The Inquisitions

mjrhealth said:

he protestants are children of mother, they are your brothers and sisters in blood and crime, so you should be nice to them. your all part of teh same family.

Click to expand...

So true...and now they are going home.

Marymog said:

Well, I guess if you change the dictionary meaning of inquisition to Catholics who inquire or examine then you are right...congratulations!! Hooray!!

Click to expand...

If only when we hear the term inquisition , it meant only inquire or examine. Sadly, there are millions of martyrs for Jesus whose testimony of their meeting face to face with that word held an entirely different meaning.

Marymog said:

he protestants did the EXACT SAME THING the Catholics did.

Click to expand...

No, not exactly the same thing, as I have already explained. And your resorting to big capital black or bold red doesn't make it any more the truth.

Marymog said:

Have you read ANYTHING on this website in the last several days???? This website is FULL of "techniques to antagonize their opposition"....according to your statement...EVERYONE ON HERE CATHOLIC....Look at the log instead of the splinter!!!!

Click to expand...

Oh, people antagonise others every day everywhere. But as I explained, with some Catholics (particularly with those who seem more educated and skilled in Catholic apologetics) on certain forums, I have felt that it is a matter of policy to deal with opposition this way, much as in the way of some politicians employing the same practice deliberately because it is a technique for upsetting the opposition and distracting from the topic in hand....it was perfected by Jesuits, who by the way, on their own could, if the truth of them be known, be all the reason to deter anyone from becoming Catholic.I suggest you read "The Secret History of the Jesuits"

Marymog said:

You keep saying that the Protestants of the reformation time frame were taught to act like that.....That make ZERO sense!!! They were taught that is was OK to torture, imprison and KILL people that disagreed with them so they thought it was OK to do that??? Are you serious???

Click to expand...

Very clever, but....FAIL. That isn't what I said, but that is a clever play on my words, and a clever twist to the meaning. Good try.

Marymog said:

The Protestant Reformers KNEW for a FACT that BAPTISM did not save you and TRANSUBTANTION was not scriptural and they believed we could all go to heaven based on FAITH ALONE. They knew that the Catholic Church got all of that wrong.....BUT THEY DIDN'T KNOW TORTURE AND KILLING WAS WRONG??? And your excuse for them is because that is the way the were raised by their evil, cruel Catholic Pope....ARE YOU SERIOUS??????

Click to expand...

The Catholic rulers throughout Europe both in Rome and throughout the "holy Roman empire" thought they were doing God service in waging all out war against other believers. This was for over 1000 years. The reformers were all brought up in this atmosphere. If their university professors believed in it and taught it...if their priests and bishops taught it...if the pope constantly issued bulls and encyclicals denouncing heretics as vermin and the execration of society, what would you expect of those who were coming out of that system other than to take time to wise up to just how all encompassing and all pervading the evil of that system was, and still is. What is your excuse for remaining in it?

Marymog said:

Your statement about Catholics expunging the history of how they dealt with heresy is bizarre and not based on facts. The Pope has publically apologized for the Inquisition.

Click to expand...

For the inquisitions, sort of. But as I said, the principles are still on the books. But when is he going to apologise for the constant wars waged against non-Catholics, at least until Rome lost her civil power in 1798. Since then, they've operated in secret. The involvement of Rome in the civil war, both world wars, Vietnam, assassinations of US presidents including Lincoln and Kennedy, all are those parts of history Rome would seek to be expunged from history. This thread might be about the inquisitions, but the problems those who are honest have with the history of Rome isn't just about the inquisitions.

Find somebody else to bait, I don't debate with angry children relying on revisionism. It should occur to you by now the numbers that have you on ignore. bye.

There have actually been several different inquisitions. The first was established in 1184 in southern France as a response to the Catharist heresy. This was known as the Medieval Inquisition, and it was phased out as Catharism disappeared.

Quite separate was the Roman Inquisition, begun in 1542. It was the least active and most benign of the three variations.

Separate again was the infamous Spanish Inquisition, started in 1478, a state institution used to identify conversos—Jews and Moors (Muslims) who pretended to convert to Christianity for purposes of political or social advantage and secretly practiced their former religion. More importantly, its job was also to clear the good names of many people who were falsely accused of being heretics. It was the Spanish Inquisition that, at least in the popular imagination, had the worst record of fulfilling these duties.

The various inquisitions stretched through the better part of a millennia, and can collectively be called "the Inquisition."

The Main Sources

Fundamentalists writing about the Inquisition rely on books by Henry C. Lea (1825–1909) and G. G. Coulton (1858–1947). Each man got most of the facts right, and each made progress in basic research, so proper credit should not be denied them. The problem is that they did not weigh facts well, because they harbored fierce animosity toward the Church—animosity that had little to do with the Inquisition itself.

The contrary problem has not been unknown. A few Catholic writers, particularly those less interested in digging for truth than in diffusing a criticism of the Church, have glossed over incontrovertible facts and tried to whitewash the Inquisition. This is as much a disservice to the truth as an exaggeration of the Inquisition’s bad points. These well-intentioned, but misguided, apologists are, in one respect, much like Lea, Coulton, and contemporary Fundamentalist writers. They fear, while the others hope, that the facts about the Inquisition might prove the illegitimacy of the Catholic Church.

Don’t Fear the Facts

But the facts fail to do that. The Church has nothing to fear from the truth. No account of foolishness, misguided zeal, or cruelty by Catholics can undo the divine foundation of the Church, though, admittedly, these things are stumbling blocks to Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

What must be grasped is that the Church contains within itself all sorts of sinners and knaves, and some of them obtain positions of responsibility. Paul and Christ himself warned us that there would be a few ravenous wolves among Church leaders (Acts 20:29; Matt. 7:15).

Fundamentalists suffer from the mistaken notion that the Church includes only the elect. For them, sinners are outside the doors. Locate sinners, and you locate another place where the Church is not.
Thinking that Fundamentalists might have a point in their attacks on the Inquisition, Catholics tend to be defensive. This is the wrong attitude; rather, we should learn what really happened, understand events in light of the times, and then explain to anti-Catholics why the sorry tale does not prove what they think it proves.

Phony Statistics

Many Fundamentalists believe, for instance, that more people died under the Inquisition than in any war or plague; but in this they rely on phony "statistics" generated by one-upmanship among anti-Catholics, each of whom, it seems, tries to come up with the largest number of casualties.

But trying to straighten out such historical confusions can take one only so far. As Ronald Knox put it, we should be cautious, "lest we should wander interminably in a wilderness of comparative atrocity statistics." In fact, no one knows exactly how many people perished through the various Inquisitions. We can determine for certain, though, one thing about numbers given by Fundamentalists: They are far too large. One book popular with Fundamentalists claims that 95 million people died under the Inquisition.
The figure is so grotesquely off that one immediately doubts the writer’s sanity, or at least his grasp of demographics. Not until modern times did the population of those countries where the Inquisitions existed approach 95 million.

Inquisitions did not exist in Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, or England, being confined mainly to southern France, Italy, Spain, and a few parts of the Holy Roman Empire. The Inquisition could not have killed that many people because those parts of Europe did not have that many people to kill!

Furthermore, the plague, which killed a third of Europe’s population, is credited by historians with major changes in the social structure. The Inquisition is credited with few—precisely because the number of its victims was comparitively small. In fact, recent studies indicate that at most there were only a few thousand capital sentences carried out for heresy in Spain, and these were over the course of several centuries.

What’s the Point?

Fundamentalist writers claim the existence of the Inquisition proves the Catholic Church could not be the Church founded by our Lord. They use the Inquisition as a good—perhaps their best—bad example. They think this shows that the Catholic Church is illegitimate. At first blush it might seem so, but there is only so much mileage in a ploy like that; most people see at once that the argument is weak. One reason Fundamentalists talk about the Inquisition is that they take it as a personal attack, imagining it was established to eliminate (yes, you guessed it) the Fundamentalists themselves.
Ultimately, it may be a waste of time arguing about statistics. Instead, ask Fundamentalists just what they think the existence of the Inquisition demonstrates. They would not bring it up in the first place unless they thought it proves something about the Catholic Church. And what is that something? That Catholics are sinners? Guilty as charged. That at times people in positions of authority have used poor judgment? Ditto. That otherwise good Catholics, afire with zeal, sometimes lose their balance? All true, but such charges could be made even if the Inquisition had never existed and perhaps could be made of some Fundamentalists.
read more here

brakelite said:

If only when we hear the term inquisition , it meant only inquire or examine. Sadly, there are millions of martyrs for Jesus whose testimony of their meeting face to face with that word held an entirely different meaning.

No, not exactly the same thing, as I have already explained. And your resorting to big capital black or bold red doesn't make it any more the truth.

Oh, people antagonise others every day everywhere. But as I explained, with some Catholics (particularly with those who seem more educated and skilled in Catholic apologetics) on certain forums, I have felt that it is a matter of policy to deal with opposition this way, much as in the way of some politicians employing the same practice deliberately because it is a technique for upsetting the opposition and distracting from the topic in hand....it was perfected by Jesuits, who by the way, on their own could, if the truth of them be known, be all the reason to deter anyone from becoming Catholic.I suggest you read "The Secret History of the Jesuits"

Very clever, but....FAIL. That isn't what I said, but that is a clever play on my words, and a clever twist to the meaning. Good try.

The Catholic rulers throughout Europe both in Rome and throughout the "holy Roman empire" thought they were doing God service in waging all out war against other believers. This was for over 1000 years. The reformers were all brought up in this atmosphere. If their university professors believed in it and taught it...if their priests and bishops taught it...if the pope constantly issued bulls and encyclicals denouncing heretics as vermin and the execration of society, what would you expect of those who were coming out of that system other than to take time to wise up to just how all encompassing and all pervading the evil of that system was, and still is. What is your excuse for remaining in it?

For the inquisitions, sort of. But as I said, the principles are still on the books. But when is he going to apologise for the constant wars waged against non-Catholics, at least until Rome lost her civil power in 1798. Since then, they've operated in secret. The involvement of Rome in the civil war, both world wars, Vietnam, assassinations of US presidents including Lincoln and Kennedy, all are those parts of history Rome would seek to be expunged from history. This thread might be about the inquisitions, but the problems those who are honest have with the history of Rome isn't just about the inquisitions.

Click to expand...

Dear braklite,

I sincerely don’t know what to say. Your lack of an ablility to articulate a defense of the facts I stated astound me. All you do is obfuscate.

The Protestants held court on people that disagreed with them and they tortured them and they imporisioned them and they killed them. Since your revision of the dictionary does not allow us to call it an Inquistion how about if we will cal it the Anti-Inquistion.

They knew Rome was wrong about doctrine but they didn’t know that killing and torture was wrong. The knew scripture well enough to know that sola Fida is backed up by scripture but they didn’t know that torture and murder were in violation of scripture??? Fascinating. Sounds like these men shouldn’t have been the ones to start the revelation against Rome since they were that ignorant of scripture.

Rome was involved in assassinations? Seriously??? Operates in secret??? Wow!!!

Your revision of history and your clear anti-Catholic bias has blinded you and won’t even allow you to admit that Protestant leaders participated in the Inquistion. How sad. You know that just because they did doesn’t mean that Rome didn’t.

Mary

Triumph1300 said:

Well......I don't waste my time anymore responding to Marymog.

Forums are made for discussing topics with like-minded people but every once in a while, a troll will come in and start spewing negative words all over the place.

If forum moderators don't ban them, other members will often respond and before you know it, the thread gets thrown completely off topic and becomes nothing but one big pointless argument.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

I did get tired of the name calling and your lack of an abiltiy to apologize for it. How sad you had to resort to that. That is what people do when they loose an argument.

Forums are made for discussing topics with like minded people??? Really?? So anyone that disagrees with you is a troll and not welcome on YOUR forum??? You are sooooo open minded

Forum moderators should ban “trolls” or members who start spewing negative words all over the place? Who defines “troll”??

If one should be banned for negative words then you should have been banned for all the negative words you called me on this thread. You are clearly blind to the log in your own eye. Does that also make you a hypocrite?

PS......I don’t expect you to waste your time responding to me anymore. I just wanted the facts to be public instead of your twisted revisionist words. If you mention me publically I will respond publically.

tabletalk said:

John Frith was burned at the stake for his 'heretical' views on Transubstantiation.
Frith wrote to his friends, "I cannot agree with the divines and other head prelates that it is an article of faith that we must believe - under pain of damnation - that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of our Savior Jesus Christ while their form and shape stay the same. Even if this were true, it should not be an article of faith."
On June 20, 1533, John Frith was brought before the bishops of London, Winchester, and Lincoln and condemned to death.

Click to expand...

Hi TT,

Firth actually had two charges against him: purgatory and transubsantiation. None the less I applaud you for your efforts.

Felix Manz, Jacob Falk and Henry Reiman were drowned because they practiced immersion baptism. It wasn’t the Catholic Church who sentenced them and carried out their execution.

Mary

Marymog said:

I did get tired of the name calling and your lack of an abiltiy to apologize for it.

Click to expand...

Jesus did a fair bit of name calling himself without apologizing when he ran into false teachers.

Check it out:

About Fools, Vipers and Others.

Souls are at stake when false teachers like you come into the picture.

But i'm sure real born again Christians will see right through your messed up opinions.

Triumph1300 said:

Jesus did a fair bit of name calling himself without apologizing when he ran into false teachers.

Check it out:

About Fools, Vipers and Others.

Souls are at stake when false teachers like you come into the picture.

But i'm sure real born again Christians will see right through your messed up opinions.

Click to expand...

I asked you five legitimate questions in that post that you PARTIALLY QUOTED.

It appears this troll has you scared to answer legitimate questions

I would love to get back to the subject at hand: The Inquistions.

I promise not to ask you anymore hard questions if you promise not to call me names. Deal??

Heck....I don’t even expect an apology. This girl just wants to have a good old fashion discussion.

Wait a minute. We can’t. We are only supposed to agree with each other. Dang it.

None the less....I call a truce! Let bygones be bygones!!

Mary

PS....What is your evidence that I am a false teacher on the subject of The Inquistions???

In my searching ..the only time I come up with Inquisitions even when I type in..ALL Inquisitions...it only ever comes up the the Catholic Inquisitions.

The Protestants had times of persecutions..we know they were not innocent of blood shedding ...but it seems nothing was as long lasting over so many years as the Catholic Inquisition.
That cannot be denied...even though it is! haha!!

Marymog said:

I would love to get back to the subject at hand: The Inquistions.

Click to expand...

Not me. Not interested, Troll.

Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness.
Their end will correspond to their deeds.

Marymog said:

Rome was involved in assassinations? Seriously??? Operates in secret??? Wow!!!

Click to expand...

Your entire post reveals a woman in complete obstinate denial...refusing to acknowledge that I even replied. Saying I was obfuscating? I suggested previously several books you could read. Here's another one. I will even post a link to the actual PDF so you can't claim you couldn't find it.
http://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/religion.occult.new_age/occult.conspiracy.and.related/McCarty - The Suppressed Truth about the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln (1924).pdf

Marymog said:

All you do is obfuscate.

Click to expand...

If you truly want to inquire regarding truth as you appear to confess, Then the above book I offer for your reading. Be it far from me that should obfuscate.

Marymog said:

The Protestants held court on people that disagreed with them and they tortured them and they imporisioned them and they killed them.

Click to expand...

Can you give me an example? Perhaps if I offered one to get you started. The trial of Guy Fawkes and his several associates was held in court. The magistrates and the government was certainly Protestant. The king, James 1 was also Protestant. Guy Fawkes and his companions were not. They were Catholics. They were being tried for treason. Why? Because they attempted to blow up parliament with several barrels of gunpowder that had been surreptitiously stowed under the debating chamber where the King was due to speak to all the Lords and rulers of the nation. They were tried and hung. Okay, now its your turn.

Marymog said:

Rome was involved in assassinations? Seriously??? Operates in secret??? Wow!!!

Click to expand...

See and read above book. I don't know how old you are, but if you were living in the early 60s and old enough to remember the news, you may remember coverage of suicides by Buddhist monks in Saigon. They were sitting in the middle of the main thoroughfare and dousing themselves with petrol and setting themselves alight. Terrible sight, and very very sad. Do you remember why they were doing this? Let me remind you in case you've forgotten, or in case you didn't know; and for anyone else who may be reading this. They were protesting. Against what you may ask. Against the government? Yes. Why? Because the government, mean and nasty as they were, were persecuting the Buddhists. Oh dear you may declare, that isn't good. No Mary, it wasn't. But wasn't Vietnam a Buddhist country? Yes it was. 90% of the population was Buddhist. So how come the government was so powerful as to be able to persecute such a majority? Were they religious but not Buddhist? Good questions Mary.
The government at that time, in the late 50s and early 60s was run by a family. One brother was the president, another the leader of the security division, another relative headed the army etc etc. A real family affair if you understand what I mean. There's a name for that< I can't remember what it is. Perhaps someone else can tell us? Nepotism?
Anyway, it so happened that this family happened to be Roman Catholic. Yes Mary. Catholic. But they had other problems also apart from these nuisance Buddhists. Things were stirring up north. The communists were on the move, and threatening to invade. What to do? They were outnumbered, out classed, and outgunned. So they did what every good Catholic does, they appeal to their god. So off they went, sending a delegation to their savior, the pope in Rome. And what does he do? He sent a delegation to the President of the US, who it so hapened at that time to be one John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Remember him? A hero to all Catholics the world over, including me. I was 11 years old when he was elected to the office of POTUS. Very proud I was as all Catholics were. So knocking upon the door to the white house comes Cardinal Spellman. He was a Jesuit trained priest whose best buddy was Euginio Paccelli, who was later to be the pope during Hitlers rise to power and around which there are many rumours...but that's another story. Let us not digress. So Mr Kennedy politey received the Cardinal to his office, several times. In fact, several more times. The Cardinal was a very determined man. Why? What is a prelate doing getting so interested and involved in politics? Oh, he was delivering a message. A message from none other than the pope. The message was a request. In fact, because all good Catholics are supposed to serve the Pope first, and the nation second, The request was more of a command. The 'request' was to send troops to south Vietnam to defend the 'good noble Catholic family' currently ruling that nation. And, as a good Catholic should do, President Kennedy refused. What!!! Refused???? My goodness!! Seriously? Kennedy denied a request from the POPE!!!????? Yes Mary. He did. Next minute, he's dead. Next minute, Johnson the VP comes to power, receives the same request, and sends troops in immediately. And embroils the entire United States into a conflict that cost thousands of lives all as a result of a command from Rome to defend a corrupt merciless cruel persecuting power in the guise of Catholicism. Obfuscating? Me?? Never!

brakelite said:

Your entire post reveals a woman in complete obstinate denial...refusing to acknowledge that I even replied. Saying I was obfuscating? I suggested previously several books you could read. Here's another one. I will even post a link to the actual PDF so you can't claim you couldn't find it.
http://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/religion.occult.new_age/occult.conspiracy.and.related/McCarty - The Suppressed Truth about the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln (1924).pdf

If you truly want to inquire regarding truth as you appear to confess, Then the above book I offer for your reading. Be it far from me that should obfuscate.

Can you give me an example? Perhaps if I offered one to get you started. The trial of Guy Fawkes and his several associates was held in court. The magistrates and the government was certainly Protestant. The queen, Elisabeth1, was also Protestant. Guy Fawkes and his companions were not. They were Catholics. They were being tried for treason. Why? Because they attempted to blow up parliament with several barrels of gunpowder that had been surreptitiously stowed under the debating chamber where the Queen was due to speak to all the Lords and rulers of the nation. They were tried and hung. Okay, now its your turn.


See and read above book. I don't know how old you are, but if you were living in the early 60s and old enough to remember the news, you may remember coverage of suicides by Buddhist monks in Saigon. They were sitting in the middle of the main thoroughfare and dousing themselves with petrol and setting themselves alight. Terrible sight, and very very sad. Do you remember why they were doing this? Let me remind you in case you've forgotten, or in case you didn't know; and for anyone else who may be reading this. They were protesting. Against what you may ask. Against the government? Yes. Why? Because the government, mean and nasty as they were, were persecuting the Buddhists. Oh dear you may declare, that isn't good. No Mary, it wasn't. But wasn't Vietnam a Buddhist country? Yes it was. 90% of the population was Buddhist. So how come the government was so powerful as to be able to persecute such a majority? Were they religious but not Buddhist? Good questions Mary.
The government at that time, in the late 50s and early 60s was run by a family. One brother was the president, another the leader of the security division, another relative headed the army etc etc. A real family affair if you understand what I mean. There's a name for that< I can't remember what it is. Perhaps someone else can tell us? Nepotism?
Anyway, it so happened that this family happened to be Roman Catholic. Yes Mary. Catholic. But they had other problems also apart from these nuisance Buddhists. Things were stirring up north. The communists were on the move, and threatening to invade. What to do? They were outnumbered, out classed, and outgunned. So they did what every good Catholic does, they appeal to their god. So off they went, sending a delegation to their savior, the pope in Rome. And what does he do? He sent a delegation to the President of the US, who it so hapened at that time to be one John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Remember him? A hero to all Catholics the world over, including me. I was 11 years old when he was elected to the office of POTUS. Very proud I was as all Catholics were. So knocking upon the door to the white house comes Cardinal Spellman. He was a Jesuit trained priest whose best buddy was Euginio Paccelli, who was later to be the pope during Hitlers rise to power and around which there are many rumours...but that's another story. Let us not digress. So Mr Kennedy politey received the Cardinal to his office, several times. In fact, several more times. The Cardinal was a very determined man. Why? What is a prelate doing getting so interested and involved in politics? Oh, he was delivering a message. A message from none other than the pope. The message was a request. In fact, because all good Catholics are supposed to serve the Pope first, and the nation second, The request was more of a command. The 'request' was to send troops to south Vietnam to defend the 'good noble Catholic family' currently ruling that nation. And, as a good Catholic should do, President Kennedy refused. What!!! Refused???? My goodness!! Seriously? Kennedy denied a request from the POPE!!!????? Yes Mary. He did. Next minute, he's dead. Next minute, Johnson the VP comes to power, receives the same request, and sends troops in immediately. And embroils the entire United States into a conflict that cost thousands of lives all as a result of a command from Rome to defend a corrupt merciless cruel persecuting power in the guise of Catholicism. Obfuscating? Me?? Never!

Click to expand...

No, the Jesuits didn’t kill Abraham Lincoln. Brakelite never gives a shred of scholarly evidence for his Seventh Day Adventist rants. (or similar dubious sources)

I remember watching Buddhist monks on tv setting themselves on fire. They were pagans protesting against the government. Brakenite is so sick he wants you to believe they were Catholics.
Lâm Văn Túc), was a Vietnamese Mahayana Buddhist monk who burned himself to death at a busy Saigon road intersection on 11 June 1963.[1] Quang Duc was protesting the persecution of Buddhists by the South Vietnamese government led by Ngô Đình Diệm. This had nothing to do with JFK, nothing to do with the Pope, nothing to do with the Jesuits. Snap out of your nightmare world.

No, the Jesuits didn’t kill Abraham Lincoln.

Click to expand...

Oh, sure, because it's in the Catholic Herald.

epostle1 said:

I remember watching Buddhist monks on tv setting themselves on fire. They were pagans protesting against the government. Brakenite is so sick he wants you to believe they were Catholics.

Click to expand...

Not much difference between the two.
Both are pagan religions.

epostle1 said:

I remember watching Buddhist monks on tv setting themselves on fire. They were pagans protesting against the government. Brakenite is so sick he wants you to believe they were Catholics.
Lâm Văn Túc), was a Vietnamese Mahayana Buddhist monk who burned himself to death at a busy Saigon road intersection on 11 June 1963.[1] Quang Duc was protesting the persecution of Buddhists by the South Vietnamese government led by Ngô Đình Diệm. This had nothing to do with JFK, nothing to do with the Pope, nothing to do with the Jesuits. Snap out of your nightmare world.

Click to expand...

Strange, I don't remember writing that those Buddhist monks that were protesting against persecution were Catholic monks. Let me go back and check.........ummmmm.....uhhh....nuh, can't find it. Anyone willing to help me out here? Can anyone else find where I said those Buddhist monks were Catholic?? Please? Anyone????

epostle1 said:

No, the Jesuits didn’t kill Abraham Lincoln. Brakelite never gives a shred of scholarly evidence for his Seventh Day Adventist rants. (or similar dubious sources)

Click to expand...

Actually, there are fairly credible sources all over the internet, if one is willing to look. Eer heard of a Catholic priest Charles Chinoqey? Of course you have. According to all Catholic sources he was a 'renegade priest guilty of theft and all manner of immoral and despicable abominations". But when one looks at the actual facts, one discovers that he was railroaded by the Jesuits and charged with all manner of despicable acts, but was represented in court by a very able lawyer, and the charges were summarily dismissed. That lawyer was Abraham Lincoln. Chinoquey warned Abe to watch his back, because the Jesuits NEVER forgive, NEVER forget. Priests were involved in that plot from beginning to end. Every person involved was Roman Catholic...including the Swiss Guards to whom one of the conspirators ran to AND HID UNTIL DISCOVERED. A very interesting read is Burke McCarty's book "The Suppresion of the Truth of Abraham Lincoln's Assasination". Or something like that. You'll find it.

epostle1 said:

I remember watching Buddhist monks on tv setting themselves on fire. They were pagans protesting against the government. Brakenite is so sick he wants you to believe they were Catholics.
Lâm Văn Túc), was a Vietnamese Mahayana Buddhist monk who burned himself to death at a busy Saigon road intersection on 11 June 1963.[1] Quang Duc was protesting the persecution of Buddhists by the South Vietnamese government led by Ngô Đình Diệm. This had nothing to do with JFK, nothing to do with the Pope, nothing to do with the Jesuits. Snap out of your nightmare world.

Click to expand...

Aaaaaah, I see your error. Understandable I am sure if English was your second language. What I actually said was that Diem, the head of the government, was Catholic. Ad of course as you rightly point out, it was him and his pro Catholic government, that those Buddhist monks were protesting about. And in particular, their persecutions.
For a moment there I thought I was having a nightmare. Had me going there for a while, saying that I was claiming Buddhist monks were Catholic. Yes, that would be hilarious wouldn't it. Although one could understand the confusion when comparing the two right?