Biblical Case For Schism

[Mateo el Feo]

I thought it was obvious what Mortify and CathCid were referring to (John 6:60-66):[quote]Then many of [u]his disciples[/u] who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father." As a result of this, many (of) his disciples [u]returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him[/u].[/quote]

[Norseman82]

[quote name='IgnatiusAntioch' post='1406723' date='Oct 21 2007, 06:12 PM']Yes, but the House of David and the people of Israel sinned while the Church can never sin.[/quote]

But people within the Church sin...

[IgnatiusAntioch]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1406841' date='Oct 21 2007, 09:10 PM']But people within the Church sin...[/quote]

So? Simply because people within the Church sin it does not mean that the Church will be punished for it. She is immaculate. You might be suggesting that the divisions are punishments directed to the people and not the Church, but I hardly think that those who defied the Church view it as punishment to be rid of her. After all, these people were able to spread their heresies in relative freedom and gained considerable prestige and power because of it...

[ironmonk]

There are two types of people in the world...

Perfect and hypocrite.

Only two people have ever been perfect... Christ and Mary - the only two people ever to be Full of Grace.

So, if anyone thinks that they are not perfect then they need to know that they too are hypocrites. --- The point of this is because people try to use hypocrisy as a reason to be against religion and the Church.

There is no biblical case for Schism, none... period.

The Church CANNOT be blamed for people within her that go against her teachings. END OF STORY.

The Scriptures have dozens of verses that say unity is a must, and not a single one that even remotely suggests schism is ok... as Christ promised the Church will always have the Holy Spirit guiding it (St. John 14).

Now, there seems to be serious ignorance what the "Church" (Ekklesia) is. The Church is the organization, which are the collective offices held by the Bishops. The faith is the official teaching of the Church... Whenever any of the Clergy mess up, they are going against Church teachings, THEREFORE the Church cannot be blamed for bad clergy.

Why is this such a hard concept for people to understand? When someone in an organization breaks that organizations rules, then the organization CANNOT logically be blamed.

[GodChaser]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1406901' date='Oct 21 2007, 09:18 PM']There are two types of people in the world...

Perfect and hypocrite.

Only two people have ever been perfect... Christ and Mary - the only two people ever to be Full of Grace.

So, if anyone thinks that they are not perfect then they need to know that they too are hypocrites. --- The point of this is because people try to use hypocrisy as a reason to be against religion and the Church.

There is no biblical case for Schism, none... period.

The Church CANNOT be blamed for people within her that go against her teachings. END OF STORY.

The Scriptures have dozens of verses that say unity is a must, and not a single one that even remotely suggests schism is ok... as Christ promised the Church will always have the Holy Spirit guiding it (St. John 14).

Now, there seems to be serious ignorance what the "Church" (Ekklesia) is. The Church is the organization, which are the collective offices held by the Bishops. The faith is the official teaching of the Church... Whenever any of the Clergy mess up, they are going against Church teachings, THEREFORE the Church cannot be blamed for bad clergy.

Why is this such a hard concept for people to understand? When someone in an organization breaks that organizations rules, then the organization CANNOT logically be blamed.[/quote]
I don't blame the Catholic Church for what happens in it. What you need to realize is this, the Whore of Babylon is responsible for every murder in the world. (That means 9/11 too. The leaders of the Babylonian system are the real planners of that event). That world system is not the Catholic Church, because that would mean the Catholics must have been around when Abel was around!

However, I will not go into a church that is controlled by the world system of lies and propaganda. I will not be involved in a church that has murdered people, and planned to murder people. King James comes to mind when I say those things, as it was a Jesusit priest who planned to blow up the parliment in England when King James was going to announce his commission of the King James Version of the Bible. But that's okay, right, King James is a filthy protestant and a heretic, and needed to be murdered, right.

That shows how far the Catholic Church has been corrupted by the Babylon system. Started good to start out with, but wolves in sheeps clothing came in and made it into a evil ceasepool of corruption over time.

That's my opinion, and it won't matter how many people will keep on quoting Jesus saying to Peter he is the rock he will build his church on. Peter didn't follow a organized religion. . .

Much of my posts in this thread were Mortify's attempt to assassinate my character. I'm use to it, because Lucifer loves to make people attack me all the time, weither it is in the spirit, or on these forums.

He thinks I am not lead by the spirit, simply because I am not Catholic, or will follow the Catholic Religion.

I would like him to discuss why Joel says God will pour out his spirit on all flesh, buddhist, athiest, protestant, catholic, communist, capitalist, and all other people, and their sons and their daughters will prophesie, and their young men shall dream dreams, and their old men shall have visions?

What is your opinion of this Moritfy? Can God pour out his spirit on a protestant? How about anybody else?

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='GodChaser' post='1406924' date='Oct 21 2007, 11:52 PM']However, I will not go into a church that is controlled by the world system of lies and propaganda. I will not be involved in a church that has murdered people, and planned to murder people. King James comes to mind when I say those things, as it was a Jesusit priest who planned to blow up the parliment in England when King James was going to announce his commission of the King James Version of the Bible. But that's okay, right, King James is a filthy protestant and a heretic, and needed to be murdered, right.[/quote]I was wondering: where do you get your version of history from? If you have a link, I'd love to see it.

I assume you're referring to the Gunpowder Plot, but your facts are a bit off target.

Edited October 22, 2007 by Mateo el Feo

[mortify]

[quote name='GodChaser' post='1406924' date='Oct 21 2007, 09:52 PM']I don't blame the Catholic Church for what happens in it. What you need to realize is this, the Whore of Babylon is responsible for every murder in the world. (That means 9/11 too. The leaders of the Babylonian system are the real planners of that event). That world system is not the Catholic Church, because that would mean the Catholics must have been around when Abel was around!
...
That shows how far the Catholic Church has been corrupted by the Babylon system. Started good to start out with, but wolves in sheeps clothing came in and made it into a evil ceasepool of corruption over time.[/quote]

If you recognize the problems that occur in the Church are not intrinsic to the Church, but are due to the personal failings of human beings, then what exactly is your beef? Perhaps you forgot it was Judas, one of the twelve disciples Jesus chose that ultimately betrayed Him, does this somehow devalue the early church or Christ? Of course not. It's not like the early Church was this pristine Household only to be corrupted much later. There always have been corruptive elements *in* the Church but never intrinsic to her.

[quote]That's my opinion, and it won't matter how many people will keep on quoting Jesus saying to Peter he is the rock he will build his church on. Peter didn't follow a organized religion. . .[/quote]

It matters because Jesus did establish a Church with Peter as the earthly foundation and Himself as the Spiritual one. It's the reason why the Church bears the mark of Holiness even though there are corruptive elements within her.

[quote]What is your opinion of this Moritfy? Can God pour out his spirit on a protestant? How about anybody else?[/quote]

He can and does, but if someone refuses that Grace because it doesn't go according to their "feelings," then they are rejecting the gift of Faith. When our feelings contradict what God says we must follow the example of the Apostles:

[quote][color="#0000FF"]On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "[b]This is a hard teaching. Who can accept i[/b]t?"

Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you?
...
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.

Simon Peter answered him, [b]"Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."[/b][/color][/quote]

[Pleural]

[quote name='mortify' post='1406353' date='Oct 21 2007, 12:52 AM']Godchaser,

You ought to consider that your personal understanding of scripture is flawed. Our human intellect can fail us, and any spirit (even one posing as an angel of light) can misguide us into thinking our understanding is inspired.[/quote]

Ah, have you considered applying that thought to the Catholic Church?

[quote name='I Corinthians 11']3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.[/quote]

How did Satan beguile Eve in the garden of Eden?
1) He questioned what God had told them, using different words to subtly deceive. God had said you [b]may[/b] eat of [b]every[/b] tree *except* the one... Satan said "hath God said, Ye shall not eat of [b]every[/b] tree of the garden?" Satan wanted to change the way Eve thought about God's command, he wanted Eve to think that God was trying to limit them, and he chose his wording accordingly.
2) He used words which sounded like the truth ("your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods") but which were not properly understood by Adam and Eve
3) He made promises to them: that they would be "as gods" and that they would not die

[quote name='Genesis 2']16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.[/quote]

[quote name='Genesis 3']1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.[/quote]

Indeed, their eyes [b]were[/b] opened, as Satan said, but not in the way that Adam and Eve were deceived into thinking. Satan used words which they did not properly understand, and Adam and Eve failed to accurately return to and trust in the word of God. They were "as gods" in the sense that they knew "good and evil" (they already had good in God's gifts, and now they knew evil), but that was nothing to attain to.

A little of truth, or words which sound are similar to truth, mixed with a lie, creates a lie which is easier to believe, especially when a promise is added.

[quote name='I Corinthians 11']14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.[/quote]

Not only Satan, but also others who do his works, are working in the world.
Paul has told us that it happens and that it will happen. This is a direct warning to us that Satan will use ministers who appear as ministers of righteousness, that he is doing so right now.

John gives us the same warning:
[quote name='I John 4:1']Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.[/quote]

Peter also warned us of false teachers, telling us that they shall cause the way of truth (Jesus Christ) to be evil spoken of. Beware any religion which has caused anyone to speak evil of the way of God.

[quote]But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.[/quote]

Obviously it was important to the apostles that those who would come after them would know that there would be false teachers in the world who would claim to follow God but who would be deceivers. We cannot believe [b]any[/b] teacher or group of teachers without checking them against the gospel of Jesus as preached by the NT apostles and found in the Word of God. If we do not check, how shall we know them to be true? Remember that the Bereans were praised for searching the scriptures to confirm what they were taught by Paul and Silas.

[quote name='Acts 17:11']These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.[/quote]

[quote name='Jesus (Mark 4:22)']For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.[/quote]

Remember that the way of Christ is [b]simple[/b] (I Corinthians 11).

[ironmonk]

[quote name='GodChaser' post='1406924' date='Oct 21 2007, 11:52 PM']I don't blame the Catholic Church for what happens in it. What you need to realize is this, the Whore of Babylon is responsible for every murder in the world. (That means 9/11 too. The leaders of the Babylonian system are the real planners of that event). That world system is not the Catholic Church, because that would mean the Catholics must have been around when Abel was around!

However, I will not go into a church that is controlled by the world system of lies and propaganda. I will not be involved in a church that has murdered people, and planned to murder people. King James comes to mind when I say those things, as it was a Jesusit priest who planned to blow up the parliment in England when King James was going to announce his commission of the King James Version of the Bible. But that's okay, right, King James is a filthy protestant and a heretic, and needed to be murdered, right.

That shows how far the Catholic Church has been corrupted by the Babylon system. Started good to start out with, but wolves in sheeps clothing came in and made it into a evil ceasepool of corruption over time.

That's my opinion, and it won't matter how many people will keep on quoting Jesus saying to Peter he is the rock he will build his church on. Peter didn't follow a organized religion. . .

Much of my posts in this thread were Mortify's attempt to assassinate my character. I'm use to it, because Lucifer loves to make people attack me all the time, weither it is in the spirit, or on these forums.

He thinks I am not lead by the spirit, simply because I am not Catholic, or will follow the Catholic Religion.

I would like him to discuss why Joel says God will pour out his spirit on all flesh, buddhist, athiest, protestant, catholic, communist, capitalist, and all other people, and their sons and their daughters will prophesie, and their young men shall dream dreams, and their old men shall have visions?

What is your opinion of this Moritfy? Can God pour out his spirit on a protestant? How about anybody else?[/quote]

I don't even know where to begin with your misconceptions of the world, Christian theology, and history.

You need to get educated in Scripture and Christian history... stop blindly believing other people's accounts of what the first Christians said and did, read them for yourself...

[url="http://www.NewAdvent.org/Fathers/"]http://www.NewAdvent.org/Fathers/[/url] (free here or buy them here: www.Logos.com)



How Old Is Your Church?

If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534, because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to re-marry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605.

If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.

If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.

If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.

If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as "Church of the Nazarene," "Pentecostal Gospel," "Holiness Church," "Pilgrim Holiness Church," "Jehovah's Witnesses," your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past one hundred years.

If you are Roman Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.

"O God,
I humbly beseech thee to teach me thy true religion,
that leads to everlasting happiness,
through Jesus Christ thy Son, our Lord. Amen."

[GodChaser]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1406939' date='Oct 21 2007, 10:09 PM']I was wondering: where do you get your version of history from? If you have a link, I'd love to see it.

I assume you're referring to the Gunpowder Plot, but your facts are a bit off target.[/quote]
So - this doesn't bother you.

Guy Fawkes

Guy Fawkes' real name was Guido Fawkes. The son of Edward Fawkes, the proctor and advocate in the constituary court of York, Fawkes was born in the Stonegate district of York and Baptized at St. Michael-le-Belfry in 1570. Fawkes had two younger sisters called Elizabeth and Anne.

Fawkes attended St. Peter's School in 1578 where he may have been influenced by the headmaster, John Pullen, a man later named as a suspected Jesuit. John and Christopher Wright also attended St. Peter's.

After his father died in 1579, his mother Edith remarried into the Catholic Bainbridge family of Scotton. It is believed it was his stepfather that influenced him to become a Catholic. By the time Fawkes had reached the age of 21, Fawkes had sold his inheritance and had joined the Catholic forces fighting in the Low Countries.

For twelve years Fawkes served in the Militia in the Netherlands. As a trained miner, he was highly skilled with gunpowder and in the practices of tunneling. During his service, Fawkes was actually at the siege of Calais and in 1603, Fawkes sought counsel with King Philip II in Spain on the plight of English Catholics. It was there, that he met with Christopher Wright, with whom he attempted to obtain Spanish support for an invasion of England.

On April 25th 1604, Fawkes arrived in England with Thomas Wintour and in May 1604 he joined the Gunpowder Plot with Robert Catesby at The Duck and Drake Inn, with the express intention of destroying the Palace of Westminster, the Houses of Parliament and King James I.

There were 13 conspirators in total, their names were: Robert Catesby, Thomas Wintour, Jack Wright, Thomas Percy, Guy Fawkes, Robert Keyes, Robert Wintour, John Grant, Kit Wright, Thomas Bates, Ambrose Rookwood, Francis Tresham and Sir Everard Digby.

On the night of October 26th, an anonymous letter was delivered to a Catholic Peer, Lord Monteagle. This letter warned him to stay away from the opening of Parliament on November 5th. This letter is believed to have been sent by Francis Tresham, one of the co-conspirators. Lord Monteagle took the letter to Robert Cecil, the Earl of Sainsbury, who was James' first minister. Sainsbury decided that striking at the last minute would achieve the best results.

Fawkes was subsequently captured at around midnight on Nov 4th and was brought before the Privy Council on November 5th. On November 7th, after several sessions of severe torture and under great duress, Fawkes finally admitted that the conspirators had planned to free Sir Walter Raleigh and other Tower of London Prisoners by blowing up Parliament with a large cache of Gunpowder.

Fawkes is recorded as saying

"yt was past, and he is nowe sorry fo yt, for that he nowe
perceyveth that God did not concur with yet."

This was Fawkes' acknowledgment that he had only been foiled in his objectives by the will of God. Fawkes only revealed the identity of his co-conspirators under extreme torture on November the 9th, but only after he was told that some had already been arrested by the authorities. He was finally hung, drawn and quartered which was the traditional punishment for traitors on January 31, 1606. Guy Fawkes was hung until he was half dead and then his genitals were cut off and burned in front of him. Whilst still alive, his heart and bowels would be removed from his body, he would be decapitated and his limbs removed from his body. Finally, his body parts would be publicly displayed and left for the birds to eat them. All but one of his co-conspirators died this way. Francis Tresham died of illness in the Tower in December 1605.

In 1605 on the anniversary of Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot being foiled, bonfires were lit to burn effigies of Guy Fawkes and fireworks let off in defiant celebration all over London and within a couple of years this was a national celebration. To this day Guy Fawkes is remembered each year on November 5 for his audacious attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament and nearly successful act of ultimate traitorship.

Amusing Note:
Until 1959 it was illegal not to celebrate the date of Guy Fawkes arrest in England!

As I said I don't believe that there is anything wrong with being Catholic, but a lot of catholics take it too much to their head, and come off doing something like what I just described. They take it on themselves to destroy 'filthy' protestants for not accepting the corruption of some practices of the Catholic Church, while adding onto the corruption?

How can we know how far up the Catholic leadership this went up to? Did the pope know? Did the pope actually help fund this? These are questions to be asked concerning this, and if you say, don't ask that, why not? Aren't questions healthy for people to ask?

[Pleural]

[quote name='Deo Iuvente' post='1405076' date='Oct 18 2007, 09:08 PM']The Chronicle,he mentions "paschal sacrifices" when speaking of the evangelist Mark announcing christ in egypt and alexandria.[/quote]

Are you sure you mean the chronicle, and not church history? Which chapter and section (by number)? Got a quote?

Edited October 22, 2007 by Pleural

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='GodChaser' post='1407041' date='Oct 22 2007, 06:57 AM']How can we know how far up the Catholic leadership this went up to? Did the pope know? Did the pope actually help fund this? These are questions to be asked concerning this, and if you say, don't ask that, why not? Aren't questions healthy for people to ask?[/quote]

"Remember remember the fifth of November. . ."

There is no evidence to state that anyone in the Church hierarchy knew. Regardless, the Church teaches that murder is wrong, so we can't say the Church would have condoned this. I don't agree with the way the people involved in the plot were going about it, but I also can't blame them for being mad, when there were anti-Catholic laws in effect. This was not the only attempt on James I's life, either; all the attempts were made in order to try to get rid of the anti-Catholic laws. Does that make it right to try to kill him? No, and again, the Church does not condone such actions, but I can imagine their frustration.

[CatholicCid]

[quote]King James comes to mind when I say those things, as it was[i] a Jesusit priest [/i]who planned to blow up the parliment in England [i]when King James was going to announce his commission of the King James Version of the Bible[/i]. But that's okay, right, King James is a filthy protestant and a heretic, and needed to be murdered, right.[/quote]
Who was the Jesuit Priest? Your source also didn't mention the "King James Bible" at all.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='GodChaser' post='1407041' date='Oct 22 2007, 02:57 AM']So - this doesn't bother you.[/quote]What bothers me is that you are stating things that aren't true.

[GodChaser]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1407079' date='Oct 22 2007, 07:02 AM']What bothers me is that you are stating things that aren't true.[/quote]
So you're saying that the Gun Powder plot of Nov. the 5 didn't happen? And it wasn't because King James was making anti-catholic laws, probably due to the Inquisitions that were happening in Europe at the time, so he made it extremely hard to be a catholic in a world where Catholics were killing Jews and Protestants, left, right and center. King James didn't have a right to protect himself? He didn't have a right to protect his people?

What kind of King would that be?

[quote]The Roman Inquisition

The criminal procedure of the Middle Ages was grosser than any man can imagine nowadays: as gross as the medical or any other procedure of the time. It has taken two hundred years of criminal and penal reform to give us the system we have today, and that is far from perfect. But the secular criminal procedure of the Middle Ages was innocent and refined in comparison with the procedure of the Holy Church. It tortured the accused, it is true; but no lawyer that ever lived, in the most imperfect civilization, would have admitted justice in the mixture of fanaticism, cupidity, and brutality which the Jesuit and the Canon have described for us.
This was the Roman Inquisition: the tribunal set up by the Roman Church in nearly every country except Spain. England never admitted it, except in one brief episode. The Scandinavian countries, which had few heretics, never had it. It failed also to get a firm foothold in the southeast (Bulgaria, Bosnia, Dalmatia, Roumania, and Hungary), where the heretics were too powerful to let it settle permanently or act considerably. In Bohemia and Poland it has not a great history. In the former kingdom, where four hundred and fifty nobles signed a protest against the burning of Hus, the Papacy had to use force on a larger scale -- war -- to murder heresy; and in Poland there was not much to be done.

In Italy itself rebels against Rome were extraordinarily numerous and strong by the beginning of the thirteenth century. In the specially Papal town of Viterbo the Pope found that nearly all the authorities and his own chamberlain were Cathari. In Florence heretics and skeptics were extremely numerous and outspoken. From the time of Frederick II and Gregory IX onward, therefore, there was a terrible struggle and large numbers were plundered, imprisoned, or burned. One fierce Inquisitor, Peter the Martyr, was assassinated in 1252. Venice, as I said, kept the profits of the business to itself and defied the Popes. In the north the Waldensians were so numerous that the decimating procedure of the tribunals could not check them. In 1488 the Pope flung a force of fifteen thousand soldiers upon them, and the soldiers were beaten. In 1510 the Inquisition moved further armies against them, but they survived in great numbers in the valleys of the Alps until the terrible Vaudois massacres of the year 1655 contributed their share to the "unity of the Church."

Catholics boast that in Rome itself, where the Popes directly controlled the tribunal, there was singularly little persecution. One Catholic writer who is occasionally quoted, goes so far as to say that no man was ever put to death by the Roman Inquisition. One can hardly believe that he never heard of Giordano Bruno! But the truth is that the Papacy has taken good care to keep the records of the Inquisition in Rome from the profane eye of the historian. Dr. L. Pastor, the Catholic historian of the Papacy, tells us that when Leo XIII, with a flourish of trumpets, threw open to the world the Secret Archives of the Vatican, he searched in them for the records of the Inquisition. They were not there. The Pope had had some documents removed before be threw open the Archives!

On the whole, we should not expect to find much burning of heretics in Rome itself, for the simple reason that a semi- Manichaean would hardly choose to go and propagate his gospel under the very nose of Gregory IX or Innocent IV, and in a city that had clerics in every second house. But let us make no mistake about the responsibility of the Popes. The Inquisition in Florence, in France, in Germany, or in Belgium was the Papal Roman Inquisition, as directly controlled and guided by the Popes as was the Inquisition of Rome itself.

In the south of France the activity of the Inquisition was almost as horrible as in Spain. I have in an earlier section referred to the Dominican monk Robert le Bougre (he was supposed to be a convert from the neo-Manichaean or Bulgar religion), and in glancing at the work of this man even the courtly Father Blotzer is moved to say that some of the Inquisitors "seem to have yielded to a blind fanaticism" and "deliberately to have provoked executions en masse." On May 29th, 1239, the brute burned one hundred and eighty heretics, including the bishop of the place, in a very small town of the province of Champagne. The "trial" of this immense number of denounced did not last a week. The bishops of central and northern France had reported that there was no heresy in their territory, but Robert found it everywhere. After a few years of gross and murderous activity he was himself deposed and imprisoned by the Pope.

It was mainly in the south of France that the Inquisitors were active. The fearful massacres of the Albigensians at the beginning of the thirteenth century had by no means extinguished the rebellion. In 1241 and 1242, especially, the Inquisitors provoked such anger by their conduct that one of them was assassinated. The Pope compelled the Count of Toulouse to lead his troops against them, and the war or "crusade" was resumed. They were, however, now not numerous enough to sustain the shock of armies. Their last town was taken from them, and thousands were added to the hundreds of thousands of their martyrs. It would be safe to estimate that there were at least a hundred times more semi-Manichaeans put to death for their religion in fifty years in the south of France than there had been Christians put to death in three centuries in the early Church. And that is the record of one small area in one half- century.

When the soldiers had made the land "safe for heroes," the Inquisitors set to work with redoubled brutality. Their excesses were so great that repeated complaints were sent to the king, Philip the Fair, and it depended entirely on the momentary color of his relations with the Pope whether he intervened or not, In 1290 they made a victim of a notoriously pious and charitable friend of the Franciscan friars, Fabri, finding him a heretic when his lips were sealed by death and confiscating his estate. In 1301 the king sent representatives to investigate the charges against the Inquisitors, and they found the prisons so foul and deadly, and the procedure so gross and unjust, that the king complained to Rome. Two of the Inquisitors were suspended, and their powers were curtailed in France. Later Pope Clement V got such complants from Bordeaux and Carcassonne that be had to send two cardinals, and they found a sordid system. Clement had, within the limits of the barbaric ideal of the Inquisition, some feeling of humanity. When he died, the Inquisitors resumed their work with more "zeal" than ever and, as a result of more than one hundred years of bloodshed, robbery, and vile treatment, they persuaded the southern provinces of France to become orthodox.

Unfortunately, says Vacandard, in extenuation of these crimes, heresy in the Middle Ages was generally associated with anti-social ideas. To prove this he devotes a long chapter of his book to the tenets of these heretics of southern France. He finds what I have already described: the inner circle, the elect, of the Albigensians were vowed to celibacy and voluntary poverty -- just as the monks were. He does not make it sufficiently clear that the mass of the Albigensians married and held property like all others, and I may add that their teaching the right to commit suicide, of which much is made, is now generally recognized. But the broad historical situation completely discredits this loathsome way of defending the Popes by libeling the rebels. These southern provinces of France were, after the Mohammedan kingdoms in Spain, the most prosperous and contented in Europe, and they were ruined when the "heresy" was ruined.

Two particular incidents, -- the burning of Joan of Arc in 1431 and the condemnation of the Knights Templars in 1312 -- fitly illustrate the spirit and procedure of the Roman Inquisition in France. Whether Joan was a witch or not, she was vilely drawn into a death-trap by having the use of male clothing practically forced upon her, and the recantation she signed was fraudulently replaced by another.

The crushing of the Order of the Templars is one of the grossest single exploits of the Inquisition. The king of France wanted their wealth, and, as Vacandard himself candidly says, the Pope "truckled" to him. This was Clement V, the one Pope in whom, up to the present, I have had to note some semblance of humanity. From the time he had bought the tiara, with the connivance of the French king, and his name is the one most frequently quoted by apologists when they would illustrate the liberality of the Popes, I may add that he lived a life of royal sensuality in the Papal palace at Avignon and is more than suspected of tender relations with the Countess de Talleyrand-Perigord. He died worth more than $2,500,000. This was the good Pope, the humane Pope, who permitted the Templars to be robbed and murdered after one of the grossest travesties of a trial in history. Large numbers of the Knights died under the fearful torture rather than lie about their own Order.

It was in connection with the trial of the Templars that the Inquisition had its one experience on English soil. It is hardly necessary to say that this does not mean that there was religious toleration in medieval England. The fearful persecution of the followers of Wyclif and the later hanging, burning, beheading and quartering of Protestant and Catholic rivals are well known. The death-sentence was decreed in 1400.

But England dealt with its own heretics; and, in fact, when Edward II was informed of the false and incredible stories told of the Templars, be bluntly refused to believe them. Pope Clement V assured him that the Knights had confessed these things -- he probably omitted to describe the tortures -- and in 1309 two Inquisitors were admitted into England to conduct a trial. They were refused the right to torture, and, as they could find no proof of guilt without that barbarous instrument, they complained to the Pope. Clement the Humane angrily demanded that the king should permit torture, claiming that Church law was higher than English civil law. In the end he bribed the king, in the customary Papal manner, and the Templars were tortured and destroyed. A pretty record for almost the one Pope who is quoted as "checking the zeal of the Inquisitors."

In southern and western Germany the Inquisitors were at first as had as in France. Conrad of Marburg, the ascetic friend of St. Elizabeth, was almost as brutal as Robert le Bougre. An accused person was harshly ordered to reply simply "yes" or "no" to the charge, and if he did not at once say "yes," he was condemned and sent to the stake. We read with pleasure that Conrad was one of the many Inquisitors whom the people assassinated, and that the bishops of Germany angrily protested against his Inquisition. When Frederick II died the Inquisition was checked, but later the Popes re-imposed it, and large numbers of rebels were put to death.

With the growth of heresy on a very large scale, at the Reformation, the Roman Church had to reorganize its Inquisition. What is now called the Holy Office is its reconstructed successor. It was created in 1542 by Paul III with the title of The Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition, or the Holy Office. Humor is a thing unknown in the Vatican. Its permanent court of six (later eight, and eventually thirteen) cardinals was supposed to be the final court of appeal on charges of heresy. But the times are evil, and the "sacred" machinery is stored away in the Papal furniture repository, awaiting the dawn of that more religious age which (the Italians say) American Catholics are going to inaugurate.


The Spanish Inquisition

But few of my readers will be under any illusion as to why I recognize the distinction. It is little more than a geographical convenience. The Inquisition in Spain was so characteristic, so rich in its opportunities, so successful in the total number of its murders, that it deserves to be considered separately. As to this plea of political and secular character, even Catholic priests sometimes reject the subterfuge with disgust. Bishop Hefele, one of the most resolute Catholic apologists of the nineteenth century, naturally adopted it in his "Life of Cardinal Ximenes." But when the work was translated into English (1860) and had to face the fire of British scholarship, it had a preface of Canon Dalton entirely repudiating this theory. "The Inquisition originated not so much in political as in religious motives," he says, and "no contemporary authority asserts the contrary." It is mild language. The Spanish writers he quotes emphatically represent it as a purely religious tribunal, and the shades of Ferdinand and Isabella, if there are such shades, must have warmed the atmosphere of cloud- land with their language -- which was vigorous -- when the first modern apologist raised this mendacious plea that the Spanish Inquisition was anything but strictly religious.
What I said about the economic side of the Inquisition supplies an explanation which will occur at once to the reader. It was a question of the division of the spoils. Sixtus IV and his successors greatly disliked the Spanish Inquisition because all the confiscated wealth remained in Spain. The Popes raised a little by receiving at Rome appeals -- those humane and beneficent appeals -- from the sentences of the Spanish Inquisitors, and remitting penances for a money-payment. But the Spaniards retorted by refusing to recognize the Pope's dispensations, and there was an unholy struggle.

The Spanish people, every historian tells us, were tolerant and disinclined to quarrel, but the preachers lashed them, especially against the Jews, and from the fourteenth century onward there were frequent pogroms. In 1391 four thousand Jews were killed in Seville alone. But Jews, unless they had once embraced Christianity, did not come under the cognizance of the Inquisition, and, merely reminding the reader that the final expulsion of the Jews in 1492, when (on a very moderate estimate) two hundred thousand were driven abroad with every circumstance of brutality and impoverishment, must be added to the ghastly account of the Christian religion, we must here ignore them. It is an ironic comment on the supposed "anti-social" doctrines of heretics that these expulsions of Jews and Moors ruined the brilliant civilization they had created in Spain just as the massacre of the Albigensians ruined Languedoc and the massacre of the Hussites ruined Bohemia.

Until the second half of the fifteenth century the Inquisition set up there by Gregory IX had comparatively little influence. Neither people nor rulers wanted its bloody work. With the accession of the fanatical Ferdinand and Isabella, however, and the fall of the last great Moorish city, Granada, a new era opened.

Even in the case of Isabella it is an historical fact that the priests compelled her to act. For a long time she refused the solicitation of the Dominican monks, but she yielded at last to the grim and overbearing Torquemada.

The details of the work of the Inquisition in Spain must be read in Sabatini's "Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition" (1913): a work strangely lacking in picturesqueness and, in its effort at impartiality, falling short of the truth in the general impression it gives. A small history of the Inquisition has still to be written -- Lea's seven volumes are sound, but no one today reads a work in seven volumes.

Let us keep a sense of proportion. The record of Christianity from the days when it first obtained the power to persecute is one of the most ghastly in history. The total number of Manichaeans, Arians, Priscillianists, Paulicians, Bogomiles, Cathari, Waldensians, Albigensians, witches, Lollards, Hussites, Jews and Protestants killed because of their rebellion against Rome clearly runs to many millions; and beyond these actual executions or massacres is the enormously larger number of those who were tortured, imprisoned, or beggared. I am concerned rather with the positive historical aspect of this. In almost every century a large part of the race has endeavored to reject the Christian religion, and, if in those centuries there had been the same freedom as we enjoy, Roman Catholicism would, in spite of the universal ignorance, have shrunk long ago into a sect. The religious history of Europe has never yet been written.

It is unnecessary to add that the Reformers followed for a time in the bloody footsteps of the Popes. But when Catholic apologists eagerly quote the sentiments of Reformers and the executions of Catholics by Protestants, they betray the usual lack of sense of proportion. A twelve-century-old tradition of religious persecution is not likely to be abandoned in a few decades. This particular kind of savagery, the infliction of a horrible death for opinions, had been introduced into Europe by the Christian leaders -- ancient Rome never persecuted for opinion or had any standard of orthodoxy -- and it had got into the blood. The killing of men for their beliefs by the early Protestants was murder just as was the killing of men by the Inquisition. It is a mockery to ask us to detect any divine interest in Churches during those fourteen centuries of ghastly injustice and inhumanity.

And there is this further difference. Protestant Churches have abandoned the principle that you may slay a man for heresy. The English law "De Haeretico Comburendo" (for the burning of heretics), framed and inspired by Roman Catholicism, was abandoned two and a half centuries ago, though the English Church retained absolute power in the land. One may speculate as to whether a Protestant Church might at some time revert to the old ideal, if it had the old power. I think not; but, as no Church ever again will have the power, it is idle to speculate.

But death for heresy is the actual law of the Roman Catholic Church today. Vacandard and others convey to their non-Catholic readers that Rome has repented like every other Church. Not in the least: it has not sacrificed one syllable of its teaching about heretics. I am under sentence of death in the Canon Law of the Roman Church. I have in my popular work, "The Popes and Their Church, shown that about the end of the last century, when the new generation of apologists were busy with their glosses on the past and their pretty appeals for universal tolerance, a new manual of Church Law, specially authorized by Leo XIII, written by a Papal professor, printed in a Papal press, was published. It was in Latin; and probably few Catholics in America will fail to be astonished to learn that the author states, and proves at great length, that the Church claims and has "the right of the sword" over heretics, and only the perversity of our age prevents it from exercising that right! More recent manuals of Church Law have the same beautiful thesis. It is today the law of the Roman Church. Remember it when you read these subtle Jesuits and eloquent Paulists and unctuous bishops on the "blunders" of the past and the right and duty of toleration today, The Inquisition (the Holy Office) exists. The law exists. And you and I may thank this age of skepticism that we keep our blood in our veins.[/quote]

From

[url="http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/chapter_23.html"]http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...chapter_23.html[/url]

And don't forget this guy.

[quote]Guy Fawkes

Guy Fawkes' real name was Guido Fawkes. The son of Edward Fawkes, the proctor and advocate in the constituary court of York, Fawkes was born in the Stonegate district of York and Baptized at St. Michael-le-Belfry in 1570. Fawkes had two younger sisters called Elizabeth and Anne.

Fawkes attended St. Peter's School in 1578 where he may have been influenced by the headmaster, John Pullen, a man later named as a suspected Jesuit. John and Christopher Wright also attended St. Peter's.

After his father died in 1579, his mother Edith remarried into the Catholic Bainbridge family of Scotton. It is believed it was his stepfather that influenced him to become a Catholic. By the time Fawkes had reached the age of 21, Fawkes had sold his inheritance and had joined the Catholic forces fighting in the Low Countries.

For twelve years Fawkes served in the Militia in the Netherlands. As a trained miner, he was highly skilled with gunpowder and in the practices of tunneling. During his service, Fawkes was actually at the siege of Calais and in 1603, Fawkes sought counsel with King Philip II in Spain on the plight of English Catholics. It was there, that he met with Christopher Wright, with whom he attempted to obtain Spanish support for an invasion of England.

On April 25th 1604, Fawkes arrived in England with Thomas Wintour and in May 1604 he joined the Gunpowder Plot with Robert Catesby at The Duck and Drake Inn, with the express intention of destroying the Palace of Westminster, the Houses of Parliament and King James I.

There were 13 conspirators in total, their names were: Robert Catesby, Thomas Wintour, Jack Wright, Thomas Percy, Guy Fawkes, Robert Keyes, Robert Wintour, John Grant, Kit Wright, Thomas Bates, Ambrose Rookwood, Francis Tresham and Sir Everard Digby.

On the night of October 26th, an anonymous letter was delivered to a Catholic Peer, Lord Monteagle. This letter warned him to stay away from the opening of Parliament on November 5th. This letter is believed to have been sent by Francis Tresham, one of the co-conspirators. Lord Monteagle took the letter to Robert Cecil, the Earl of Sainsbury, who was James' first minister. Sainsbury decided that striking at the last minute would achieve the best results.

Fawkes was subsequently captured at around midnight on Nov 4th and was brought before the Privy Council on November 5th. On November 7th, after several sessions of severe torture and under great duress, Fawkes finally admitted that the conspirators had planned to free Sir Walter Raleigh and other Tower of London Prisoners by blowing up Parliament with a large cache of Gunpowder.

Fawkes is recorded as saying

"yt was past, and he is nowe sorry fo yt, for that he nowe
perceyveth that God did not concur with yet."

This was Fawkes' acknowledgment that he had only been foiled in his objectives by the will of God. Fawkes only revealed the identity of his co-conspirators under extreme torture on November the 9th, but only after he was told that some had already been arrested by the authorities. He was finally hung, drawn and quartered which was the traditional punishment for traitors on January 31, 1606. Guy Fawkes was hung until he was half dead and then his genitals were cut off and burned in front of him. Whilst still alive, his heart and bowels would be removed from his body, he would be decapitated and his limbs removed from his body. Finally, his body parts would be publicly displayed and left for the birds to eat them. All but one of his co-conspirators died this way. Francis Tresham died of illness in the Tower in December 1605.

In 1605 on the anniversary of Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot being foiled, bonfires were lit to burn effigies of Guy Fawkes and fireworks let off in defiant celebration all over London and within a couple of years this was a national celebration. To this day Guy Fawkes is remembered each year on November 5 for his audacious attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament and nearly successful act of ultimate traitorship.

Amusing Note:
Until 1959 it was illegal not to celebrate the date of Guy Fawkes arrest in England![/quote]

Are you condoning the violence of the Roman Catholic Church at the time, and King James' wise approval of anti-catholic laws when catholics were murderering people by the millions because some people disagreed with them. Talk about a bunch of power hungry sociopathic control freeks!

King James was only doing what he knew was best, and yet, Because the Catholic Leadership was crazy back then.