Books Outside the Bible

[BreadOfLife]

WRONG! I looked at several Eastern Orthodox sites. They didn't even call the RCC a church. They called your religion "Roman Catholicism." At least those using the term RCC recognize your religion as a church.

Funny - the sources I see don't refer to Roman Catholic "Religion" but "Church".
They also use the term "Roman Church", "Church in Rome" and "Catholic Church".

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Funny - the sources I see don't refer to Roman Catholic "Religion" but "Church".
They also use the term "Roman Church", "Church in Rome" and "Catholic Church".

I didn't say they call it "Roman Catholic Religion." I said they call it "Roman Catholicism." I didn't see any Eastern Orthodox sites that call your religion a "church" like you said "Catholic Church."

I found this quote at the Orthodox Church in America website (oca.org). They use the term "Roman Catholic Church":

Due to a variety of complex circumstances, the Western church, known today as the “Roman Catholic Church,” split from the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch in the 11th century. Roman Catholics, however, see it from the opposite perspective, namely that the Orthodox Church broke communion with the Roman Catholic Church.
​

The Orthodox-Catholic Church of America uses the term "Roman Catholic Church." Contact The Orthodox-Catholic Church of America

No. Our first bishop was ordained priest by a bishop in Europe who dissented from the doctrine of papal infallibility, and consecrated bishop in India, under the authority of the Syrian (Jacobite) Patriarch of Antioch, by bishops who had withdrawn from the Roman Catholic Church there.
​

It seems that some of the the Orthodox churches in the U.S. say "Roman Catholic Church." The Eastern Orthodox sites I read say "Roman Catholicism."

 

[Marymog]

This is what I said: "Wow, Mary you resorted to an ATHEIST source to prove your point? And a Roman Catholic one--no surprise there."

How could you possibly construe this as a personal attack against you? I've learned to consider the source. Why would a Christian use an atheist website to prove a point about Christianity??? I've done a lot of research over the years, and I don't think it's a good idea. If we can't find more reliable sources, then something is wrong with our argument. I'm not attacking you, but how you supported your argument.

Bob Ryan has offered plenty of support for his argument, but the Catholics on this thread have disparaged his sources as being inaccurate. You can't have it both ways--you use whatever sources you want and then put down the sources of others.

I didn't even say anything about your using Wikipedia as your third source. We ALL know Wikipedia can be totally unreliable depending on who put the info in, so I'm questioning all three of your sources without attacking you personally.

I don’t ever recall saying you attacked me. If I did, please quote me.

I see you have ZERO evidence showing that the links I provided are not accurate soooo what more is there to say here? You keep complaining about the links but have yet to debunk them.

I gave you a Protestant source, a Catholic source and an atheist source. What source would you like me to provide???

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Pay attention.

In post #1067, GG stated that she could not condemn Rollo's lies about the Knights of Columbus having supposedly "murdered millions".
In post #1069 - YOU challenged her about that - but you've conveniently forgotten about that.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. It's not simply the LIES - but the support of anti-Catholic lies.
So, instead of condemning ME for exposing her and Rollo- let them fight their OWN battles and butt out . . .

Now BoL.....you demand people speak the truth and not twist words. Hold yourself to that same expectation. GG said she could not condemn Rollo. She didn’t say she could not condemn Rollo’s lies.

Sooooo you have no evidence of her showing any “hate” toward the CC? Not one post you can quote? Once again, you demand evidence from everyone else but when it’s your turn to give your evidence you refuse to provide it

Is it possible you have no evidence?

BTW...telling me to “butt out” is very funny coming from you since you “butt in” to everyone else’s conversations.

Listen here kiddo. I like your message. You uphold Catholic doctrine, history and tradition like a seasoned apologist. I don’t like how you deliver your message or how you can’t just admit that you have gone to far. Kiddo....you’ve gone to far. Swallow your pride and admit it.

Patient Mary

 

[Prayer Warrior]

I don’t ever recall saying you attacked me. If I did, please quote me.

I see you have ZERO evidence showing that the links I provided are not accurate soooo what more is there to say here? You keep complaining about the links but have yet to debunk them.

I gave you a Protestant source, a Catholic source and an atheist source. What source would you like me to provide???

Mary

You said, "Is your intent to keep going after me personally..." I used the term "personal attack." To me those mean the same thing.

Huh? What was the Protestant source? Wikipedia?

You really expect me to refute the articles you referenced???????? REALLY??????? I don't have time to do that! BOL has dismissed (and that's putting it nicely) any website he perceives as "anti-catholic," so why are you calling me out for questioning the legitimacy of your sources?

 

[Marymog]

You said, "Is your intent to keep going after me personally..." I used the term "personal attack." To me those mean the same thing.

Huh? What was the Protestant source? Wikipedia?

You really expect me to refute the articles you referenced???????? REALLY??????? I don't have time to do that! BOL has dismissed (and that's putting it nicely) any website he perceives as "anti-catholic," so why are you calling me out for questioning the legitimacy of your sources?

Got it. You can’t refute the links I have provided.

The only thing you have done is questioned the personal choice (going after me personally instead of professionally by debunking what I provided) I have made on what link i chose to provide.

You complain about what i have provided but can’t even suggest an alternative soooooo I guess we are done here.

Mary

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Got it. You can’t refute the links I have provided.

The only thing you have done is questioned the personal choice (going after me personally instead of professionally by debunking what I provided) I have made on what link i chose to provide.

You complain about what i have provided but can’t even suggest an alternative soooooo I guess we are done here.

Mary

Good! I rest my case.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

No - it just makes YOU a bad comic.

It sounds like you just called PrayerWarrior a liar...!!!!

 

[bbyrd009]

fwiw the Bible as we have it now is younger than the Qur'an even i guess, and what we mean @ "Scripture" v what Paul meant are surely vastly different things, they didn't really even have "fiction" back then, reading/writing were serious disciplines undertaken as callings. Socrates died bc ______?

 

[Marymog]

BOL has dismissed (and that's putting it nicely) any website he perceives as "anti-catholic," so why are you calling me out for questioning the legitimacy of your sources?

Hi PW,


When one questions a source, as you did, it is common practice to back up that "questioning" with facts or a debunking of that source. You failed to do that. Instead you chose to snipe at me and question me instead of question the legitimacy or accuracy of the source. IMO...It makes you look petty.

Please don't be upset with me because of your failure to debunk the accuracy of my sources. I am not upset with you. I love you.

Mary

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Hi PW,


When one questions a source, as you did, it is common practice to back up that "questioning" with facts or a debunking of that source. You failed to do that. Instead you chose to snipe at me and question me instead of question the legitimacy or accuracy of the source. IMO...It makes you look petty.

Please don't be upset with me because of your failure to debunk the accuracy of my sources. I am not upset with you. I love you.

Mary

What kind of love calls a person "petty"?

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Hi PW,


When one questions a source, as you did, it is common practice to back up that "questioning" with facts or a debunking of that source. You failed to do that. Instead you chose to snipe at me and question me instead of question the legitimacy or accuracy of the source. IMO...It makes you look petty.

Please don't be upset with me because of your failure to debunk the accuracy of my sources. I am not upset with you. I love you.

Mary

Even though I disagree with what you're saying about the sources, I love you guys and hope the best for you!

 

[BobRyan]

Hi BR,
We usually agree on doctrine and I hate to be put in the position of defending the cc, others here should be doing this...however, I have read canon 3 of the Lateran Council IV in both English and Italian which is closer to the Latin, and I really don't understand "exterminate" to mean "kill".

I believe it's being used in the sense of "purifying" the territory of these heretics by banning them from their property and from the territory in which their property belonged.

I won't belabor this since the CC has caused many atrocities and killed many and I will not defend their past actions.

P.S. I'm surprised @BreadOfLife did not pick up on your post...

I understand your point - which is one reason that I added this post - showing that not only does the Catholic Jesuit university at Fordham translate the term to "Extermintate" but also their own Catholic Digest uses the term to mean "kill". And of course "kill" is exactly what we see happening in the mid 13th century inquisitions that come as a response to Lateran IV in the early 13th century calling for extermination.

CatholicDigest11/1997pg100


Catholic Digest 11/1997 pg 100
The question:

A Baptist family who lives across the street gave me a book called the “Trail of Blood”, by J.M. Carroll. It attacks Catholic doctrine on infant Baptism, indulgences, purgatory, and so on. But I am writing to learn if there is anything in history that would justify the following quotation:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“The world has Never seen anything to compare with the persecution heaped upon the Baptists by the Catholic hierarchy of the Dark Ages. The Pope was the world’s dictator. This is why the Anabaptists before the Reformation called the Pope the Anti-Christ”. Then: “Fifty million died by persecution over a period of 1200 years because of the Catholic Church”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The answer from Fr. Ken Ryan of Catholic Digest:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“There weren’t any Baptists until 1609, generally thought of as a year occurring after the Dark Ages. (that is why the article above includes Anabaptists) Anabaptists (means anti-baptism of infants – so they re-baptized them as adults) means “re-baptizers” and was a name given to groups existing in the 3rd, 4th, 11th and 12th centuries but they had no connection with the violent civil-religious (Catholic) reformers who appeared in 1521 at Zwickau in Saxony. These 16th century Anabaptists rejected Catholic doctrine on infant Baptism and Lutheran justification by faith, among other things, and intended to substitute a new “Kingdom of God” for the social and civil order of their time. John Leyden was proclaimed King of New Sion at Munster where museums and libraries were destroyed and polygamy was introduced. This group AND Many others were Exterminated during the Peasants Wars by a Combination of civil and religious authority. Whether they were persecuted or punished depends on your point of view”

 

[BreadOfLife]

Now BoL.....you demand people speak the truth and not twist words. Hold yourself to that same expectation. GG said she could not condemn Rollo. She didn’t say she could not condemn Rollo’s lies.

Sooooo you have no evidence of her showing any “hate” toward the CC? Not one post you can quote? Once again, you demand evidence from everyone else but when it’s your turn to give your evidence you refuse to provide it

Is it possible you have no evidence?

BTW...telling me to “butt out” is very funny coming from you since you “butt in” to everyone else’s conversations.

Listen here kiddo. I like your message. You uphold Catholic doctrine, history and tradition like a seasoned apologist. I don’t like how you deliver your message or how you can’t just admit that you have gone to far. Kiddo....you’ve gone to far. Swallow your pride and admit it.

Patient Mary

Ummmm, I already pointed out to you that YOU yourself condemned GG for supporting Rollo when he stated that the K of C has “killed millions” of people. I don’t need to prove ANYTHING else to you because this is evidenceenough that she spreads hatred of the Catholic Church by supporting this kind of manure.

The fact that YOU have a problem with this speaks VOLUMES about your own confusion . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

It sounds like you just called PrayerWarrior a liar...!!!!

Never called ANYBODY a "liar" in all the years I've been here . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

never seen anyone call you a clueless hypocrite since i've been here at least either
now maybe we're all even?

 

[BreadOfLife]

never seen anyone call you a clueless hypocrite since i've been here at least either
now maybe we're all even?

I never made that claim.
BIG difference, Einstein . . .

 

[Stranger]

Never called ANYBODY a "liar" in all the years I've been here . . .

Anybody got some wine with that cracker?

Quantrill

 

[BreadOfLife]

Anybody got some wine with that cracker?

Quantrill

Come back when you have something intelligent to add to the conversation . . .

 

[BobRyan]

I believe it's being used in the sense of "purifying" the territory of these heretics by banning them from their property

Ok so we have established that Lateran IV is early 13th century around 1215 and is followed by the inquisition around 1250. So now let's "imagine the inquisition" where millions of people are "exterminated" - but first undergo torture that could be of the form "here we are asking you to leave our nation but since you refuse we are torturing you to leave" ... in which case no restraints would be needed since after all they were only asking them to "leave" the nation.

Now that's one sort of narrative... the other one is where the inquisition is in fact confining its victims, torturing them... trying to keep them from escaping... and in many cases killing them.

And given that their own Jesuit Fordham calls it "extermination" and given that their own Catholic Digest says it is real genuine "killing" that is going in that that "extermination" - and given that the inquisitors were not known for "simply asking that people leave town and never in any way restraining their victims" -- I think the "just leave town" version of it is a hard sale to make.

If you check into Pope Clement XIV's statement on the Jesuits and how they were so horrific in their "inquisition" that the Dominican Priests were complaining about the Jesuit cruelty and so the Jesuits according to Pope Clement had to be forever extinguished -- It is even harder to then imagine that the victims were not being held against their will or that they were interpreting "exterminate" as merely "leave town".