Skip to main content

.

contendah campbell will tell you “The Catholic Church tried, convicted,

tortured and killed millions of bible-believing protestants just like

me in the middle ages, because they refused to convert to

Catholicism and to bow down to the pope. 

And therefore this proves that the Catholic Church is evil and is

not the one true church.”

 

But the accusation is 100% false, and is nothing more than 16th

century propaganda that has been passed down through the ages

as fact, with the purpose of trying to prove the worth of

protestantism by tearing down the Catholic Church.

 

This webpage will explore the facts and the fantasy of inquisition

myths and lore.

 

http://www.catholicbible101.com/theinquisition.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Interesting stuff on the Inquisition and the Albigensian Heresy, Invictus, which was a problem to the Catholic Church in the early 13th Century. So that readers wil not be misled by what you are alleging, I will repeat what I posted concerning the Spanish Inquisition,  its Chief Inquisitor, Torquemada, and its activities in the late 14th Century, because this was the subject matter of my post:

 

<<< Torquemada’s spies turned friends against friends and they made sons and daughters testify against their parents.  Torquemada without lack of evidence would order Jews to be tortured or killed because of his discrimination towards them.  Countless of people were tortured, whipped, subjected to horrific physical punishments, and forced to surrender all of their property.  Children sometimes died from starvation.  People were often naked when they were tortured.  Torquemada favored many forms of torture like foot-roasting and suffocation.  People were sometimes burned alive, hanged, and grilled.  Some ways of torture often went through sexual organs.  One way  to torture people was the garrucha, which pulled a prisoner’s arms and legs from their sockets.  Another way of torturing Jews was the toca, a water torture, which was when water was forced down the victim’s throat.  Another method was the porto which used tight cords to stop blood from flowing.  Another method was the turtle which was when victims were crushed with heavy weights.  Another method was when a victim would be pushed into a garroting chair, which had a sharp point in the neck region.  Another method was the rack which stretched a person’s body a foot or more.  Then an inquisitor would rip off the victim’s nipples, tongue, ears, nose, and genitals. Some people were skinned from their head to their waist.  2,000 to 10,000 Jews suffered death by being burned on stakes and more than 9,000 were punished by other methods.  Many Jews died from starvation.  By one account, he killed over 30,000 people.  Torquemada’s hatred of heretics influenced King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella to expel every Jew or Muslim that had not embraced Christianity which was 200,000 to 300,000.  Most of them had ancestors that have lived in Spain for centuries.  It is said that Torquemada himself had Jewish blood in him.  Torquemada died of old age in 1478.>>>

 

Your link attempts to somehow excuse the methods of torture and coercion used by the Catholic Church's Office of the Inquisition on grounds that this was as standard practice in the world in which they lived.  Oh? Is that so?  Shall we take that to mean that the Catholic Church of the Inquisition was justified in adopting the inhumane, barbaric and unjust means of a perverted carnal justice system simply because such practices were common among the unrighteous in their time?  Is not the Catholic Church obliged to be a beacon of righteous judgment and humane principle?  Does not the Catholic Church take as divine guidance the entreaty of the apostle Paul to the Christians of his day, who lived among corrupt pagans but who were adjured thusly:

<<<14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

 

15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

 

16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

 

17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.>>  (2 Corinthians 2:14-17)

 

I fnd it interesting that you have not disputed the astonishing array of facts and descriptions in the information I posted concerning the Spanish Inquisition and its demonic leader.  Instead, you have cruised the body of Catholic apologetics and trotted out a lame piece of carefully-crafted propaganda that attempts to rationalize the centuries-long crusade of Catholic terrorism known as the Inquisition with the argument that well, it was bad, but not as bad as some folks say it was.  That flimsy rationale in no way erases the historic record of inhuman savagery and sadism that was part and parcel of the Catholic Church of that disgraceful era, Invictus.  It in no way offers any dispute of the actual point that I was making, namely that the Inquisition was the unholy creature spawned from a marriage of Church and State and stands as one of the more powerful historical models for rejecting such unions.  As I posted earlier (and as you ignored), the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Piux IX, continuing in effect to this day, proclaims the legitimacy of conjoining Church (meaning the Catholic Church) and the State.  The Inquisition and many other sad stories of history show us what can happen when that unholy union is in effect. 

 

.

Call it whatever you want, the protestant  propaganda is the only version

protestants want to hear. Any apologizing from you for the fabricating or

embellishing of events from you would be unwanted and unnecessary

as any apology from me will never come, is that what you're looking for

from all this?

You must be the oldest five year creep with biggest POS chip on your

shoulded that I've had the good fortune of never had to meet.

 

If it weren't for the good and respectable protestants within ear shot, I would

like to explain what a little darling you are and to buy you a cup of coffee.

 

 

Originally Posted by INVICTUS:

.

Call it whatever you want, the protestant  propaganda is the only version

protestants want to hear. Any apologizing from you for the fabricating or

embellishing of events from you would be unwanted and unnecessary

as any apology from me will never come, is that what you're looking for

from all this?

You must be the oldest five year creep with biggest POS chip on your

shoulded that I've had the good fortune of never had to meet.

 

If it weren't for the good and respectable protestants within ear shot, I would

like to explain what a little darling you are and to buy you a cup of coffee.

 

 

___

Now that you have gotten through that irrelevant and marginally literate  little tantrum, why don't you put something up of substance addressing the facutal matters I have described and the arguments I have based upon them?  That is the way intelligent and responsible persons conduct discussions of differing viewpoints.

Last edited by upsidedehead

I thought I was clear, there isn't a discussion here, you have No facutal

substance in the first place. You come at me, and it's everytime, like I just

killed your BFF dog. Your accusations and innuendos aren't conducive to

an agreeable exchange of information as far as I'm concerned or interested

in while you priss around like the **** of the walk.

Everything you need from me about it I posted above, and everything chuck

smith told you about it you have told me.

"the way intelligent and responsible persons conduct discussions of

differing viewpoints" my ass, you just want to hear yourself talk.

 

 

Originally Posted by INVICTUS:

I thought I was clear, there isn't a discussion here, you have No facutal

substance in the first place. You come at me, and it's everytime, like I just

killed your BFF dog. Your accusations and innuendos aren't conducive to

an agreeable exchange of information as far as I'm concerned or interested

in while you priss around like the **** of the walk.

Everything you need from me about it I posted above, and everything chuck

smith told you about it you have told me.

"the way intelligent and responsible persons conduct discussions of

differing viewpoints" my ass, you just want to hear yourself talk.

 

 

---

RI D I C U L O U S!
I rely on Chuck Smith for nothing.  Smith is Bill Gray's cult leader.  I have frequently posted information very negative--and deservedly so--about Smith.

 

By your studied evasiveness, you display for all to see that you have no meaningful defense against the historical and factual material I have posted concerning the notorious Spanish Inquisition and the heinous role of the church of your choice in forming and supporting it.

 

Here are more links with information on the excesses of the Catholic Church and the Inquisition:

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrar...ory/Inquisition.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

 

http://www.aish.com/jl/h/cc/48951681.html

 

Now it is time for you to  "respond" by posting more  evasive, non-substantive drivel that does nothing to support your position. 

.

Here are more links with information on the excesses of the Catholic Church

protestant gang and the Inquisition:

 

By your studied evasiveness, you display for all to see that you have no meaningful defense against the historical and factual material I have posted concerning the notorious Spanish Inquisition and the heinous role of the church of your choice in forming and supporting it.

 

Show me your defense for the following, I know henry wasn't allowed as

many divorces as he would like, maybe there's another reason.

 

 

List of Catholic martyrs of the English Reformation

 

The Catholic martyrs of the English Reformation are men and women who

died for the Roman Catholic faith in the years of persecution between 1534

and 1680. Certain of them have officially been recognised as martyrs by the

Catholic Church.

 

Catholics in England and Wales were executed under treason laws.

Legislation of the 16th century made treasonable refusing to assent to the

royal supremacy over the Church that had been established by Henry VIII,

or being or harbouring a Catholic priest. The standard penalty for all those

convicted of treason at the time was execution by being hanged,

drawn and quartered.

 

As early as the reign of Pope Gregory XIII (1572–85), authorisation was

given for 63 recognised martyrs to have their relics honoured and pictures

painted for devotion. These martyrs were formally beatified by

Pope Leo XIII, 54 in 1886 and the remaining nine in 1895. Further groups

of martyrs were subsequently documented and proposed by the bishops

of England and Wales, and formally recognised by Rome:

 

[1] the 54 martyrs recognised as Blessed equipollently on 29 December

1886 the nine martyrs recognised as Blessed equipollently on 13 May 1895

the 136 martyrs beatified by Pope Pius XI on 15 December 1929

the forty martyrs canonised by Paul VI on 25 October 1970

the 85 martyrs beatified by John Paul II on 22 November 1987

the 18 Carthusian Martyrs (some of whom are also among the groups

of martyrs listed above)

 

Decrees of Elizabeth I

 After Elizabeth I's accession to the throne, the religion of the country was

changed again to make it Protestant. Many people continued to remain loyal

to the old Catholic faith. The threat of invasion by a Catholic country assisted

by English subjects led the Crown to try to stamp out Catholicism with

repressive measures.[20]

 

Elizabeth I's government passed anti-Catholic decrees in 1571:

forbidding anyone from maintaining the jurisdiction of the pope by word,

deed or act; requiring use of the Book of Common Prayer in all cathedrals,

churches and chapels, and forbidding criticism of it; forbidding the

publication of any bull, writing or instrument of the Holy See (the death

penalty was assigned to this); and, prohibiting the importing of

Agnus Dei images, crosses, pictures, beads or other things from the

Bishop of Rome.

 

Later laws made the following activities illegal: to draw anyone away from

the state religion; non-attendance at a Church of England church; raising

children with teachers that were not licensed by an Anglican diocesan bishop;

and, attending or celebrating the Catholic Mass.

In 1585 a new decree was issued that made it a crime punishable by death

to go overseas to receive the sacrament of Ordination to the Catholic

priesthood or permanent diaconate. Nicholas Devereux (who went by the

alias of Nicholas Woodfen) and Edward Barber (see below

Edward Stransham) were both put to death in 1586 under this law.

 

William Thompson and Richard Lea (see below Richard Sergeant)

were hanged, disembowelled and quartered under the same law. In 1588,

eight priests and six laymen at Newgate were condemned and executed

under this law.[20]

 

1561–1600

[edit] 1601–1680

No precise date of martyrdom available

 

Notes

1.^ Malcolm Pullan (30 April 2008). The Lives and Times of Forty Martyrs of England and Wales 1535–1680. Athena Press. pp. xvii–xxii. ISBN 978-1-84748-258-7. Retrieved 10 November 2012. 2.^ "Elizabeth Barton." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 12 Jan. 2013

3.^ Alston, George Cyprian. "Edward Bocking." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 12 Jan. 2013

4.^ Wainewright, John. "Richard Risby." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 12 Jan. 2013

5.^ Wainewright, John. "Blessed John Houghton." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 12 Jan. 2013

6.^ Caldwell, Simon. "Catholic, Anglican bishops honor first English martyr of Reformation", Catholic News Service, May 5, 2005

7.^ a b "About St. Richard Reynolds", St. Richard Reynolds Catholic College

8.^ Gurdon, Edmund. "Bl. William Exmew." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 12 Jan. 2013

9.^ Wintersgill, H.G. "Bl. Humphrey Middlemore." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 12 Jan. 2013

10.^ Wainewright, John. "Bl. Sebastian Newdigate." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 12 Jan. 2013

11.^ Wainewright, John. "Blessed Hugh Faringdon." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 12 Jan. 2013

12.^ Shahan, Thomas. "Bl. Thomas Abel." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 14. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 12 Jan. 2013

13.^ Huddleston, Gilbert. "Bl. Richard Fetherston." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 12 Jan. 2013

14.^ Camm, Bede. "Ven. Edmund Brindholm." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 12 Jan. 2013

15.^ The House of White Friars, Doncaster at British History Online

16.^ Pollen, John Hungerford. "George Ashby." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 12 Jan. 2013

17.^ Macpherson, Ewan. "Blessed John Beche." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 12 Jan. 2013

18.^ a b c The Observant Friars of Greenwich at British History Online places certain executions in 1534, citing Bourchier, Hist. Eccl. de Martyrio Fratrum

19.^ The Book of Martyrs (Foxe), Chapter XVI, Wikisource, accessed 1 February 2013

20.^ a b Chapman, John H. "The Persecution under Elizabeth" Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Old Series Vol. 9 (1881), pp. 21-43. Retrieved 2012-02-19.

21.^ a b c d The Oaten Hill Martyrs at RC.net

22.^ Bl. William Freeman at Catholic Online

[edit] References Pendrill, Colin (2000), The English Reformation 1485-1558, Heinemann. Pallen, C.B., Wynne, J.J., eds. (1929), The New Catholic Dictionary, New York: Universal Knowledge Foundation. This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). "English Confessors and Martyrs (1534-1729)". Catholic Encyclopedia. Robert Appleton Company.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L..._English_Reformation

 

 





Invictus, if you were not denser than depleted uranium, you would realize that every time you post information concerning the persecution of Catholics by civil government, you are validating the main point I have been making all along, namely that when civil government (State) and religion (Church) are conjoined so as to share authority over the citizenry of a nation, the result all too often has been oppression and persecution of those whose religious beliefs do not coincide with those of the State-endorsed religion.  That is true whether the State church is Protestant, Catholic, or Islamic.

 

Moreover, Invictus, you have consistently and utterly failed to address my documented contention that the edict of Pope Pius  IX, in the Catholic Church's "Syllabus of Errors,"  which continues in effect to this day, proclaims the legitimacy of conjoining Church (meaning the Catholic Church) and State.  The Spanish Inquisition, the atrocities of the English Reformation and many other sad stories of history show us what can happen when that unholy union is in effect. 

Your total silence on this issue loudly proclaims that you have no defense for this presumptuous and arrogant claim by your "Holy Mother Church.". It is past time you faced up to this despicable Papist claim.

 

 

Upside, I am always amazed that a man of your obvious intelligence and understanding of the facts still believes in the bible. You are 100% right on the Inquisition and the horrors the Catholic Church inflicted on those that they deemed heretics. You see clearly how religion has corrupted and turned governments into hateful killing regimes. Yet you still support religion. I am sincere in asking you how you can't see that religion is a sickness that has caused horrors and destruction from its inception?

Originally Posted by INVICTUS:

.

I knew you would want to respond to the atrocities committed by the

protestants to the Catholic church clergy and laity.

 

Golly gee whiz kleenex, I hope you aren't mad.

 

 

___

Atrocities in the name of religion, by whomever perpetrated, are to be deplored, Invictus.  My point, which you continue to ignore, continues to be this:  The likelihood of religion-based atrocities, as long demonstrated in history, is increased greatly when Church and State are conjoined, such that the power of the State can be conscripted by the State-endorsed Church to oppose and persecute those who are not adherents to that favored Church or whose activities are deemed by it to be undesirable.   Notwithstanding this,the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Piux IX, continuing in effect to this day, proclaims the legitimacy of conjoining Church (meaning the Catholic Church) and the State.  The Inquisition, the English Reformation, and other sad stories of history show us what can happen when that unholy union is in effect. 

 

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

 

 

Upside, I am always amazed that a man of your obvious intelligence and understanding of the facts still believes in the bible. You are 100% right on the Inquisition and the horrors the Catholic Church inflicted on those that they deemed heretics. You see clearly how religion has corrupted and turned governments into hateful killing regimes. Yet you still support religion. I am sincere in asking you how you can't see that religion is a sickness that has caused horrors and destruction from its inception?


____

 

I will let these analysts state their cases, with which I agree:

 

From Gregory Koukl:  "It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God."

 

And from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn :  "Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.'

Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.'"

 

http://www.conservapedia.com/A...sm_and_Mass_MurderIn 

Jank, you yourself have said many times that atheists are not part of any group, that they are just different individuals who have only a non-belief in any gods in common. If they WERE an organized group, you can bet that there would be SOME sort of atrocity committed by them, just as there is in ANY organized group, from religous, to scouting, to sports fans, to, well, you name it. There is something about a group of people getting together for ANY reason that tends to bring out the mob mentality. It isn't that atheists are better people, it's just that they operate as individuals and not as a group.

 

You will no doubt find that there ARE atheists involved in any group you can think of which HAS committed atrocities. They just do it in the name of the Boy Scouts, or the Football team, or the political party of their choice, or whatever. I have no doubt there are atheists amongst the religious groups that do bad things too, as well as those who do good things.

 

Atheists are freelancers. If they ever became an organized group, the potential for that mob mentality and great harm would be just the same as with any other group.

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

Well upside, we will just have to agree to disagree I guess.

 

I don't believe you can show me one example of atheism as the central tenant of mass killings and destruction of humanity. You yourself have given proof of religion doing just that.

___

Atheism, as an organized and identified body, need not be shown responsible for mass killings, but individual atheists such as Stalin and Mao have shown that they can aggregate sufficient resources to carry out their murderous genocidal programs.  Godlessness, in such monsters, provides for them such conscienceless and amoral direction as to justify for themselves the evil that they do.

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

Well upside, we will just have to agree to disagree I guess.

 

I don't believe you can show me one example of atheism as the central tenant of mass killings and destruction of humanity. You yourself have given proof of religion doing just that.

jank, a belief in God does not allow a deviation from his commands, therefore. logically all straying from God requires atheism.

From Gregory Koukl:  "It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God."


=================


Possible that religion can produce evil? Possible? The truthful statement is that it absolutely does produce evil.

Hi Vic,

 

I find your web site interesting.  Its logo or subtitle is:  "21st Century Catholic Apologetics for Mary's Spiritual Warriors."

 

Not Spiritual Warriors for GOD!   But, Spiritual Warriors FOR MARY!   When did Mary supersede God?

 

So, now, I suppose instead of a Triune God -- Father, Son, Holy Spirit -- we have a Quad God: Mary, Father, Son, Holy Spirit.  Somehow, I just cannot find a QUAD GOD in my Bible.


And, your web site tells us:


Are you saved?  How many times have we all been asked that question by well meaning Protestant friends of ours?  The question is a loaded one, implying that once you confess that Jesus Christ is your personal Lord and savior, that's it, you're saved.  If that were true, then we wouldn't need to go to Confession, nor would we  need the Eucharist at each Mass.

 

We do not need to confess to a man, nor do we need to re-crucify Jesus Christ every day at mass.

 

Do we need to confess our sins?   You bet!  But, when Jesus Christ died, we read, "And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split"  (Matthew 27:51).

 

What was the significance of the 18 inch thick Holy of Holies veil splitting from top (God) to bottom (man)?  The following footnote is from the Harper NASB Study Bible (Zondervan):

 

The tearing of the veil signified:  (1) that full atonement had been made [Hebrews 10:19-20]; (2) that Christ had gone through the veil into the most holy place, into the presence of God Himself [Hebrews 9:12, 24]; (3) that Christ as mediating High Priest made unnecessary any human priesthood standing between man and God [Hebrews 7:23-28]; and (4) that ALL believers have immediate access, without the benefit of any priesthood except that of Christ, to the presence and favor of God [Romans 5:2, Ephesians 2:18, 3:12].

 

That pretty well explains it.  Before Christ went to the cross as the "once for all time" Sacrificial Lamb of God -- priest had to enter the Holy of Holies and offer sacrificial animals, i.e., unblemished lambs, doves, etc., for the temporal forgiveness of sin.  But, when the Perfect Lamb of God went to the cross, once for all -- there is no longer any need to continue crucifying Him on a daily basis.

 

Christ ripped the veil and gave man immediate access to the throne of God through prayer.  There is now no longer any need for priests to sacrifice nor to hear confessions.  God hears our confessions personally.

 

Then your web site tells us:


A one-time profession of faith in Jesus Christ is a great start, but there is much more to salvation than that.  Jesus said that the Eucharist forgives sin (Matthew 26:28), Confession forgives sin (John 20:22-23, and the Last Rites forgive sin (James 5:14-15).  This "I am saved" philosophy of many protestants doesn't require any of these methods of forgiveness, because they believe they are already saved and don't need any sacraments. And that begs the question as to why Jesus instituted these sacraments to aid us in our salvation if all we had to do was profess our belief in him one time.

 

This teaches:  A one-time profession of faith in Jesus Christ is a great start, but there is much more to salvation than that.

 

Yet, Ephesians 2:8-9 tells us, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; NOT as a result of works, so that no one may boast."

 

So, your web site tells us we have to work for salvation; yet the Bible tells us salvation is NOT a result of works.  Which do we believe -- the Vatican or the Bible?  I will take the Bible.

 

Your site tells us, "Jesus said that the Eucharist forgives sin (Matthew 26:28)."


Matthew 26:28, "For this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins."   How true, Christ died on the cross so that all who will believe in His finished work on the cross can be saved.  This is what we are told in Ephesians 2:8, ""For by grace you have been saved through faith;. . ."   I see no Eucharist in Matthew 26:28 -- unless someone at the Vatican inserts it -- for God did not.


Your site tells us, "Confession forgives sin (John 20:22-23."


Does "confession" forgive sin?  Does a priest forgive sin?  Or does ONLY God forgive sin?   I will go with ONLY God.

 

What is meant in John 20:22-23?  Was Jesus giving His apostles the power to forgive sin?   Of course not.


John 20:22-23, "And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.   If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."

 

Jesus gives His disciples authority to announce forgiveness and to warn of guilt, as authorized by the Holy Spirit.  This lays down the duty of the church to proclaim forgiveness to the penitent believer, and the duty of the church to warn the unbeliever that they are in danger of forfeiting the mercy of God.   But, sin is against God, and God is the ONLY one who can forgive sins.


This authority to announce, or point out sin, and to warn of the consequences of sin -- is the responsibility of all pastors -- and, actually, the responsibility of all believers.  This is what Jesus meant in Matthew 28:19-20 when He tells all believers to "Go, Make disciples, Baptize them, TEACH THEM all that 'all that I commanded you.' "


Confession does not forgive sin, nor does a priest.  God forgives sin when a believer goes to Him in repentance.  We need no priest for that -- for Christ's death tore the veil from top to bottom -- giving all believers direct access to the throne room of God.


And, you web site tells us, "and the Last Rites forgive sin (James 5:14-15)."


What does the Scripture passage in James teach us about prayer?


James 5:13-16, "Is anyone among you suffering?  Then he must pray. Is anyone cheerful?  He is to sing praises.  (14) Is anyone among you sick?  Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; (15) and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him.  (16) Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed.  The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much."


This passage has absolutely NOTHING to do with last rites!  This is telling all believers that, if we are sick, physically or spiritually, we should go to our elders, i.e., pastors, church leaders, etc., and to other believers -- seeking their prayers for our healing.   Why?  Because "The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much."


Vic, my Friend, typical of most Roman Catholic teaching -- your web site has taken Scripture verses out of context and has attempted to squeeze them into supporting erroneous Roman Catholic doctrines.


God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,


Bill

2 Timothy 2-15

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 2 Timothy 2-15
Originally Posted by INVICTUS:
Originally Posted by Quaildog:

Invicculeous, as in the “original” this sin too is on you heads by your own logic.  I’m glad to be  aligned with contender when I reckon. He always handles you so well with no other tool than the truth.




*********

DQ, what sin is on my heads now?

 

These atrocities of the Catholic church against humanities.

Originally Posted by Quaildog:
Originally Posted by INVICTUS:
Originally Posted by Quaildog:

Invicculeous, as in the “original” this sin too is on you heads by your own logic.  I’m glad to be  aligned with contender when I reckon. He always handles you so well with no other tool than the truth.




*********

DQ, what sin is on my heads now?

 

These atrocities of the Catholic church against humanities.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You must have your atrocities confused with the witch hunts, once a big

and full of fun sport with you and the gang.

 

Protestants were the big witch-burners. Witch burning never caught on in

Catholic countries. When the Spanish Inquisition examined the cases of

reported witches, it almost invariably concluded that the charges were false

and the accused were not guilty. But tens of thousands of supposed witches

were burned at the stake, hanged, or drowned in Protestant countries,

including the American colonies. Slavery was another thing,

From the 15th to the 18th century, Irish prisoners were sold as slaves.

For centuries, the Irish were dehumanised by the English, described as

savages, so making their murder and displacement appear all the more

justified.[20] In 1654 the British parliament gave Oliver Cromwell a free

hand to banish Irish "undesirables". Cromwell rounded up Catholics

throughout the Irish countryside and placed them on ships bound for the

Caribbean, mainly Barbados. The authorities in the West Indies, fearing

the Irish would resist servitude, treated the prisoners harshly. Records

suggest that priests may have been routinely tortured and executed.

By 1655, 12,000 political prisoners had been forcibly shipped to Barbados.

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×