Construction of Image of the Beast in Australia

[michael_legna]

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.

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.

[ebia]

Regarding persecution - those Protestants that resorted to the same violence and brutality, as Calvin did, are equally accountable to God.

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

[Dawn]

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.

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).

[Dawn]

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.

Corpus

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

[Dawn]

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

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.

[Dawn]

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.

[ebia]

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

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.

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.

[Dale]

  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.

[Dale]

  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.

[ebia]

  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?

[ebia]

Francois Hotman estimates the number killed in the whole of France at 50,000.

...

The massacres took place over at least five weeks and killed about as many people as the Rwandan genocide.

Since when does 50,000 equal 800,000?

Ten years after the genocide in Rwanda that took the lives of 800,000 people, the country's children continue to struggle with the lingering impact of the atrocities, UNICEF said today.
(Unicef, 6 April 2004)

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.

The French are just generally maddening.

[Dawn]

  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.

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.

[michael_legna]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

The Roman Church has had a long history of withholding the Bible from the common people.

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

One effective way was to give the Bible in Latin, an unknown tongue to the majority.

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).

For centuries it was a sin to possess and read the Bible in one's own native language.

This is a not true.

The Council of Toulouse (1229) forbade the laity to read the vernacular translations of the Bible.

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.

Various Bible translations was included in the Index of Forbidden Books (Index Librorum Prohibitorum), first published in 1559.

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

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.

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

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.  

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.

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).

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.

[ebia]

  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.

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.

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

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?

[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.