Construction of Image of the Beast in Australia

[Dale]

 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.

[ebia]

The French are just generally maddening.

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.

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.

[ebia]

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

  I hadn't seen that figure for the Rwandan genocide.

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.

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.

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

 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.

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.

As for Calvinists, I have clashed with them over persecutions carried out by John Calvin and John Knox.

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?

 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.

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.

In contrast, the medieval Catholic church was a mystery rite where the priests performed a magical rite in a foreign language.

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.

[Shylynne]

The French are just generally maddening.

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.

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.

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  

[Corpus]

Dawn,

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

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.

[Dawn]

Dawn,

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

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.

[ebia]

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

[ebia]

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.

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.

[Dawn]

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

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.

[Dawn]

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.

[Dawn]

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.

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.

[ebia]

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

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.

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

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.

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.

[Dawn]

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.

 

[ebia]

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.

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.

The Roman Catholic Church refuses to admit any culpability for the Inquisitions -

Untrue:

Yet the consideration of mitigating factors does not exonerate the Church from the obligation to express profound regret for the weaknesses of so many of her sons and daughters who sullied her face, preventing her from fully mirroring the image of her crucified Lord, the supreme witness of patient love and of humble meekness. From these painful moments of the past a lesson can be drawn for the future, leading all Christians to adhere fully to the sublime principle stated by the Council: “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with both gentleness and power.”  (John Paul II)

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 question, which involves the cultural context and political ideas of the time, is precisely theological in origin and presupposes an outlook of faith regarding the essence of the Church 'and the Gospel requirements that govern her life. 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. Nor can it be based on the images of the past spread by public opinion, since they are often charged with an intense emotionalism that prevents calm, objective analysis. If the Magisterium does not bear this in mind, it would fail in its fundamental duty of respecting the truth. That is why the first step is to question historians, who are not asked to make an ethical judgement, which would exceed their sphere of competence, but to help in the most precise reconstruction possible of the events, customs and mentality of the time, in the light of the era's historical context. (Pope John Paul II, 2000)

The way the RCC works may seem slow, getting it right is more important than acting quickly.

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.

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

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

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

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

[Corpus]

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?