Posted on 09/16/2012 2:27:03 PM PDT by marshmallow
If Islam is replaced by religious truth, Islam will have been eradicated.
Again irrelevant and not pertinent, I've said nothing about the worthiness or lack thereof the Pope's mission (if I knew what it is) and most certainly nothing about Divine retribution (who has brought up the subject?) on anyone, by anyone, for anything.
“I”m asking you to clarify your point.
Is it that (i) the Pope has no business doing this (i.e. someone else should do it) or (ii) who cares if the Muslims bash the Catholics?”
Since neither of the above was my point or even vaguely alluded to by me there is no clarification called for things I did not say. I don't play that game.
Rule One: "Rome" is the source and summit of all evil in the universe.
Rule Two: In case of doubt or confusion, see Rule One.
Corollary One: "Rome" is always wrong.
Corollary Two: "Rome" must be destroyed. All else is irrelevant.
I also know that that while correct doesn’t provide a basis for differentiating the sinful command from a Pope from the lawful which was what I asked, “the basis”.
If you say (and I agree):
“No one is ever obliged to obey a sinful command, by anybody. But I think you already know that.”
Then there must be some criteria available to “true believer” so as not to find himself being led into sin or being a rebel or some such.
Yes, it is a philosophical point but at the same time a practical one too.
LOL....wiggle, wiggle. So now you're not even sure of the Pope's mission? Good one. Well let me help you. It's to bring a stop to the violence in the Middle East. It's written all over the article.
Since neither of the above was my point or even vaguely alluded to by me there is no clarification called for things I did not say. I don't play that game.
OK....progress.
So we know what your point is not. I think. Sorry for being obtuse but let me explain where I'm coming from.
The overarching theme of the article is the violence being perpetrated against Christians in the Middle East. The Pope calls for peace. You ignored this. Entirely. Instead you raise the issue of violence perpetrated by Catholics over the course of history.
1) How does this relate to the current situation in the Middle East?
2) What is your point in raising the issue of the Albigensian situation, for example?
Natural Law --- reason --- iself can convict you of sin because you know some act is contrary to the Law of Love, even if thst act isn't mentioned in Scripture. Such as: the New Testament never explicitly condemns
... but we know these things are inconsistent with true love and right reason.
Are there any specifics you were wondering about in particular?
“It is absolutely essential to keep in mind that there have been butchers, lechers, slave-abductors and so forth in Christian history, but they were acting outside-of and against the precepts and example of Christ, acting (at their worst) in disobedience to their own authorities, were seen by their more devout contemporaries as scandalous, and are seen in retrospect as abhorrent.”
And my questioning in #43 whether such acts were actually “in disobedience to their own authorities” as in the murder of “heretics” in France (Waldensians, Etc.)
If “You know something is sinful on the basis of whether it is or is not against the law of God.”, then how would we adjudge the actions of the participants and officials up to the Pope at the time?
To wit: Would “a true believer” follow the Papal decree or not? Using the criteria you cited.
“What is your point in raising the issue of the Albigensian situation, for example?”
The statement attributed to the Pope, “Benedict XVI: “Real Believers Don’t Kill”.
So by that were those who killed thousands of Albigensians or Waldensians “real believers”? Was the Pope who called for this slaughter a “real believer”?
Ahhh....so your point is that the Pope is convicting his own predecessors out of his own mouth. The point here is not the article nor the current suffering of Christians in the Middle East. The point is to revisit history and the sinfulness and misdeeds of past Popes.
Have I got it? Good job.
I guess that also answers question #1 which I posed; How does this relate to the current situation in the Middle East?
It doesn't, right?
So let's turn to the Albigensian Crusade. Innocent III first attempted diplomacy to counteract the Albigensian heretics. Secondly, his call for a Crusade came only after the murder of the Papal emissary. Thirdly, it's worth noting that the Albigensians had also begun to spread their heresy by force. Fourthly, although the campaign against the Albigensians was cruel and brutal it was primarily prosecuted by the French crown and soon turned into a war of conquest over the protests of Innocent III.
He's never been canonized, of course, so we can't claim him as a saint. Neither would I call him an "unbeliever".
Does that address the thread hijack?
You’re talking about, what if there were a papal decree to kill innocent people? Obedience to such a decree would be forbidden. Killing innocent people violates a moral absolute. And no, heresy -— holding and promoting religious error -— is not and should not be a capital offense.
Hijack? oh stuff and nonsense! Better history revisited than history revised.
My comments are point on the thread, particularly the title.
The false premise from which you and your fellow travelers begin is that if Catholic sin and scandal rises to some arbitrary, unspecified level, then this voids the Church's claim to be what she says she is.
A most unwise and dangerous path to travel.
My comments are point on the thread, particularly the title.
Then explain to us how they pertain to the situation of Christians in the Middle East and militant Islam.
Well?
So it seems we're back where we started.
Murderers --- whether clergy or laity, whether then or now --- will receive their just penalty from God, who comes to judge the living and the dead.
“Then explain to us how they pertain to the situation of Christians in the Middle East and militant Islam.”
What pertinence to the above have your own comments had? You just don't get to dictate or demand on an open thread.
But those deemed “heretics” by the Catholic church would not be considered innocent and therefore killing them would not be considered murder, right?
To repeat: heresy -— holding and promoting religious error -— is not and should not be a capital offense. No shedding innocent blood. "Innocent" in this context includes innocent heretics: it would mean noncombatant, not guilty of sedition or of deadly aggression.
From what I know of the history --- and my knowledge is not extensive, but you could google "Albigensian" ---- the movement in question was not Christian, but a Gnostic sect. Their belief:
Pope Innocent III sent two preachers --- unarmed preachers --- as his response to this Albigensian movement, which was acquiring political significance ("No vows, No king.") They made no headway because the local Count of Toulouse was promoting Albigensianism as a movement against the King. So the Pope sent his own representative (papal legate). The legate was murdered by Toulouse's people, and Toulouse wouldn't do anything about it.
The King of France saw that this was an act of war --- just like FReepers say the murder of the Libyan ambassador was not just a matter of religious expression, but an act of war. The King asked the Pope to authorize an armed response, so he did.
The King of France organized an absolutely brutal retaliaory expedition. The "war" part lasted only two months, and was over practically before the people in Rome knew that it was begun. (It wasn't instant commnication, CNN, and live feed in those days.) but resistance and reprisals went on for decades. This was the doing of King Phillipe of France, not the Pope.
Two religious orders of preachers -- the Dominicans and the Francisans --- went in to try the "winning hearts and minds" thing again, and things finally settled down with the King of France in firm control, but with an appalling, horrifying loss of life.
I'm going into all this detail because I want you to understand that Crusaders were most often under the control of the King, rather thna the Pope; heretics can be more like Occupy Wall Street than like Faith Bible College; and appalling stuff goes on that follows worldly ambitions more than churchly doctrines.
In conclusion: you may think me a heretic, and I may think the same of you, but --- in accordance with the treachings of our religion --- we be chillin', not killin'.
Peace, count-your-change!
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.