Posted on 06/18/2004 9:55:45 AM PDT by xsysmgr
I highlighted it for it's weight. And yes, exterminate even means kill in latin. And that is precisely what Rome was talking about. You'll note they didn't drive heretics out of their countries and provinces. On the contrary, even when some ran off, the Church tracked them down and slaughtered them - chasing them halfway across Europe to do so. And you intend to sit there and play word games about "oh we really just meant drive them out". Bunk! The drive of Lateran III and Lateran IV was to get the Death penalty assigned to heresy. It means precisely what it says IN CONTEXT sir.
"There isn't any myopia going on here. The protestants, in their defense (which you won't see much of from me), at least don't go on every board on the internet and to every paper trying to downplay and lie through their teeth about what they did."
Boy, are YOU out in the weeds! The entire protestant and secular community has misrepresented the historical truth on these matters for CENTURIES, as I've pointed out in my example, and as the original article posted here asserts as well. I'd call THAT "MYOPIA"!!
It is. When Havoc posts something in order to lead others into confusion, the Church, via its member (me) clarifys. Neat little system, isn't it?
SD
Exactly. And this and other 'articles' excusing, or playing down the inquisition are not facts; they are lies.
The church declared it contained thousands of errors as they torched hundreds of New Testaments confiscated by the clergy, while in fact, they burned them because they could find no errors at all.
Now we see the problem. He was propagating errors. In a monolithic state this is analogous to treason.
Things are different in a modern secular state like ours. We really should not try to apply our standards to people living in a different time.
SD
ROFL.. stop it, you're killing me. The Roman Catholic Church arm twisted these kings and nobles into prescribing the death penalty for heresy, and when it backfires and the civil authorities put Catholics to death, then it's the fault of the protestants.. I mean, yes they do bear some responsibility; but, the gun that turned on Catholics was wrought by Catholics. It's a bit like swinging an axe to decapitate someone you hate and then pointing and screaming in their directions when the crowds gather because you missed and hit yourself instead.
Believe me, I think we all sympathize with the wrongs done to both sides. But at the same time, some healthy perspective is required. Let's not forget, it was Roman Catholic Manuals in the hands of Protestants at the witch trials and the like. They followed blindly where Rome had led them. Any way you cut it, Rome is ultimately responsible for letting that evil Djin out of the bottle. If Rome had followed New Testament Scripture on this as they should have - this discussion would not be taking place.
If you want to argue with the dictionary, be my guest. Your hatred blinds you. As usual.
It's easy to compare scholars who have studied the issue with internet jockeys who traffic in outrage for polemical purposes. There's no honest comparison. Caught in your deception, you can only turn the finger on someone else, the object of your hatred.
SD
"...I mean, yes they do bear some responsibility; but,..."
Worse weasel words were never written!
Unfortunately, it's not so easy to the average person, who isn't likely to read a scholarly source. Easy prey for the polemicists.
I didn't say anything about intentions. I assert that the Catholic church in the context of all of history is something basically good; quite good, in fact. I don't get the bashing. Is it possible the bashers here are being revisionistically antiseptic about the role of heresy in every pre-modern religion? For example, it is foolish to curse the Pharisees for doing what religious leaders must - face down dangerous threats to their faith. It must be understood in context.
Furthermore, it's not as if people were being indiscriminately killed. To be convicted of heresy, you had to be publicly spreading the pernicious doctrines of the sect, not merely privately adhering to it. If you recanted, your life would be spared. The numbers actually killed were small.
Not quite. Royal houses claim descendancy from David. They reigned by the will of God (sometimes His will was determined on a battlefield) & it was acknowledge or confirmed by the Roman Catholic Church. There was never anything "secular" about any monarchy, never.
At that time, the radical protestant Kings or Queens demanded COMPLETE OBEISANCE from their "subjects", including the Catholic members within their realms. If the Catholics under their charge complained about royal abuses, as the English and German Catholics did when their monarchs were involved in Machiavellian courtly and political intrigues, they were MERCILESSLY SLAUGHTERED.
"Radical" protestant Kings & Queens were doing the exact same thing as Roman Catholic Kings & Queens. They were continuing a long standing tradition.
To enlarge the royal purses of the monarchs in protestant countries, the property that belonged to the CATHOLIC COMMUNITY (not just the "Church", as you say) was confiscated and STOLEN to enrich themselves.
Protestants are Catholics, though they're not Roman Catholics. As I said, we are all one people.
Are you simply ignorant of history? Wycliffe was the first translation, and while he was not burned he was put on trial and one of his friends was burned.
Now we see the problem. He was propagating errors. In a monolithic state this is analogous to treason.
A remarkable assertion, since the same monarch that had Tyndale strangled and burned for "errors" authorized a translation that relied heavily on the work of...Tyndale.
Tell that to the people turned over to the monarchs & put to death, long before you em, cleared this matter up.
We decree that those who give credence to the teachings of the heretics, as well as those who receive, defend, and patronize them, are excommunicated; and we firmly declare that after any one of them has been branded with excommunication, if he has deliberately failed to make satisfaction within a year, let him incur ipso jure the stigma of infamy and let him not be admitted to public offices or deliberations, and let him not take part in the election of others to such offices or use his right to give testimony in a court of law. Let him also be intestable, that he may not have the free exercise of making a will, and let him be deprived of the right of inheritance. Let no one be urged to give an account to him in any matter, but let him be urged to give an account to others. If perchance he be a judge, let his decisions have no force, nor let any cause be brought to his attention. If he be an advocate, let his assistance by no means be sought. If a notary, let the instruments drawn up by him be considered worthless, for, the author being condemned, let them enjoy a similar fate.
Awful peculiar, don't you think, that if these excommunicated-for-a-year-heretics were supposed to be killed that this Canon goes on about how not to hire them if they are attornies, or how not to abide by their judgments if they are judges.
Strange, isn't it? Are we to presume that the dead often served as notary publics in the Middle Ages?
SD
I'm not arguing with the dictionary. You're playing with the dictionary trying to put a term that doesn't fit into the context to try and sway opinion. As an apologist for Rome with their track record, you're doing no more than I expect - lawyering trying to beg reason. The word use you're playing games with doesn't work, it doesn't fit the historical record or the context or much anything else other than the current handwringing trying to make Rome look less culpable that it really was. The Protestants are culpable for what they did and so is Rome.
I don't care about either at this point because it can't be changed. What I'm on about is the lying. And I don't care which of you does it. If Rome and Protestants are both lying, then, hey, You're both liars. But don't sit and handwring about it. Shape up and stop lying. Maybe one of the two groups might rediscover what a "witness" is.
Weasel words, no, not hardly. Co-conspirators both bear some responsibility in what they do. Neither bears it all alone. I'm ascribing the blame where it belongs - squarely on both groups. So where you get this garbage of calling it weasel words is beyond me. Guess you just can't handle the truth - that I could care less about.
Yes he is. But I don't think he wrote for Monty Python.
All of this is irrelevant. He produced an erroneous version and used it to spread heresy. Being "first" does not make you qualified.
A remarkable assertion, since the same monarch that had Tyndale strangled and burned for "errors" authorized a translation that relied heavily on the work of...Tyndale.
Monarchs don't "authorize" anything. They have no authority to authorize a translation of the Bible. That belongs to the Church.
SD
Wrong again. Your version doesn't fit into the context of the document, unless you believe the dead notarize documents.
SD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.