Papal Persecutions
"Thus far our history of persecution has been confined principally to the pagan world. We come now to a period when persecution, under the guise of Christianity, committed more enormities than ever disgraced the annals of paganism. Disregarding the maxims and the spirit of the Gospel, the papal Church, arming herself with the power of the sword, vexed the Church of God and wasted it for several centuries, a period most appropriately termed in history, the "dark ages." The kings of the earth, gave their power to the "Beast," and submitted to be trodden on by the miserable vermin that often filled the papal chair, as in the case of Henry, emperor of Germany."1
1 Fox's Book of Martyrs, Introduction to Ch. 4
5 comments:
EJ... you call the Catholic Church the beast, and yet you are wrong once again. Reread revelation, if you actually research it, the beast isn't the Catholic Church, the bible proves that.
You are mistaken - I didn't call the Catholic church the beast. John Foxe did. He was beginning his history of the brutal and torturous killings that were ordered by and done for the satisfaction of the Pope and the Roman system.
The question is do I agree with him? I do not know if the Catholic Church is the beast in Rev, but I do know that many reformers saw the RCC as just that.
The Pope isn't a King, and innocent people were never killed just to entertain the Pope. The beast is the devil, and the devil is anyone that opposes Christs church, or persecutes her. For 2000 years Catholics have been persecuted, martyred by the thousands, and I don't see you complaining about that.
EJ,
I just looked up your book, its not even historically accurate.
And the title is wrong, Martyr is someone who dies for their faith, these were not martyrs, these were heretics. There is a difference, and if you leave the church of christ, and die fighting it, I would have to object to the term martyr, for to me a martyr is someone who dies for CHrist, and his church and not some mix matched lie.
Lets look at Chapter four, The first paragraph talks about a man named Berengarius. This was a young Priest, who like many heretics before him, started a heresy about the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In the year 1055 he retracted what he had been preaching and at a council declared that he did believe in the true presence. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02487a.htm
The great theologians of the time were unanimous in protesting against his principles, attacking his opinion as contrary to the teaching of tradition and the doctrine of the Church. Among them we may mention especially Adelman, Scholasticus of Liège,; Hugues, Bishop of Langres; Lanfranc, then Abbot of Le Bec; Guitmund, a disciple of Lanfranc who became Bishop of Aversa; Durand, Abbot of St. Martin of Troarn; Bernold of Constance, and others, most of them Benedictines.
Ok, on to the next, lets take a look at the waldenses:
Your book makes it sound like they were a great people and that they were persecuted for being good. WRONG AGAIN!
First off thise group starts out with a lie, they claimed that they were first started by St. Paul, and then that they came about during the rule of Constatine. In the 19th Century it was proven that in fact their papers had been forged and that their faith was based upon a lie. Basically this group believed in 3 things, they denied Purgatory, Indulgences, confession (unless it was one of their own that heard it) and prayers for the dead. They lived a poor life, chose uneducated people to preach and therefore this turned out to be another heresy that preyed upon the ignorant.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15527b.htm
I have a problem with the claim that they were hunted down like dogs and mutilated. I have searched many different historical books, and I do not see where Pope Innocent III had their heads cut off and their bodies mutilated. I do in fact see where this same Pope set up an order of Mercy that was sent to help these people see that their theological principles were wrong. But to claim that he was a murderer is redicuolous. This is just another example of bad history, lies, and theological misconceptions by those that are intent on destroying the church.
Also at the end of Chapter four, it talks about a martyrdom of John Calas. John Calas was a calvinist and heretic, he had 6 children and one of his boys converted to Catholicism, his eldest son was also going to convert, and so as historical documents go, he killed him by hanging him in his own warehouse, the population was shocked and upset and the father was captured and tortured and then burnt for what he did. His other 2 sons fled to a prominent anti-Catholic merchant and used him and his money to print pamplets against the church condemning it for how it killed John Calas. This man killed his son, either way, he wasn't a martyr.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03149a.htm
First of all, anyone who takes the time to look at the word "Martyr" knows that it means someone "who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion. " (source)
It is no suprise that Catholic sources dispute and discredit Foxe's Book of Martyrs. They would have to because of the accusations that John Foxe was making.
Any historical source (that is not RCC or a Protestant organization) will affirm that the RCC was, at least, guilty of atrocities in the Dark Ages.
I am not suprised that you swallow everything that newadvent says.... I am not saying that they are always wrong, but I am challenging the total credibility of any non-biblical historical source. That is why I say (I thought I had made this comment previously, but I cannot locate it) that I don't believe every letter or story or every detail of Foxe's Book of Martyrs, but I think that it is generally reliable.
Post a Comment