independent sources to substantiate their prejudice.

Come back when you have reliable sources and verifiable references to support your claims.  Until then I am going to have to assume that your rantings are no different than demonstratably poor knowledge of history, as in your mistaken identification of Catholic heretics of the 1200's with Protestants of the 1500's.

Revisionists are already denying and undermining the extent of the Jewish Holocaust that occurred only fifty odd years ago so we should not be surprised at Catholic denials of the extent of the Inquisitions. But 'God hath remembered her inquities' (Rev.) and 'Woe unto to them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness' Isaiah 5:20.

For anyone interested in the Inquisitions I would suggest reading any reputable secular historian (Catholic Church sources are clearly bias) - no historian will deny that the Roman Catholic Popes sanctioned the Inquisitions causing the torture and death of countless saints.

There could be no dissent from Papal authority, books were banned, property confiscated and bible-believing saints put to death. Every citizen was required to be a Roman Catholic. Failure to give wholehearted allegiance to the Pope was considered punishable by death. Let us thank God for those Christians we stood against the suppression of basic human rights and the absolute authority of the Popes - ensuring freedom of religion and conscience and giving people access to the Scriptures.

Of course the Vatican can never give any apology or admission of guilt for such horrific crimes because of the doctrine of Papal infallibility.

For further reading of the Inquisitions and Reformation - for those interested:

Owen Chadwick, The Reformation, Harmondsworth 1964.
R.W. Thompson, The Papacy and the Civil Power, New York 1876.
E.G. Leonard, A History of Protestantism, 2 Volumns, London 1967.
Rev. John Foxe, M.A., Book of Martyrs; or, a History of the Lives, Sufferings and Triumphant Deaths, of the Primitive as well as Protestant Martyrs: from the Commencement of Christianity, to the Latest Periods of Pagan and Popish Persecution (Edwin Hunt, 1833).
W. Durant, The Story of Civilization, Simon & Schuster 1950.
Peter de Rosa, Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy, Crown Publishing Inc. 1988.
Jean Antonine Llorente, History of the Inqusition
A.G. Dickens, The English Reformation, London 1964.
A.G. Dickens, The Counter-Reformation, 2nd Edition, London 1989.
S. Ozmert, Protestants: the birth of a revolution, London 1993.

'And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus...And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth...And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth' (Rome) Rev 17.

'Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double...Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her' Rev 18:6 & 8.

I encourage you to keep writing Michael - you are doing a fine job of highlighting the absurdity of Catholic thinking on the Inqusitions. I like how you imply that the martyrs (1200s-1500) were merely 'Catholic' heretics - as if the Church has some God-given right to put to death any of it's own for dissent. What a joke and mockery of the truth.  

I am afraid not.

And, for the most part, replacing the Catholic chuch with protestant equivalent of the same - compulsory membership, no disent beyond specified boundaries allowed, putting to death of Catholics and members of differing protestant faiths.  And this is a great step forward how?  ???

Such like-minded Protestants are in danger of the same wrath of God as the Roman Catholic Church.

My greatest concern for modern Protestants is the forsaking of Biblical truth for the sake of unity. The ecumenical movement is building a new Babel - the joining of all churches and eventually all religions - under the influence of Rome and it's doctrinal abominations. The ecumenical movement and World Council of Churches (WCC) fails every biblical test which could be applied and is patently unscriptural. Anyone holding to and preaching the word in Spirit and in truth is labelled intolerant. The persecution of any dissent revisited.  

But were the same protestant churches you were praising a minute ago for throwing off the shackles of Rome.

It seems the test you wish to apply to the RCC is not the same test you are prepared to apply to the protestant churches.

Ebia,

yes they are the very same Protestant churches that I praised for throwing off the shackles of a corrupt Rome. But the test is no different and they are not spared from reproof and God's anger. Firstly let me just say that the only true church is made up of individuals who have accepted Jesus Christ as Saviour and who keep His word. Within every church building or denomination there are true members of this church. For nearly two thousand years these true Christians, who have kept God's Word, have been rejected and persecuted by the world (e.g. under the Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church).

The early Reformers restored biblical Christianity and the truth of the gospel but the Protestant churches have now fallen into apostasy as predicted by the Scriptures (II Thessalonians 2:3). They have become the lukewarm church of Laodicea in the last days (Revelation 3:13-22) and are returning to apostate Rome.  What are the characteristics of this church? - They are lukewarm, spiritually blind and worldly churches that have conformed to the ways of the world. It is marked by apostasy (II Timothy 3 and 4:1-4). The Lord says 'So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth' Rev. 3:16.

This new religious Babel of which the Pope has been at the forefront - (i.e. the ecumenical movement) is built upon a false unity and God calls His people out of it before He judges it 'Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues' Rev. 18:4.

Every generation has had to fight for the faith and stand for the truth of the gospel even in the face of relentless persecution. Our generation is no different.

But you reject the RCC because it persecuted those who disagreed with it, but not the protestant churches, who did exactly the same.

Dawn,

You are one person interpreting scripture as you see fit. The problem however is the same one that plagues so many others who interpret certain peoples or churches as apostate, BY WHAT AUTHORITY?.

I won't assume your answer, but the one most frequently claimed is the authority of scripture itself, but that is an assertion riddled with errors given the circular nature of the reasoning. The second most common claim is that of the Holy Spirit, but this too simply begs the question of credibility and how it is authenticated. The question of interpretive authority needs to be answered before any prerogative of 'knowing' what scripture is talking about can be given credence; otherwise, your case is no more tenable then the 30,000 other and distinct claims of scriptural interpretive authority.

First and foremost I reject the RCC because of its apostate doctrines and theology. Likewise I reject those Protestant churches that have now fallen into apostasy.

Regarding persecution - those Protestants that resorted to the same violence and brutality, as Calvin did, are equally accountable to God. It should also be noted that the scale of the Inquisitions was not even remotely comparable to any Protestant reprisals. Indeed the martyrs between 1200-1500 A.D. were preoccupied with Papal persecution.

The problem with the RCC is that unlike the Protestants they are unable to admit their sin i.e. the wickedness of the Inquisition - because if they do the doctrine of Papal infallibility will be demolished along with Papal authority. It's that simple.

And that's why Michael is kicking and screaming about the issue. Many Catholic doctrines either contradict the Scriptures or are not supported by the Scriptures. Thus the RCC relies upon tradition and Papal authority in order to support its unbiblical doctrines. Martin Luther questioned Papal authority because of contradictions with the Scriptures - including the selling of indulgences and purgatory.

Well the Pope is only 1 person interpreting Scripture as he sees fit. And by what authority? The Scriptures? questionable tradition of Apostolic succession?

The Reformers urged submission to God's pure Word as the ultimate authority rather than the Church or the Pope. The basic issue that sparked the Reformation was whether to continue in blind submission to Rome, even though its dogmas contradicted the Bible, or to submit to God's Word as the final authority.

Catholicism has the bold claim that it's members cannot understand the Bible for themselves but must accept without question the Church's interpretation. Thus God's Word, the one repository of truth and liberty is withheld from the laity. This leaves Catholics at the mercy of their clergy - a clergy that is all too readily corrupted as evidenced by Rome's appalling history.

The Roman Catholic Church and Popes have proven themselves to be incapable of handling God's Word. As Martin Luther discovered absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Dawn,

All fine and good regarding Catholicism and the Papacy as an ultimate authority, but then what is your alternative?

You quote scripture and tell us what it means, but do so without revealing the source of your authority in properly interpreting it.

You said...

Who and/or what then actually decided which scriptures were in fact 'pure' enough in properly relaying God's Word? And since nothing less than the fate of our very souls hangs in the singular act of properly interpreting it, how do you know you are in fact doing this? Doctrine, interpretation, belief, lifestyle and ultimately salvation itself are wrapped up in understanding it correctly. How do you know you are right, and they are wrong?

Where do you get this nonsense?  The Catholic Church does not teach that the laity cannot read and interpret the Bible for themselves. In fact they are encouraged to read it at least 15 minutes a day to gain and indulgence.  It is in the forward of most if not all Catholic Bibles under the heading of the Preces et Pia Opera from Pope Leo XIII.

It appears you have been sppon fed alot of bias and hatred and swallowed it willingly and without checking if it were true.  I know of no other way you could come to hold these false beliefs about the Catholic Church.

So why do you hold the church accountable on one side, and individuals on the other?

This particular nonsense comes from the Catholic Catechism and various Church councils.

Yes Catholics can now read the Bible as much as they want, as long as they don't question any doctrine taught by the Roman Catholic magisterium - regardless of any inconsistency with the Bible. The Roman magisterium refuses to be held accountable and to be examined in the light of God's Word.

The Roman Church has had a long history of withholding the Bible from the common people. One effective way was to give the Bible in Latin, an unknown tongue to the majority. For centuries it was a sin to possess and read the Bible in one's own native language. The Council of Toulouse (1229) forbade the laity to read the vernacular translations of the Bible. Various Bible translations was included in the Index of Forbidden Books (Index Librorum Prohibitorum), first published in 1559. Pope Pius IV instructed bishops to refuse permission to lay persons to read even Catholic versions of Scripture unless their confessors or parish priests judged that such reading was likely to prove beneficial.

It was Protestants like John Wycliff, William Tyndale and Martin Luther who first gave the Bible in the common language of the people, at the same time when the Roman authorities were busy burning every copy of the Bible they could lay their hands on. And why did William Tyndale have to be strangled and burnt at the stake? Tell us Michael.

Today many Catholics have their personal copy of the Bible at home and many are reading the Bible for themselves. But interpretation is not for the laity, rather they must accept the Church's interpretation without question. There can be no private interpretation.

'The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God...has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone...This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome" (Catechism, paragraph 85).

Corpus

Tell me - how does the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope produce an interpretation of the Scriptures?

If a church sanctioned violence - then it too is held accountable to God. Is the concept of accountability a difficult concept to understand Ebia? There is no immunity from it - no doubt this will come as a surprise to the Roman Catholic Church when the wrath of God falls on it.

Michael & Corpus and others

We have touched upon some contentious issues between Protestants and Catholics and I suspect we may just have to agree to disagree. I want to move forward to an important issue that will shortly confront all Christians - Catholics included. Everyone will be compelled to decide which of two authorities to heed; the churches/state or the Holy Scriptures.

In Revelation 13:16-18 is the prophecy of the Mark of the Beast 'And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name'.

This prophecy is being fulfilled today with microchip technology, notably the Verichip that is already being inserted into people for security and commercial uses. In time this will be made compulsory - perhaps as terrorism and war escalates. Any inserted microchip or mark is expressly forbidden by the Scriptures.

But the modern mainstream churches and the Pope will not condemn this coming compulsory mark (i.e. the inserted microchip or some form of a mark) and Christians will have to come to a decision affecting their very salvation - to obey God's Word OR obey apostate church authorities and government.

So I am forewarning you of this and the consequences of receiving that mark:

'If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand. The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God...And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night...whosoever receiveth the mark of his name' Rev. 14:9-11.

So I leave you with an encouragment to heed God's Word and His warning. Many will try to make excuses and wrest the Scriptures - even to their destruction. Have courage and faith in these perilous times (II Tim. 3) - do not take that mark.

You're still being inconsistant by holding the whole RCC accountable for the actions done in it's name in the past, but not the protestant churches collectively for the actions done by their founders.

  Michael_Legna in reply # 48:
<< So you have shown me nothing new, just another Protestant claiming exaggerated numbers with no supporting evidence or independent sources to substantiate their prejudice. >>


  How about the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, the massacre of the Huguenots, the French Protestants?  The feast day of St. Bartholomew is August 24 and the massacre happened in 1572.
  Encyclopedia Brittannica, 1946:
  "The initiative for the crime rests with Catherine de' Medici" who "persuaded the king [of France] that the massacre was a measure of public safety".
  "The massacre began on Sunday at daybreak, and continued in Paris until September 17. Once let loose, it was impossible to restrain the populace. From Paris the massacre spread to the provinces till October 3. The Duc de Longueville in Picardy, Chabot-Charny...at Dijon, the Comte de Matignon in Normanday and other provincial governors refused to authorize the massacres. Francois Hotman estimates the number killed in the whole of France at 50,000. Catherine de' Medici received the congratulations of all the Catholic powers, and Pope Gregory XIII commanded bonfires to be lighted and a medal to be struck."

  In other words, Protestants were killed because of their religion and not because of anything in particular that they were doing. The massacres took place over at least five weeks and killed about as many people as the Rwandan genocide. Further, the Pope approved of a religious massacre that happened over the objection of the provincial governors--the State authority!
  The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre may be why France is a maddeningly irreligious Catholic country today, instead of one with a substantial Protestant population.

  Ebia in reply #66:
<< You're still being inconsistant by holding the whole RCC accountable for the actions done in it's name in the past, but not the protestant churches collectively for the actions done by their founders.  >>

  Let's try a few examples. The Methodist Church was founded by John Wesley. The Baptist Church was founded by Roger Williams. The Quakers were founded by George Fox. The Moravian Church goes back to the teaching of Jan Hus, who was burned at the stake by a Catholic king sixty years before Martin Luther.
  Neither Jan Hus, George Fox,  John Wesley, nor Roger Williams ever persecuted anyone.

Not as far as I know, but there are innocent men in plenty in the history of the Catholic church too, including it's supposed founder who may have chopped off someone's ear but isn't generally believed to have killed anyone.

The question remains - if the RCC is to be held reponsible for all the people killed in it's name, then shouldn't the same be applied to the protestant churches including any calvanists, anglicans, methodists (just an anglican spin off), etc?

Since when does 50,000 equal 800,000?


The French are just generally maddening.

Dale

You are absolutely correct - regarding the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre as well. Sadly it seems it is no longer politically correct to talk about these martyrs or the severity of the Inquisitions.

Provide a source if this is so (which I know it is not).  You cannot simply spread lies and not expect to be called on them.


More nonsense.  The Church only holds that Catholic's must accept those items that have been declared dogma by Councils or Ex Cathedra statements of the Pope as those are protected from error by the Holy Spirit as promised with the same scriptures you hold to be inerrant.  You understanding of the Catholic position on this issue is seriously flawed.


A long version of history which you cannot support from an unbiased secular source.  It exists only in the minds of prejudice Protestants.


Do you know how ignorant that sounds? Do you realize that the Latin Bible is called the vulgate - because latin for common (as in the common people) is vulgate - where we get the word vulgar from.  The Bible was translated into Latin specifically so the common man would have access to it, not to keep it from him.

The view that Latin was unaccessible is a view that can only be held by English speaking people who have a prejudiced ethnocentric view of the world.  The Catholic Church had already translated the Bible into over 27 languages when the issue of an English translation finally came up.  But at the time the first flawed Protestant English versions were being translated, the English language was still in flux (anyone who has read an original copy of the Geneva Bible can confirm this).  England was a young country at the time and its culture and language was still in the developmental stages.

Additionally, there were few of the common man, at that time, who could read and write.  And the few who could read and write were well educated so they also could read and write in Latin and Greek; so there was no real urgency for an English translation.  Thus the Church waited about 100 years before commencing the Douay Rheims translation.  That is why there are some English versions that preceed the Catholic one (though not by much and they are no longer in use).


This is a not true.


Provide a quote and reference for this so we can see what the Council really said (if you can) because I am sure that is a misrepresentation of what they said.  You will see that this was a local Council and the ban was alocal one to counteract the heresy of the Albigensians.


These versions were placed there because of the commentaries placed in the borders which contained heretical teachings.


Again I challenge you to provide a quote and a verifiable reference so people can check out these prejudiced claims of yours.


No Wycliff and Tyndale were among the first to translate the scriptures into English, the fact that you consider this the langiuage of the people just reveals more of the prejudice you are becoming well known for.  As I have said earlier there were many other languages of the common people that the Bible had already been translated into by the Catholic Church.  Luther translated the Bible into German and the Catholic Church had produced a german translation long before Luthers and it included all of the books, they didn't remove the book of James and most or Revelation as Luther did.  And you wonder why the Catholic Church burned some Bible translations.


This does not say that the average Catholic cannot interpret scripture for themselves.  It says that if you find your interpretation to be contrary to that of the Church you must seek to understand the Church's teachings and accept them or leave the Church.  The same position you would be in at any Protestant Church.  If you do not share the doctrine of the Church you are de facto not a member of the Church.

The type of error you express in your interpretation that preceeds the quote from the Catechism is common among those who only have a cursory familiarity and understanding of the Catholic Church's teachings.  I suggest that before you go on spreading more misunderstandings you find out alot more about the Church from reputable sources.

Are you going to answer my question, or continue to evade it?

It simply is not Christ like to use disparaging terms to describe any people with whom we hope to share faith in Christ.

Jam 2:1  My brothers, do not practice your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ by showing partiality.

 Ebia in post #70:
<< Since when does 50,000 equal 800,000? >>

  I hadn't seen that figure for the Rwandan genocide. Nevertheless, you could pause to admit that 50,000 murders is far too many, especially when people are targeted for death because of their religion.
  I wouldn't take the notion that Peter founded the Catholic Church seriously. I would date the beginning of anything we can recognize as the Catholic Church from the first time the Bishops assembled to elect a Pope, a Bishop of Rome.
  As for Calvinists, I have clashed with them over persecutions carried out by John Calvin and John Knox.
  You say that Methodists are a mere spin off from the Anglicans. Yet the Methodists invented Sunday School, Bible study, and so had a lot to do with creating the modern Christian church, where we seek to understand God's word. In contrast, the medieval Catholic church was a mystery rite where the priests performed a magical rite in a foreign language.

I was having a go at the French in general, not specifically French Christians.   Squabbling with the French is part of being English, I'm afraid.

Anyway, I didn't say they are mad, I said they are maddening, which as a nation they most definitely are.

Well maybe you should do your research a bit better before you post then.  If you seek to make a comparision it behoves you to make sure you're not more than an order of magnitude out.

One death is far too many, but those were different times and both sides have blood on their hands.

You miss the point for the detail - whoever you take to be the founders, there is no reason to suppose they murderers any more than the handful of protestant founders you choose to name.    The point is that there are innocent men and guilty men in the histories of all the churches.  If you condemn the RCC because of those who have committed attrocities in it's name then consistency demands that you must do the same to protestant churches with attrocities in their pasts, including those who have spun off later because they have felt that the denomination that they have spun off from has started to take wrong direction.

To what end?  Do you condemn them because Calvin did what he did?  Do you expect them to put it right?  Would you never join a church if someone in the history of that church had made a mistake?


Again you miss the point.  Methodism has much to commend it, and I've a high regard for John Wesley and the church he brought about (and Charles and his hymns), but Wesley's intention wasn't to found a church but to change the Church of England and he remained a priest of the CofE until they would have no more to do with him.  Methodism owes much to the CofE and shares its previous history (mistakes included) just as the CofE and other first wave protestant churches took much from Rome and share in a measure of it's pre-reformation history.

This simply displays your prejudice.  Never the less, I'm not trying to argue that the RCC didn't (or doesn't) make mistakes.  It needed a kick in the right direction at the time of the reformation, just as the CofE did in Wesley's time, and Methodism has needed at points in its history. That doesn't prove that the RCC is not a Christian church or that Catholics are not Christian.  If it did, we all stand comdemned by the same measure.

Make up my mind ebia, french in general, or french nation, which is it?  Your not being specific makes it  sound so much nicer  ::)    Is "having a go at"  how christians define condescension now?  Regardless , I really don't care about your motives, whether mixed, good or bad, but your words do  show  callous indifference towards those on this forum who are French. You really should consider how such blase statements may make others feel, especially when the statement does`nt involve  the  person(s) who your conversing with.
Do feel free to call me maddening  ;)

Dawn,


By employing all of scripture and not select passages that fit certain doctrinal pre-requisites. Very simply, if one passage of scripture even seems to contradict another, then what one thought was a simple statement with a clear understanding might not be at all. Allowing that scripture cannot contradict itself, we are left with searching for an interpretation which satisfies both passages.

Allowing as well that much of scripture can be difficult to understand and seemingly contradictory at times, it naturally will cause problems, even division if people are left to their own devices to figure out just what this or that means, or how certain passages are reconciled. And in the end one must return to a truly honest assessment of whether we're properly interpreting it or not. It might feel right because we believe the Holy Spirit is guiding us, but without an agreed authority to provide guidance that doesn't in fact lend different interpretations to the same passage, how can one truly KNOW they've got it right? So we return full circle to the question of interpretive authority.

The problem is that the Pope's interpretative authority is untenable i.e. it lacks Scriptural support and is largely based upon a questionable tradition of Apostolic succession. Additionally many Roman Catholic doctrines and practices either contradict the Scriptures or are not supported by the Scriptures - and are only supported by Papal authority or tradition.

Dawn - I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.

Maybe you'd like to pick an accusation and examine it in detail to see whether it stands up instead of making vague accusations and changing the subject when challenged.

Sorry I thought you were asking Dale for an answer to something. You already had my answer - ANY CHURCH OR INDIVIDUAL IS ACCOUNTABLE TO GOD FOR ANY VIOLENT ACTS.

The Roman Catholic Church stands condemned on 3 points:

(1) The slaughter of Christian saints over centuries during the Inquisitions and Counter-Reformation - not even remotely comparable to any Protestant acts of violence.
(2) A failure to give any admission or apology for the atrocities committed.
(2) Roman Catholic doctrines and practices remain unbiblical - i.e. a false gospel of sacramental works and paganism.

Protestant individuals or churches that resorted to the same violence are equally accountable to God.

Michael

Your statements signify either wishful thinking by someone obsessively pro-Catholic or an abysmal ignorance of history (i.e. your assertions that no Protestants were killed by the Roman Catholic Church during the Inquisitions or Counter-Reformation, the martyrs between 1200-1500 were just ‘Catholic’ heretics – intent was to ‘clean up’ the Church from the inside (and of course killing anyone who wanted to get out!) and Latin was the common language of the ordinary people). In fact I doubt that I have ever encountered such gross misrepresentations and distortions of history. You are obviously leaning very heavily on Catholic sources and material but the inescapable fact remains that the RCC has killed Christian saints for centuries. Worse yet, in your anxiety to defend papal primacy and infallibility during the Inquisitions – you lack any sympathy for those saints (like John Huss) who died horrific deaths - with the sanction of the Popes – and I find that both appalling and troubling.

This will be my last response on this topic as I have had enough of these saints being disparaged – I strongly encourage people to read any reputable history of the Inquisitions and Reformation period for themselves to verify the Catholic Church’s culpability - rather than listening to Catholic revisionist history.

COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE - 1229 A.D.
The Council of Toulouse, which met in November of 1229, about the time of the crusade against the Albigensians, set up a special ecclesiastical tribunal, or court, known as the Inquisition, to search out and try heretics. Twenty of the forty-five articles decreed by the Council dealt with heretics and heresy. It ruled in part:

Canon 1. We appoint, therefore, that the archbishops and bishops shall swear in one priest, and two or three laymen of good report, or more if they think fit, in every parish, both in and out of cities, who shall diligently, faithfully, and frequently seek out the heretics in those parishes, by searching all houses and subterranean chambers which lie under suspicion. And looking out for appendages or outbuildings, in the roofs themselves, or any other kind of hiding places, all which we direct to be destroyed.

Canon 6. Directs that the house in which any heretic shall be found shall be destroyed.

Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.

Source: Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Edited with an introduction by Edward Peters, Scolar Press, London, copyright 1980 by Edward Peters  pp. 194-195, citing S. R. Maitland, Facts and Documents [illustrative of the history, doctrine and rites, of the ancient Albigenses & Waldenses], London, Rivington, 1832,  pp. 192-194.

Of course Michael deems these saints just 'Catholic' heretics worthy of Papal persecution - they don't count do they Michael?.

THE COUNCIL OF TARRAGONA - 1234 A.D.
The Council of Tarragona of 1234, in its second canon, ruled that:

"No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned lest, be he a cleric or a layman, he be suspected until he is cleared of all suspicion."
-D. Lortsch, Historie de la Bible en France, 1910, p.14.

As for the issue of interpretation – I suggest you read your own Catechism and Council edicts – as usual most Catholics are confused about their own Church’s teaching.

The Vulgate was in Latin – a language most laymen did not understand during the Inquisitions and Reformation. Alister McGrath – Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University is a leading authority on the history of Christian thought and history, especially in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. He says:

‘…the Latin language – the language of diplomacy, of the Church, and of scholarship – but not of ordinary people… there was not the slightest hint of an English version of the Bible being about to appear in print in the late fifteenth century…One of those who pressed most vigorously for an English version of the Bible in the fourteenth century was John Wycliffe (c. 1330-84)…As Wycliffe pointed out, the ecclesiastical establishment had a considerable vested interest in not allowing the laity access to the Bible’ McGrath A. In the Beginning, The Story of the King James Bible, Hodder & Stoughton London 2001 pp. 18-19.

And what happened to William Tyndale who did translate the NT into English? – The inquisitors condemned Tyndale as a heretic and he was strangled first by the hangman and then burnt at the stake in 1536. As for the reliability of the Latin Vulgate Bible version Professor McGrath says:

‘The Old Testament was written in Hebrew (apart from a few sections in Aramaic) and the New Testament in Greek. The most widely available text of the Bible was a Latin translation known as the Vulgate. The origins of the Vulgate lie in the translation work of some early Christian writers such as Jerome in the late fourth and early fifth centuries…Not everyone could read Latin, though, in any case, as Erasmus would make clear, there were some big problems with the accuracy of the Vulgate translation. In 1516, Erasmus declared that this traditional Latin translation of the Bible was awash with translation mistakes. Once Erasmus began his scholarly work in earnest, it did not take him long to expose problems with this widely used Latin translation. Convinced of the importance of studying the New Testament in its original Greek, Erasmus traveled to various libraries to take notes on the best Greek manuscripts of the original text. The outcome was devastating. The Latin text was shown to include seriously misleading errors in translation’.

One of the clear examples of a theological opinion that was firmly grounded in an untenable Latin translation was in Mt. 3:1-2 where ‘repent’ (an inward change of heart and mind) is rendered ‘penance’ in the Latin. The Vulgate version of the passage suggested that John’s words were firmly connected to the penitential system of the Church.

The Vulgate and subsequent Catholic versions rely on the corrupt minority text manuscripts i.e. Aleph (Sinaiticus) & B (Vaticanus). For further information see:

Burgon J. The Revision Revised, Dick Sleepers Distribution, org. 1883 reprinted 1997.
Burgon J. The Causes of Corruption of the Traditional Text, The Traditional Text and The Revision Revised.  
Hoskier H.C. Codex B and its Allies, Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2001
Hills E.F. The King James Bible Defended, Institute for Biblical and Textual Studies 1997
Riplinger G.A. New Age Bible Versions, AV Publications, Munroe Falls, Ohio, 1994.

Rome has slaughtered countless Christians and Jews. Beside those victims of the Inquisition, there were Huguenots, Albigenses, Waldenses and other Christians who were martyred, tortured and burned at the stake simply because they opposed apostate Rome and its corruption and heretical unbiblical doctrines and practices. No one calls the Roman Catholic Church to account today for the burning of saints for refusing to bow to papal authority. Nobody wants to hear any negative reminders of the martyrs slain by the Roman Catholic Church or the fact that Rome has a false gospel of sacramental works. Why? – because of the ecumenical movement.

Michael calls this prejudice – prejudice to call the Roman Catholic Church to account for centuries of atrocities? Prejudice to reprove false doctrines that are contrary to the Scriptures? I find it absolutely astonishing that the chief persecutor (RCC) of God’s saints is crying poor mouth!

Michael, you are on dangerous ground with the Lord in trying to justify wickedness - calling evil good. The death and torture of His saints is no light matter ‘Be not deceived; God is mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap’ Gal. 6:7. The Catholic Church has sown violence and death and it will reap God’s judgment. In Revelation John notices a woman is drunk – drunk with the ‘blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus (Rev.17:6). Her hands are not merely red with blood, but she is drunk with it. That great Whore of Revelation – the Roman Catholic Church – will not be able to hide behind political correctness and screams of prejudice when God dispenses His judgment and anger upon it and the Papacy – the office of the False Shepherd.

Rome’s doctrines collapse when closely examined against God’s word. Indeed that is what sparked the Reformation. Some of God’s people somehow got inside this apostate Church ‘even where Satan’s seat is’ Rev. 2:13. ‘My people’ says Jesus Christ ‘Come out of her’ Rev. 18:4.

‘I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?’ Rev. 6:10-11.

Maybe you should actually contribute something constructive other than useless diatribe with no supporting historical facts, Scriptures or sources. Instead you have to resort to unnecessarily insulting people including an entire race of people - the French - without cause.

Then all the churches stand condemned by their history; you write off the whole body of Christ.

Pointing out inconsistencies, lies and inaccuracies in others posts isn't diatriabe.  Do I need to provide supporting references that attrocities were committed by protestant churches - you're surely not denying it?

And the French are a nationality, not a race.

Ebia

I stand corrected - your unwelcome insults and diatribe was indeed directed at only a nationality and not an entire race.

Are Christians written off because of their sin? - Certainly not if they acknowledge that sin and repent - asking for forgiveness from our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The Roman Catholic Church refuses to admit any culpability for the Inquisitions - because it remains an apostate church characterized by false doctrines and an appalling history of killing saints in the name of God. And because she remains unrepentant - God will judge her 'For her sins have reached unto heaven' Rev. 18:5. Those returning to apostate Rome and those in it are told to come out, otherwise they too will be subject to God's wrath and retribution for the death of His saints.

As for diligently pointing out inconsistencies, lies and inaccuracies in other posts - you certainly have missed quite a few by Catholic apologists.

 

We're talking about churches, organisations, not individuals, and repentance and forgiveness is between God and the whoever is seeking forgiveness (and a priest if you're that way inclined), not a public act in sack cloth and ashes.

Perhaps you'd point me to where each protestant church has publicly confessed and repented of each and every one of the mistakes it is accused of.

Untrue:
On the contrary, the RCC is investigating what the truth of the situation really is (or rather was) before confessing something it didn't do:
The way the RCC works may seem slow, getting it right is more important than acting quickly.

There you go on one of your unsupported little rants again.


I don't entirely agree with Michael's perspective on the matter, but it's far more reasoned and reasonable than yours, and there is little I can definitely refute, unlike yours.  I don't claim to have responded to every inaccuracy in anyone's posts, let alone in everyone's.

I'm not sure maddening is an insult, let alone many insults, and one line can hardly constitute a diatribe.

Dawn,

You asked me a question which I answered, albeit it's one we will simply have to disagree upon. I still however would like to hear you answer my question from an earlier post...

Who and/or what then actually decided which scriptures were in fact 'pure' enough in properly relaying God's Word? And since nothing less than the fate of our very souls hangs in the singular act of properly interpreting it, how do you know you are in fact doing this? Doctrine, interpretation, belief, lifestyle and ultimately salvation itself are wrapped up in understanding it correctly. How do you know you are right, and they are wrong?  
 
 

Thanks Ebia for posting this - here we have the Roman Catholic Church still refusing to admit culpability until an 'investigation' is conducted - with a passing remark from Pope John Paul II that already lays the blame onto Catholic individuals - rather than accepting responsibility for official Church edicts - Rome has 'profound regret for the weaknesses of so many of her sons and daughters who sullied her face'. Does that include the Popes? Because if it does then the entire Church has been built upon the lie of Papal infallibility.

The Roman Catholic Church is investigating - does it seem to act slow? - indeed its only taken a couple of hundred years to conduct an 'investigation' and ask for forgiveness.  

'Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein...' Proverbs 26:27. And Rome just keeps on digging - with farce after farce!. In defense of Church dogma, Pope Urban VIII (1623-44) threatened an elderly Galileo with torture and death if he would not renounce his claim that the earth revolved around the sun. Declaring that this belief was contrary to Scripture, the Pope had Galileo in fear of his life and recanting of this 'heresy' before the Holy Office of the Inquisition. This view of the world remained official Catholic dogma for centuries, with infallible pope after infallible pope affirming it - the earth was at the centre of the universe and the sun revolved around it.

The Roman Catholic Church - the world's largest Flat Earth Society!!

It was not until 1992 that the Vatican, after a 14 month 'investigation', finally admitted that Galileo had indeed been right! That admission was an acknowledgment that the many popes were indeed fallible being capable of making false interpretations of Scripture.

No wonder Vatican II limits its endorsement of biblical inerrancy to matters of faith and morals. The magisterium and Pope, who claim to be infallible and the only authentic interpretator of Scripture - is obviously far from infallible.

Now here we go again! - the Vatican is finally conducting another 'investigation' hundreds of years after the fact - to 'discover' something that the rest of the world and academia have known for hundreds of years - the Inquisitions and the slaughter of saints sanctioned by the Roman Church.

But 'The Church's Magisterium certainly cannot perform an ethical act, such as asking for forgiveness, without first being accurately informed about the situation at the time'

The wolf is conducting an investigation into why the flock has been butchered!!! Honestly you have to be either completely gullible or confused to keep believing Rome.

Indeed the Roman Catholic Church should know all about the situation.

Corpus - I think there may be many points that we may have to just disagree on!

If you are genuinely interested in my perspective then I would be happy to converse on the issue and the above question - but I am getting tired of the fruitless point scoring that has been going on.

Perhaps the question of interpretation and canoicity should be started as a new thread under another category - instead of End Time/prophecy?

Do you want the short answer? Essentially your question is how these books came to be collected and how they came to be regarded as 'pure' and of equal authority with the OT.

Both Roman and Protestant creeds have God for the author of the OT and NT. The Roman Church holds apparently that church decision or pronouncement is the criterion of inspiration and canonicity.

From the Zondervan Encyclopedia, Zondervan Publishing House Grand Rapids Michigan 1976 Vol. 1 pp. 556-562 '...the apostolic epistles would be publicly read to provide an answer to the many problems which would constantly arise. This importance attached to apostolic witnesses is significant in the whole history of NT canonicity and maybe regarded as its real key. The basis for the NT canon was the testimony of the gospels and of the apostles. These were the authorities for the teaching of Christ and His immediate authorized representatives. The definitions of the qualifications required of a claimant for apostolic office (Acts 1:21-22) is of great importance in studying the history of the NT canon...the apostles had to be in a position to authenticate the tradition of the words and deeds of Jesus. This explains why so much emphasis was placed, not only in the earliest period but also later, on the apostolic origin of the various books'

'By the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian, the Christian churches generally were not only staunchly maintaining the OT as Scripture, but were also placing most of the NT books on an equal footing with it...The second important feature of this period is the lack of any official pronouncement on the part of the orthodox churches regarding the NT canon, in spite of Marcion's list (the heretical Marcion). This is sufficient to show that the contents of the NT were the result, not of ecclesiastical selection, but of established usuage. The churches needed no official exhortation to regard these NT books on par with the OT. They did so instinctively as part of their understanding of the continuity of Christianity with the OT predictions'.

'Not until the middle of the 4th century was it considered necessary for any general pronouncements on the subject of the canon to be made at church councils. It did not happen, in fact, until nearly three centuries of church usuage had virtually fixed the canon. In spite of the variety of churches, subjected as they were to different influences and each exercising independent judgment...the area of common agreement was remarkable' p.740.

Later the matter of the inclusion of the minor Catholic epistles and the Apocalypse was settled - by the time of the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 363) and Carthage (A.D. 397).

The canon of Scripture is witnessed by the testimony of the Spirit, apostolic authorship and usuage by the early Christians and churches. Specific evidence for the NT canon includes patristic allusions and citations from NT books and comments. Interestingly the OT canon is verified by quotes in the NT from the Apostles and Jesus Christ.  

Interpretation issue - Spirit-filled Christians are able to interpret the Word of God because the Scriptures have been inspired by the same Spirit. The Holy Spirit acts as the interpreter of God's Word - the supreme and infallible authority for the Christian.

Why so many interpretations/doctrines you may ask? There are a number of reasons - including Christians walking carnally (I Corinthians 3:1-3 and Galatians 5:14-20 'Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh...Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these...heresies') and deceivers in the Church ('That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive' Ephesians 4:14).  

It might well do.

Papal infallibility does not imply that everything the pope does is infalliable. This has been pointed out repeatedly.  Only statements made ex-cathedra are infallible, and they are extraordinarly few and far between (and pretty much impossible to identify without an indepth knowledge of the workings of the higher eschelons of the RCC).   So, unless one of the Popes made an ex-cathedra statement saying "Go out and murder those heretic scum", or words to that effect, it's not an issue.


There's no time limit on forgiveness.  They have asked forgiveness for what they can be certain was done wrong, and are investigating to find out the rest.  Seems a pretty sound way to proceed to me from a church that believes in confessing specific sins not just making a general, bland, confession and walking away.

And the RCC has coughed up to that one.
Never the less, parallels between that and how modern, fundamentalist evangelicals treat the proponents of evolution and other sciences do spring to mind.

Maybe you could provide references for post-Gallileo statements, so we can see just how long the RCC did officially cling to the pre-Copernican view of the solar system.


That's when they admitted that Galileo was right and they were wrong - ie they had been wrong to treat him the way they did.  The church had come around to Copernican view of the solar system long before.


You're attacking a straw man again.  Not everything the Pope says is infallible, and the church has never said that it is.



Hang on, it's not about ethics - this isn't about apologising to anyone or making reparations - they are all long since dead.  It's about asking forgiveness from God, and there's no time limit on that.  God's timescale isn't yours.

'And the RCC has coughed up to that one' - that Galileo was indeed right - the world is round after all!!!. Oh - sorry they realized the world was in fact round earlier than 1992 - but it only took a few hundred years until 'they admitted that Galileo was right and they were wrong - ie they had been wrong to treat him the way they did'.

Papal and Church infallibility - yes there's not much left of it, its a dinosaur. The Church has tied itself into so many knots over infallibility that any Catholic must have 'an indepth knowledge of the workings of the higher eschelons of the RCC' - merely to identify it!.  

And there is a time limit on forgiveness - or haven't you heard of the Second Coming and Judgment Day. Maybe you should read the Scriptures instead of reading statements from the False Prophet - the Pope.

'Maybe you could provide references for post-Gallileo statements' You really want me to?

I can appreciate that you are doing your best to defend the indefensible but your comments are making even me cringe.

'They are all long since dead' - No kidding - slaughtered by Rome that has only now begun an investigation into her own butchery!. Too late for past Popes and the inquisitors - they are awaiting Judgment and eternal damnation for the death of God's saints.

I had said in an earlier post that that would be my last response on the topic of the Inquisitions as I have had enough of God's saints being disparaged by Catholic revisionist history. Invariably the discussion has continued somewhat and descended into point scoring. I have posted copious sources for those who want to look further into these important matters and that should suffice. I am available for contact via my email - or just go to www.martyrsofrevelation.com and click on 'Contact us'.

Roman Catholics need to return to the simplicity of the gospel of Jesus Christ (II Corinithians 11:1-4, 12-15) and the authority and truth of His Word, carefully examining Church doctrine and tradition against it.

I have used sharpness for edification and reproof and not for the destruction of any fellow brethren. We are in the end times and I again warn Christians of the impending Mark (Rev. 13:16-17) and the consequences of receiving it (Rev. 14:9-12).

God bless.

Did you have a point here?  If you did' it's got lost in your editing.


The church never said that everything the Pope did was infallible.


And?  I know you would like the concept to be simple, so you can attack it more readily, but it isn't and never has been.

Point taken, but it doesn't matter whether repentance is tomorrow or one second before Judgement, the effect is the same.
 

Yes - significantly after, say from about 1700.


Awww.  :'(


And.  Those individuals responsible for outrages will be judged by someone who know exactly who did what, and who repents what.  If you think that Pope John Paul I, say, will be held responsible by God for what his predecessors did or didn't do, then you have a very narrow view of the love of God.

If you want to defend your misinformation here, that's your choice.  If you want to run away when challenged, that's your choice too.  You certainly haven't posted sources for everything you've been asked for.

Regarding Galileo’s case and how successive Popes were (and still are) bound to assert that the sun and stars actually revolve around the earth i.e. the geocentric view that remained ‘official’ Catholic dogma for centuries.

From THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH (1888 edition), LECTURES DELIVERED IN THE DIVINITY SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN BY GEORGE SALMON, D.D. SOMETIME PROVOST OF TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN AND REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN.

Quote ‘…Sixtus V. appointed fifteen Congregations of Cardinals, assigning to each its proper function, but with the limitation 'that they refer to us all the more important and difficult matters under consideration.' It is now customary that the secretary of the Congregation should certify when a matter has been thus referred to the Pope; but clearly the only important question is whether the matter has been thus referred, and not whether the secretary has certified it. Such a certificate was certainly not necessary in the case of the Holy Office, the highest of all the Congregations, having jurisdiction over every member of the Church of whatever rank. On account of its supreme importance, the Pope was wont to be its president, and the votes to be taken in his presence; so that no important decree could go forth without having been first submitted to the Pope. The Pope indisputably did thus take part in the decision in Galileo's case.

  Assuredly Galileo and the Copernicans of his day were not allowed to suppose that to persist in their heresy would be to resist anything short of infallible wisdom. They were pressed with the words of the Bull of Sixtus V., by which the Congregation of the Index was remodelled: 'They are to examine and expose the books which are repugnant to the Catholic doctrines and Christian discipline, and after reporting them to us, they are to condemn them by our authority.' What was done by the Inquisition in Galileo's case was not a mere verdict on a matter of fact on which the judges might pardonably go wrong, but it was the decision by the Pope's authority on a question of doctrine. Pope Urban made that decision his own by directing (in 1633) that in order that these things might be known to all, copies of the sentence on Galileo were to be transmitted to all Apostolic Nuncios, and all Inquisitors of heretical pravity, especially the Florentine Inquisitors. These were to summon the professors of mathematics and to read the sentence for their instruction.  This sentence refers to the interference of the Congregation of the Index as made 'to the end that so pernicious a doctrine' as the Copernican 'might be altogether taken away and spread no further to the heavy detriment of Catholic truth.'  It states that the Congregation was held in the Pope's presence in which Galileo was ordered to give up this false opinion. It relates that Galileo had been formally made acquainted with 'the declaration made by our Lord the Pope, and promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of the Index,' the tenor whereof is that the doctrine of the motion of the earth and the fixity of the sun is contrary to the sacred Scriptures, and therefore can neither be defended or held.  It may be added that the desired Papal confirmation in express terms was given by a later Pope, Alexander VII., in 1664, who republished and confirmed the previous decrees with the words, 'Cum omnibus et singulis in eo contentis, auctoritate Apostolica  tenore  presentium  confirmamus et  approbamus.'  I really recommend, therefore, Roman apologists to consider again whether it may not be possible to maintain that the sun actually does go round the earth, this being in my judgment quite as hopeful a line of defence as to deny that successive Popes officially asserted that it does.

  To conclude, then, the history of Galileo makes short work of the question:  Is it possible for the Church of Rome to err in her interpretation of Scripture, or to mistake in what she teaches to be an essential part of the Christian faith?  She can err, for she has erred.  She has made many errors more dangerous to the souls of men, but never committed any blunder more calculated to throw contempt on her pretensions in the minds of all thinking men, than when she persisted for about two hundred years in teaching that it was the doctrine of the Bible, and therefore an essential part of the Catholic faith, that the earth stands still, and that the sun and planets revolve daily around it'. Unquote

For an article on infallibility http://www.equip.org/free/DC170-4.htm

Very nice, but it doesn't support the claim that I was asking you to support, which is that the RCC maintained a non-Copernican view for centuries after Galileo : .

So now we've moved on to attacking church infallibility instead of Papal infalibility?  Employing the same tactic of simplifying the concept first and attacking the simplified form, of course.

What I had said - was that successive 'infallible' popes affirmed it and that the Church held it to be dogma - for over 2 centuries. The issue was not how long after Galileo the RCC officially maintained that the earth was flat. You merely jumped to that - realizing your untenable position of defending successive Popes who had affirmed it.  

Firstly the above is a part of the quote from Professor George Salmon. The end quotation mark was missed during copying and pasting - I will correct that.

Underlying Church infallibility is Papal primacy and infallibility based upon the tradition of Apostolic succession.

No it's not.  The concept of Church infallibility is centuries older than the concept of papal infallibility, and is still held to in the Orthodox chuches (which have never accepted papal infallibility).

If anything papal infallibility rests on church infallibilty, not the other way around.

Are you deliberately keeping your statements ambiguous so you can imply one thing, but deny that's what you meant if challenged to back it up?

LOL.  We're not talking about a flat earth, but what revolves around what.


How many Popes did or didn't affirm it before Copernicus is irrelevent - it was the general world view.  As long as none of them did so ex-cathedra, it presents no problem to the concept of papal infalibility.  Neither do one's after, but clearly the church would look pretty silly if it were still claiming the non-Copernican view in 1960 (say).

You can find as many instances as you like of popes saying something wrong, it won't disprove the concept of papal infallibility unless you can find one that is ex-cathedra.

I suggest you read the link I provided http://www.equip.org/free/DC170-4.htm regarding biblical, historical and theological problems with infallibility. Regarding Galileo and ex-cathedra it says:

'Galileo and his opponents would be nonplussed to discover that the serious charges leveled against him were not "ex cathedra" in force. And in view of the strong nature of both the condemnation and the punishment, he would certainly be surprised to hear Catholic apologists claim that he was not really being condemned for false teaching but only that "his 'proof' did not impress even astronomers of that day — nor would they impress astronomers today'!

At any rate, the pope's condemnation of Galileo only leads to undermine the alleged infallibility of the Catholic church. Of course, Catholic apologists can always resort to their apologetic warehouse — the claim that the pope was not really speaking infallibly on that occasion. As we have already observed, however, constant appeal to this nonverifiable distinction only tends to undermine the very infallibility it purports to defend.'

So what?  Whether or not he or his opponents thought the statements were ex-cathedra doesn't demonstrate that they were.

Again, irrelevant.  You've got to prove that the statements fulfilled the requirements of papal infalibilty to make a case against it based on Galileo, and neither you nor the website you link to does that.

The difficulty of determining what is and isn't infallible may limit the usefulness of the concept, but it doesn't disprove it.

I don't actually buy the RCC's understanding of papal and church infallibility - if I did I would clearly have to join the RCC - but your claimed proofs that it is rubbish simply don't stack up because they are based on repeatedly attacking a simplified understanding of the concepts that does not accurately reflect RCC teaching.

(The Orthodox understanding of church infallibility, as in so many other areas, is considerably more subtle and to my mind believable.)

The reason the concept has become so convoluted and vague is because the Roman Catholic Church has repeatedly been forced to come up with creative solutions and after-the-fact modifying. Rome has no credibility on the issue and the doctrine is untenable. Obviously you are unable to grasp how the doctrine is flawed - biblically, theologically and historically.

Astonishingly, you do not actually buy the RCC's understanding of papal and church infallibility nor are you a Roman Catholic. Yet you have expended all this effort in defending it - a false doctrine - and potentially misleading others. Let that be accounted to you.

You need to humbly submit yourself to God as the Spirit of truth does not rest with you - lacking spiritual discernment and understanding. Such has been spoken of by the Prophet Isaiah:

'And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed...' Mt. 13:14-15.

You have argued for the sake of arguing and to undermine and have wasted my time. Not only wasted my time but potentially misled people with foolishness - acting as the devil's mouthpiece. You will not get one more response from me.

'For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers' Titus 1:10 and by striving against the truth and God's Word you have forsaken the right way and gone astray.

If your argument revolves around that, then:
a. its up to you to prove this accusation, since it is fundamental to your whole argument.
b. you should reasonably have started there, instead of attacking the simplistic notion.  


I'm not interested in defending the concept as true, but in defending it as being a reasonable position to hold, and in demonstrating that your attacks on it and the RCC in general don't hold water.

Always the line the protestant fundamentalist pulls out when they are loosing an argument.


Untrue.


to undermine lies and flawed logic.  Christ needs neither used on his side.

only you can do that.


We'll wait and see on that one.

What Ebia did was not defend the concept but refute your poor understanding of it and show how that led to weak arguments.  

There is nothing wrong it deflecting an untrue statement, even one aimed at a concept you yourself do not hold.  It would be as if you were claiming that the world were flat and were trying to prove it by saying that pigs can fly, anyone (even those who did not believe that the world was flat) would be fully within their rights and in my opinion actually duty bound to refute bad arguments or arguments based on incorrect claims of fact as yours have been.

Doesn't Revelation say that people will worship to the image of the beast and he (the 2nd beast) will give breath to it so it can speak and cause all who refuse to worship it to be killed?   I hardly see how a building, no matter what the occult symbolism can be the image spoken of by John.  There is no question that the enemy loves pageantry and symbols that glorify him, but do not confuse that with the truth about what the image of the beast will be.  Masonry and it's symbolism have meaning, but it is most pernicious in its proclaimed doctrine and it contains the ultimate lie that Jesus Christ is not who he says he is.. Savior, God the Son Internal, Creator of All things in heaven and earth.

Kraken

Eventually a law will be made making it mandatory to receive the Mark. Reading Revelation (notably Rev. 13:14-18) the beast nation (led by the Antichrist) and False Prophet sanction the building of an Image that will invariably be given life (i.e. given delegated authority) to speak (i.e. to proclaim the mandatory decree that all must receive that mark). Canberra Australia has been designed by the Freemason 'Priesthood' as an Image to the beast nation (from where the Antichrist will arise). Canberra is the reflection of Washington D.C. see www.martyrsofrevelation.com/map.htm and chapters 9, 10 & 11 of the online book. The New Parliament House Building has been designed as a temple and Image but has a legislative function with a future role to play in giving out the mandatory decree of Rev. 13. Both the beast nation and image are worshipped - worship here being to adore or admire deeply.  

Obviously we have to wait for this prophecy to be fulfilled completely - my job is to inform you and then you have to wait for it to come to pass.

There's a wonderful irony in someone thinking that Canberra might actually be significant.

Do you live in the ACT, or in Quenbeyan?

Dawn,

I don't worry about overt symbols in architecture or on flags like the swastika as these things crumble and decay.  I am concerned much more with the deeply entrenched spiritual aspect of Freemasonry's influence in this world.  Even so, like the swastika, there are many symbols of Freemasonry's utter failure to unite the world over the centuries still in existence.  It is historically a failed effort as the spirit of antichrist has been continually thwarted by God through His people.

I have studied freemasonry and I am certainly no fan as it has given rise to a number of occult belief systems, while like a camelian it stays aloof from it.  Meanwhile it appears on the surface that its direct influence over the religious, political and cultural opinions of the world are diminishing.  But do not easily dismiss it.  The reality is it has given birth to several chilrdren these last few decades.  Its most esoteric teachings are certainly Luciferian as it has given rise over the years to the opinions that supported slavery, the KKK, Nazism, witchcraft, Satanism, Mormonism, one worldism, and a slew of other New Age beliefs and its offsrping.  Viritually every fraternity is in reality masonic in its origin.  Writings from various Masonic authorities reads like a who's who of antichristical beliefs.  

Nonetheless they claim they are the true religion but their efforts over the years coalesce around every heretical opinion while excluding the truth of Jesus Christ.  Careful not to offend these opinions are not widely known, but the unpsoken and ultimate goal is a one world system and government that unites every religion into one. This was broadcast centuries ago and since then Masonry has gone underground and emerged through numerous metamorphisis in order to hide its true identity.  Their esoteric beliefs have splintered into a thousand different directions in just the last 150 years and it is true that most modern occult beliefs in this world can trace their roots to something or someone directly involved with esoteric Masonry. Its earlier roots pre-date the Church but were manifest in the ancient heresies and schisms of the early Church, including Gnosticism, a Christian derivative of Jewish Kabalaism or mysticism, that ultimately gave rise to the Christological council debates.  In a way these councils served a divine purpose to solidify the Church's theological position and sound doctrine concerning who Jesus Christ is, the nature of God, the Holy Spirit, the scriptural cannon and so forth.   God actually used these early challenges and tribulations to strengthen the Church.

Likewise, we should have heart.  The spiritual battle against Masonry over the centuries is one of defeat for them and victorious opposition by the Saints of God.   Virtually every effort throughout history to take over the world and unite it into a one world order has met with miserable failure and frustration on the part of the enemy.  The tower of Babyl is a perfect example which Masonry expounds upon in regret of its failure.  However, there will come a day according to God's timing when this will be allowed to happen.  I am just not ready to commit to Canberra on this final point as being the ultimate seat of this power.  Perhaps it will be just anothered failed scheme until God's timing is right.

Kraken

Kraken

I absolutely agree with your assessment of Freemasonry - very sharp.

Regarding Canberra as the ultimate seat of power - I tend to see it fulfilling a role in a triumvirate of power. Washington D.C. the military, political and economic power (seat of Antichrist), Rome the spiritual power (seat of the False Prophet and gathering one world church) and Canberra the Image of the Beast. Together they form the inverted triangle and complete the New World Order plan.

So they are determinedly building a new Babel in these end times - and it will be met with failure again - this time when Jesus Christ returns.

God bless
 

  Dawn in Reply #36 on March 12:
<< This symbol represents the eye of the Egyptian god Horus. The Masonic all seeing eye, the Eye of Providence symbol on US dollar bill are all derived from the Eye of Horus.

I have sent a photo to your email of just two artifacts from the British Museum of the Faience Wedjat Eye amulet from the Third Intermediate Period 1068-661 BC and Faience pectoral c.1250 BC that depicts the all-seeing eye.  >>


  I was off of this Board (and all other boards) for several weeks after you sent me the pictures of the Egyptian eye of Horus.
  I will have to say that I don't believe that either of these pictures looks anything like the eye or eye and pyramid on the US Great Seal. Both of these Egyptian pictures shows an eye with wings. I don't see how this connects with either the Masonic All Seeing Eye or the eye on the US Great Seal.
  It looks to me like the whole idea is just another rumor, just another conspiracy theory.

The all seeing eye on the reverse side of the Great Seal is derived from the Eye of Horus - Egypt. Furthermore the Masonic eye is the same as the eye depicted on the US Great Seal - i.e. the all seeing eye within the capstone - the emblem of the Grandmaster of the Masonic Lodge.

http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/symbols/bldefeyeofhorus.htm?terms=All+seeing+eye

An aerial view of Capital Hill Canberra can be found at http://www.martyrsofrevelation.com/aerialview.htm that shows the Masonic design of the city - particularly the Parliamentary Triangle with the all-seeing eye.

Sad news -

Australian PM wins fourth term
BBC News
Saturday 9 October 2004

Mr Howard has won a fourth consecutive term in office. Australia's Prime Minister John Howard has claimed victory in the federal election, shortly after his Labor rival Mark Latham conceded defeat. With 70% of the votes counted, results indicate Mr Howard's Liberal-National coalition has won an easy majority.

Australia's 13m voters had a choice between Mr Howard, a staunch supporter of the Iraq war, and the younger Mr Latham, who opposed the intervention.

Their endorsement of Mr Howard is a relief for others who backed the war.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3729184.stm