The C0uncil 0f Trent

[woundeddog]

6 hours ago, inchrist said:

Thats a little OTT dont you think?

sorry-- whats "OTT"?  ~~~obviously there are many things we don't understand or come to understand over a life time of Christian growth-- but there are some basics that are central to being a true Christian instead of just  being a goat trying to look like a sheep--- if some one does not understand the basics of salvation by faith in Christ alone--- they are headed down the wrong road----- I do not claim to have a corner on the market of truth--- but some points of doctrine are not negotiable if a person seeks salvation and eternity with God

[Anonymous Aristotle]

On 6/14/2017 at 0:23 PM, Rick_Parker said:

Yes, I read the link. But what is your point? Many of the traditions and beliefs of the Catholic Church are not Biblical, as I said I believe. Do you disagree?

My point was posting that link for the purpose of providing further information to sisters and brothers here. 

[Anonymous Aristotle]

On 6/15/2017 at 0:50 AM, inchrist said:

What about protestant persecution on the Catholics?

You guys think your hands are clean?

Please understand I can't help but notice, you seem a bit aggressive in this topic. This remark is toward Protestants. While the prior post you made was toward Catholics. Asking them why they don't believe in Jesus? 

Are you Christian? Your member name not withstanding. Because you are confrontational here and toward both Catholics and Protestants. 

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

2 minutes ago, Anonymous Aristotle said:

Please understand I can't help but notice, you seem a bit aggressive in this topic. This remark is toward Protestants. While the prior post you made was toward Catholics. Asking them why they don't believe in Jesus? 

Are you Christian? Your member name not withstanding. Because you are confrontational here and toward both Catholics and Protestants. 

I would have to disagree with your conclusion. I certainly can not speak for inchrist but from an outsider looking in (I've been active in this thread but not the conversation between him and brakelite) I would say brakelite has come off as the aggressive one and not inchrist.

We must be careful not to mix "disagreement" with "confrontational".

accusing a group and saying that they will return to burning people at the stake and exterminating people is being aggressive. I do find it interesting that you question whether or not inchrist is Christian yet you have no problem (or at least it appears since you didn't call out brakelite and only inchrist)  with someone making an unfounded wild accusation against a faith tradition. Wow. Baring false witness is hated by the Lord (see my sig). Anyway's..... just my thoughts tip tapped out onto a keyboard sent electronically to the netherverse.

 

Quote

And should the Vatican once again have temporal power as she had during the dark ages, she would once again implement the fires of the inquisition and exterminate all heretics found within her sphere of influence

 

[Anonymous Aristotle]

20 minutes ago, Judas Machabeus said:

I would have to disagree with your conclusion. I certainly can not speak for inchrist but from an outsider looking in (I've been active in this thread but not the conversation between him and brakelite) I would say brakelite has come off as the aggressive one and not inchrist.

We must be careful not to mix "disagreement" with "confrontational".

accusing a group and saying that they will return to burning people at the stake and exterminating people is being aggressive. I do find it interesting that you question whether or not inchrist is Christian yet you have no problem (or at least it appears since you didn't call out brakelite and only inchrist)  with someone making an unfounded wild accusation against a faith tradition. Wow. Baring false witness is hated by the Lord (see my sig). Anyway's..... just my thoughts tip tapped out onto a keyboard sent electronically to the netherverse.

 

 

I do believe you are out of line here. We must be careful not to take up the sword for the sake of slashing blindly.

I did not address my remarks to brakelite because Stephen P. Bohr wrote what they've borrowed, pieced out to make it not similar to Stephen's original work, and pasted their creation here under their member name without crediting Mr.Bohr. Therefore, brakelite is not able to defend what is pasted because it is not his original work. PDF Source

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

2 minutes ago, Anonymous Aristotle said:

I do believe you are out of line here.

so you think its okay to say a faith tradition if given the power to kill people will kill people, scripture disagrees with you. Actually it says we are not to bare false witness. I can not speak for you but if someone accuses another of being a potential murderer without any proof or reason. Heresy was a capital crime and thus those found guilty were executed. I shared an article (in a different thread) from the UK on the 2ooth anniversary of the last person hanged for stealing a horse. So I ask you, would it be fair to make a statement that if horse owners regained power they would start killing all horse theives?  As for the rest of your post I have no idea who its relevant to what I said and posted. What I quoted was his own words and not someone elses. To show you I did a text search for part of brakelites statement that I quoted and 0 of 0 found.

 

[Anonymous Aristotle]

1 minute ago, Judas Machabeus said:

so you think its okay to say a faith tradition if given the power to kill people will kill people, scripture disagrees with you. Actually it says we are not to bare false witness. I can not speak for you but if someone accuses another of being a potential murderer without any proof or reason. Heresy was a capital crime and thus those found guilty were executed. I shared an article (in a different thread) from the UK on the 2ooth anniversary of the last person hanged for stealing a horse. So I ask you, would it be fair to make a statement that if horse owners regained power they would start killing all horse theives?  As for the rest of your post I have no idea who its relevant to what I said and posted. What I quoted was his own words and not someone elses. To show you I did a text search for part of brakelites statement that I quoted and 0 of 0 found.

 

God be with you. 

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

Just now, Anonymous Aristotle said:

God be with you. 

And with you as well.

[Guest Thallasa]

On ‎10‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 6:40 AM, brakelite said:

Nonsense...the reason I suggest you research it is that the topic is so vast, and the resources available so plenty, I could barely scratch the surface, and you will not likely accept my word anyway. Like most Catholics, (and I know having been one a greater portion of my now 60+ years), it is unlikely you would so readily accept a contrary history to that which you have been previously taught by your church. The existence of Christian communities outside of the auspices of the Roman See is unthinkable to most staunch Roman Catholics. Such a reality impacts Papal authority and numerous other direct and indirect consequences that greatly undermine the Catholic perception that only through the pope and the sacraments can there be salvation.

For example. The church that St Thomas established in Goa, India, in the first century. Christian or not? Was it under the ecclesiastical authority of Rome? And then what of the missionaries that Indian church sent out to the rest of India? Christian also? Roman? What of the churches of Galatia? Those Galatians that PauL converted were Celtic. They established themselves there in Asia Minor 300 years before Christ. They still traded with their own kin back in Britain and the gospel, along with the Christian scriptures, went with those traders. All 100s of years before the Roman church was a church.

Anyway, you will be better off reading such things from real historians that you can look up for yourself. Don't take my word for it.

Yes the early Church in Ireland was rather different in many ways from Rome ,but against the wishes of of the people was forced under the control of Rome, by Adrien the first English pope, who with the support of the RCC.,  dominated and controlled Ireland for the English .

In fact the Celtic Irish, were in general never truly Roman ,but because of  political agression from Protestant Britain ,they stayed behind the RCC., rather than be  forced violently  to become Anglican, (in the South ) and Calvinistic in the north . They were stuck, between two powers for centuries . The freedom gained recently from GB. has released Eire from the clutches of the RCC ,but not totally yet  from perifidious Albion .

They were literally caught between the devil ,and the deep blue sea . However the Irish Celt ,is a very different creature from protestantism , which does not compare well in this part of the world .  I see the fruits of Rome, and of Calvin /Luther, and the former holds up well against the latter . Much kinder and creative societies .

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Anonymous Aristotle said:

My point was posting that link for the purpose of providing further information to sisters and brothers here. 

To what end? Is it meant to somehow "show" the supremacy of the RCC? I ask because you have failed to post anything that would illustrate the other side of the equation.