Heresy and Heretics

"Inquisitors are not secular authorities. You have been brain washed good.
The most brutal and ugly punishment and death was handed out by the RCC itself."

Fundamental Baptist revision

An inquisition as a formal Church process was not codified until the thirteenth century. This formal institution was primarily to reserve to the Church the right to address heresy, as opposed to mob rule and the oft-incoherent secular courts that had frequently handled heresy over the previous two hundred years.

 

So if the Baptists determine that the Catholics hold to atrocious unbiblical heresy we should convene a council and make a decree to exterminate all Catholics. This is the Christian, the Christ-like attitude to take towards people? No, of course not. But it was the RCC way. Just look to history.

 

I see. So even if you can prove that one Albigense killed one Catholic, that justly gives the entire RCC reason to massacre thousands upon thousands of Albigenses, no matter what you think they believe. Their beliefs have nothing to do with this.
Would you take up a crusade today and go out and kill all the Wiccans you can find? Is that your way of spreading the gospel--by killing all who get in your way??

 

The Christian, Christ like attitude of your hero Calvin and his followers?? I guess that doesn't count, right?? He probably repented later, right? How about the Salem witch trials? Doesn't count either, right?

The thing many Baptists know about the Inquisition is the caricature in Catholic urban legends. History should never be ignored. There can be no denying that the inquisition courts existed. As described in the papal apology of Pope John Paul II at the beginning of the New Millennium, "Men of the church, in the name of faith and morals, have sometimes used methods not in keeping with the Gospels in the solemn duty of defending truth."

Right off of Answer.com:

. . . "Penalties ranged from prayer and fasting to imprisonment; convicted heretics who refused to recant could be executed by lay authorities."

 

Again, like the protestants in Salem?? A little hypocritical.

 

Like the lies in your 'Trail of Blood'? At least Chick Publications buts cartoons to their fabrication of history.

 

>HP: Research Servetus for yourself.

Servetus was warned that he would be killed if he returned to Geneva. I have no sympathy for people who intentionally and unnecessarially go into harm's way.

 

The definition of a coward.
You have no respect for the people of this nation who fought for your freedom. Better think twice before you post.

 

I don't read Chick Publications, so give it a rest.
When history proves you wrong, then deny history. That's the RCC way of doing things, correct? You learn well.
See if you can find an older edition of Halley's Bible Handbook, one that hasn't been revised. Near the back will be an extensive history of the RCC and all of its atrocities. Halley existed long before "Chick" ever did. You probably won't take any effort to do this, because you don't want to hear the truth.

 

Name one lie in the Trail of Blood.

 

Apples and oranges. Check the story out, the cause of it, etc.
Was their a massacre of thousands upon thousands of one sect of people, an extermination of sorts. No. Never in history has there been such cruelty as that as has been felt by the cruel hand of the RCC.

While your at it check out the history of St. Xavier, and his work at Goa, India, who at the threat of the sword baptized native Indians. This is how he "made" Christians. Kill or be a Christian. A massacre of East Indians took place there, and Xavier was made a saint for it!! But this is the way of the RCC.

 

It claims that the “marriage” between church and state was brought about when Constantine called a church council in 313 AD. At this council the Catholic hierarchy was formed, and Constantine was “enthroned . . . as head of the church” (pg. 16). This is one LIE
Unfortunately for Dr. Carroll, one will find no record of a Church council in 313. What did happen that year, however, was the issuing by Constantine of the Edict of Milan, that granted religious tolerance for both Christian and pagan, abolished all laws against Christianity, restored confiscated property that had been taken from the Church, and made Sunday a day of rest.

Want more??

 

Yes, I do.

 

Political correctness; the "sanitized version," doesn't give you the truth. Let me quote from some other credible sources:

And for further sources of documentation, J.T. Christian in his "A History of the Baptists," continues:

The above are very reliable sources, some of which are "source documents."

He then summarizes the story.

 

The Trail of Blood claims the following groups were really 'bible Christians' that existed outside the Catholic Church. The following sects are used in an attempt to 'prove Baptists secessionist'. Check out these groups:

1.) Novatianists - definite schismatic group. Highly legalistic.
2.) Donatists - Similar to the Novatists. They insist on a "pure" church. They become increasingly violent in North Africa to the point of beating and burning to death the non-Donatists. I believe they are the main reason North African Christianity could not provided a unified front against Islam in the early medieval period.
3.) Montanists - An odd group of what today we would call ultra-charismatics. We should probably make a distinction between the early Montanists and the very radical later group.
4.) Paulicians and Albigenses - medieval hold-overs of gnostic sects
5.) Waldensians - If not for an encounter with an ambitious Cardinal who wanted to make a name for himself, you would probably see the Waldensians today as a religious order similar to the Franciscans within Roman Catholicism.
The Waldensians were VERY Catholic.

 

Not impressed with your biased sources.

 

No you never are, even when he quotes from sources like:

(Schmidt. Hist. et. Doct. de la secte des Cathares, II. 94)
(Chassanion, Historie des Albigeois. Geneva, 1595)

You are just biased, and will only accept Catholic revisionist history. Do you also deny the holocaust?

 

Right! John T. Christians 'History of the Baptists, Chapter six quotes Theodore Beza, the Reformer of the sixteenth century:

As for the Waldenses, I may be permitted to call them the very seed of the primitive and purer Christian church, since, they are those that have been upheld, as is abundantly manifest, by the wonderful providence of God, so that neither those endless storms and tempests by which the whole Christian world has been shaken for so many succeeding ages, and the Western part so miserably oppressed by the Bishop of Rome, falsely so called; nor those horrible persecutions which have been expressly raised against them, were able so far to prevail as to make them bend, or yield a voluntary subjection to the Roman tyranny and idolatry (Moreland, History of the Evangelical Churches, 7).

But here we find the truth about what the Waldenses' believed:

WALDO ("Valdesius")CONFESS ION OF FAITH : Catholic to the Core

"In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and of the Blessed and Ever-Virgin Mary. Be it noted by all the faithful that I, Valdesius, and all my brethren, standing before the Holy Gospels, do declare that we believe with all our hearts, having been grasped by faith, that we profess openly that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Persons, one God....

"We firmly believe and explicitly declare that the incarnation of the Divinity did not take place in the Father and the Holy Spirit, but solely in the Son, so that he who was the divine Son of God the Father was also true man from his Mother.

"We believe one Church, Catholic, Holy, Apostolic and Immaculate, apart from which no one can be saved, and in the sacraments therein administered through the invisible and incomprehensible power of the Holy Spirit, sacraments which may be rightly administered by a sinful priest....

And you really want to 'hitch your cart to the Waldenses' like the SDA??

 

just a point of interest here is a link to Cathar works to include "The book of John the Evangelist". http://www.gnosis.org/library/cathtx.htm

 

I am not sure where you find "such truth" about Waldo since he opposed the RCC at every corner, and the RCC persecuted him.

Jonathan Edwards, if anyone would be accurate in his historical account.

I am more apt to believe Jonathan Edwards than any RCC source.