Posted on 06/02/2014 7:13:05 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Former Lutheran Dr. Thomas E. Woods is one more favorite CATHOLIC CONVERTS.
White people did well before Christianity, after Christianity started, after the Catholic denomination gained power, and after the Catholic denomination lost power.
It seems to have something to do with white people, because I look at 500 years of protestant Christianity here, and 500 years of Catholic Christianity to the South, and I see some things related to science and such.
Orville and Wilbur Wright were actually secret Catholics. That’s how they gained access to Vatican archives to find Geovanni Ghinovagelli’s plans from 1427 for a working flying popemobile.
John wrote to the seven churches, so I just accept the fact that it is God who gave us all we have and give Him the glory. Period.
Without the Catholic Church there would be no United States. Columbus and the rest of the great exployers were Catholic.
But we speak English. Isn’t that weird?
Sounds like it. Thanks. Just read Orthodoxy, by GK Chesterton, and it is great. Chesterton was a brilliant Catholic apologist.
Chesterton was so wise—way ahead of his time, and he recognized the evil Postmodernism/Atheism, which was descending on Western Civilization as early as 1905, and if not rejected, would destroy the greatest civilization in the history of man.
Common Sense and Reason was being ejected; Language/Words were being made meaningless. And Chesterton recognized it all and sent out warnings constantly....but it fell on deaf ears. There is a book which includes many of his best essays which is great. He was a prolific writer who wrote on every topic—including the destruction of the Natural Family.
The Catholics could never have created a United States, and they didn’t, but there about 20 Catholics nations starting a few miles from my house.
So every nine years you are going to post this garbage?
So says the church of what's happening now.
I asked. You don’t know the difference?
They were big in the hospitality and re-location business just after WW2 as well.
I respect your right to your assertions, but the Inquisition created the first real due process in world law, cross-examination, discovery and even the right to public statement of charges, at a time when civil governments engaged in routine torture and prosecuted heresy as a kind of treason, a juridical policy they inherited from the Romans, who used it against Christians. Civil prisoners were known to blaspheme specifically to have their venue transferred to comparatively milder ecclesiastical courts. A Roman Pontiff around 1475 forbade the Spanish monarchy from holding the Spanish Inquisition, 50 years later a Spanish monarch sent a menacing letter to a Roman Pontiff warning him against interfering with the Spanish Inquisition, which was a Spanish civil institution despite being staffed by Dominicans. The Spanish attitude towards our Hebrew elder brethren has to be tempered by the fact that Jews had recruited the Almoravids to invade Spain 700 years earlier. Though the various parties were distinguished by religion, the conflict had a strong civil involvement. A secular writer unsympathetic to the Spanish and the Church reackons an average of 3 executions per year for hundreds of years over a geographical expanse of Spanish occupation ranging from Sicily to Peru. Heretics couldn’t be summarily executed, only upon relapse/recidivism a second time. Even today the civil heresy of defense of traditional marriage is ruthlessly suppressed. Finally, the dark ages were done by the 10th century.
So says asks the church of what's happening now.
So............
And so in a take on the old lawyer's aphorism: if one can't argue the facts they argue procedure.
Additionally, it suggests that dated material is useless. So I have to wonder whether truth is not being analyzed through the prism of modernistic materialism.
Dated, as something that was already posted in 2005?
There. I think that is a more apt way to phrase it. It removes the negative connotation.
But in answer to your question, sure. I mean, why not? I don't recall seeing it in 2005. But that's not really the issue.
What is the issue is whether or not something has to be, "new" to be of any value? I suspect many people feel that way. There is an inherent post-modern predilection to dismissing that which came before.
“The RC closed book, discouragement of reading, earthcentric theories, inquisition contributed to the dark ages.”
Your comments are completely out of touch with reality. First of all, the “Dark Ages” is largely an Renaissance/Enlightenment construct with little or no truth to do it. Secondly, if there were any “Dark Ages” they were OVER by the time of the “Inquisition”. The inquisitions - and there was no single, dominant entity covering all of Europe called “The Inquisition” - were first set up in the thirteenth century - the same century in which Aquinas, Gothic Cathedrals, and dozens of universities came into being and thrived. That was not a “dark age” by any stretch of the imagination.
Also, the Church had no “earthcentric” theories. And the correct term is “geocentric” not “earthcentric”. If you’re going to attack a thing, should you at least know its correct name?
Quite frankly, since Henry Ansgar Kelly’s famous 1989 article about the false understanding of the inquisition came out - called something like “Inquisition and the Prosecution of Heresy: Misconceptions” and available online just recently - there has been no reason for such ignorance about the inquisition to continue. Yet it does. Prejudiced people often don’t care about evidence.
Even liberal academics know:
“A misconception about the medieval and Renaissance tribunals collectively known as the Inquisition is that they represent a unified movement of the Catholic
Church to repress intellectual progress and the scientific pursuit of knowledge. This particular falsehood is often cited in popular discourse when wanting to
characterize Christianity as inherently anti-science. However, an exploration of the patterns of obedience and resistance to Church authority in the trial histories
of Galileo Galilei, Giordano Bruno, and Domenico Scandella reveals a different picture.” http://kritiki.hpdst.gr/sites/kritiki.hpdst.gr/files/articles/kritikh_11_083-088.pdf
Some inquisitors - with horrible modern reputations - genuinely cared about the rights of the accused:
“The Spanish Inquisition, which was getting under way at the time that Regnier was writing, seems to have had, at least at the beginning, a similar concern for observing the rule of law. In the trials held in Ciudad Real from 1483 to 1485, the procedure was to bring an unconfessed suspect to court and give him detailed charges and to allow him to select a lawyer and a proctor before denying the charges.32 Undoubtedly, abuses did develop, especially in connection
with holding suspects for a long period of time in the hope of generating proofs; but the Grand Inquisitor, Thomas de Torquemada, took steps to stop such irregularities. In the Instructions of Avila, dated 25 May 1498, he insisted that suspects were not to be arrested unless proof of specific
crimes had been assembled, and the arrestees were to be formally charged within ten days.33” http://faculty.smu.edu/bwheeler/Joan_of_Arc/OLR/cr_Kelly_theright.pdf
And we hear about exactly none of that in school, or on television, etc.
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.