Ron, Cutting to the Chase

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Tim
I did not give this issue the attention the issue it deserved in an
earlier post. I apologize to the list members for its' length, but it
encompasses many issues raised recently with regards to Ron's views on
morality and Papal authority.


>RON

>   6. Never a Church teaching, besides the Church no >longer

practices crusades. If this was true you >wouldn't be alive now as we
would all be constantly >trying to kill you.

Tim 
A repost from last week, which Ron evavded:

Pope Urban II in 1095 who said on launching the first Crusade:

"Wherefore with earnest prayer I, not I, but God exhorts you as
heralds of Christ to repeatedly urge men of all ranks whatsoever,
knights as well as foot soldiers, rich and poor, to hasten to
EXTERMINATE THIS VILE RACE from our lands and to aid the Christian
inhabitants in time.
 
Oh what a disgrace if a race so despicable, degenerate, and enslaved
by demons  should thus overcome a people endowed with faith in
Almighty God and resplendent in the name of Christ! Oh what reproaches
will be charged against you
by the Lord Himself if you have not helped those who are counted like
yourselves of the 
Christian faith!"

So here we have the INDIVIDUAL ,Pope Urban II, the representatve of
Christ on earth, infallable, telling the faithful IN THE NAME OF GOD
AND CHRIST to go forth and EXTERMINATE the DEMON-POSSESSED Turks. 

OK Ron, you are a Knight in 1095. You hear the Pope say this, you
believe in his authourity (as you have stated on Errancy). Do you
exterminate the Turks?

If yes, Why?
If no, why not?


>RON

>7. The Church never taught that you MUST murder >heretics. I defy you

 to produce this statement from >an official Church document.

Tim

The reader will note Ron's deft use of the English language here,
because he knows the answer. No, the Church in it's "official"
documents never said this.

Now from an excerpt from "Church History" by Fr. John Laux, M.A.
published by Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.
Rockford, Illinois 61105:

"When the Emperor Frederick II, who was anything but an ardent
Catholic, in 1224 decreed death by fire
against obstinate heretics in Lombardy, Gregory IX SANCTIONED THE
IMPERIAL LEGISLATION , but reserved to the organs of the Church the
right to decide the all- important question as to who was to be
considered an obstinate heretic and consequently to be delivered to
the secular arm for punishment"

 So, the Church, not wanting the blood on its own hands, but KNOWING
AND SACTIONING the civil penalty for heresy, sent heretics to their
death.

Further (same source):

"The inquisition was thus regularly established; but in the course of
time more or less important changes were made in its mode of
procedure. Pope Gregory IX was opposed to TORTURE, but INNOOCENT IV
APPROVED its use for the discovery of heresy, and Urban IV CONFIRNMED
this usage, which like the death penalty for heresy, had its origin in
the Roman Law" (emphasis mine)

OK Ron, you are an inquisitor under Pope Urban IV. You read his
confirmation of the use of torture, you believe in his authourity (as
you have stated on Errancy). Do you use torture against heretics?

If yes, why?
If no, why not?

These excerpts and your answers will tell us a great deal about

(1) Your belief in the authority of the Pope

(2) The type of behavior this authority has sanctioned
in history.

(3)Whether it is right for non-believers, despite
 the "authority" of the Pope, to condemn such historical excesses, and
to be prepared to fight such excesses should they occur in the future.

(4) Whether such actions undermine your credibility when you attack
the morality of those on this list you call "atheists". 

(5) And most importantly, whether such actions indicate the total lack
of any connection between "God" and Papal authority.
Papal authority. 


I have purposely worded this to minimize your uncanny ability to evade
specific issues. Please answer the questions.


Before closing, lets have one more quote from the Friar's book:


We shall not attempt to defend the Inquisition. We cannot approve of
the extreme measures adopted, not only on account of their cruelty,
but because they undoubtedly led to hypocrisy and the simulation of
orthodoxy.  Father Bernard Duhr, S.J., has put his finger on the
deeper motives behind the institution.

'But this growing faith concealed a danger which not all the men of
that time were able to escape: I mean the danger of overdoing a good
thing. This
tendency to exaggerate LED TO FANATICISM, WHICH DEADENS THE  BRAIN AND
PETRIFIES THE HEART that loves the faith above everything, but does
not glow with charity, having lost sight of the Apostle's dictum: If I
had faith strong enough to transfer mountains, without love I should
be nothing. Those who were thus affected loudly demanded the stake:
many laymen even outdid the clergy, and so the Inquisition found open
doors. Closely connected with the exaggerated enthusiasm for the faith
was the OVEREMPHASIS GIVEN TO ANOTHER IDEA, NAMELY THAT TO THE CLERGY
BELONGED SUPERIORITY AND LEADERSHIP IN ALL DOMAINS OF SOCIAL, NAY,
EVEN POLITICAL LIFE' (Fortnightly Review, Nov. 1929, p. 279)"
(emphasis mine)
 

Ron, please keep the comments of these bretheren of yours in mind
before your next sermonette.

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

• Previous message: (Ron) Ron's Rhythm Section
• Next message: (Ron) Natural Man
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]