What an incohesive argument you are having with yourself, daniel1212, in this diatribe. Extremely hard to read and impossible to follow.
>What an incohesive argument you are having with yourself, daniel1212, in this diatribe. Extremely hard to read and impossible to follow.<
The post you are referring to simply provides the information in the newsletter.What argument do you see?
As far as my comments, what “diatribe” do you see, what is it you do not understand? Note that it was been often-evidenced in these forums that when some RCs see anything that impugns Rome then something happens that prevents understanding what is being said.
What was given was a presentation of certain points, which (as can be clearly shown) are that,
1. Persecuting others is not restricted to Catholics, who were persecuted themselves.
2. The subjects persecuting evangelicals here are animistic Catholics who are not acting consistent with Rome’s present teaching (which, in contradiction to much of the past, affirms freedom of religion and properly baptized Prots as separated brethren), nor that of the past, at least by taking matters into their own hands.
3. Yet Catholic persecution of evangelicals in S. American Catholic strongholds is not new, at seen by other recent examples.
4. In relation to the animistic Catholics, Catholicism has a history of religious syncretism, and elements thereof (such as liturgical calendars with Christianized pagan celebrations) are contrary in nature to religion under the New Covenant.
5. That in the future more Catholics might exhibit the persecutive behavior of these Mexican Catholics, and that Rome’s modern pacifism was more dictated by circumstance than superior enlightenment from them.
6. That being conformed to the world has always been and is a problem for the church, seen by evangelicals (though not alone) now becoming more like the society in which they pilgrimage, and which negative adaptation the Catholic institution engaged in by substantially taking upon the form and the means of the world it was in.
7. That Rome claims the right to punish its members by physical means, and had done so in the past, and which included rulers being mandated to cleanse the land of those use the church deemed were heretics, which were basically considered guilty until proven innocent.
(The reality that “ admirable, if eccentric, individuals were burned, not only without public protest but with general approval,” also evidences how the public could react here to the progressive punishment by liberal “Inquisitors” of souls of Christian character whom it deems incorrect.)