This Could End The Catholic Church

Nope, it's....

 

I forgot. England has indeed some extraordinary elements of history comparted with the other european nations. The situation in nearly the same as it was in Bavaria - with the difference that Bavarians were the result of the integration of celts, germans and romans under the christian religion. For me the difference between the "roman empire" and its revival band "holy roman empire" is not really a big difference and I was also not astonishished that the renaissance - the reintegration of the greek culture into the common european cultures started in Italy. I'm on the other hand not able to understand why the english empire was so gigantic while the same time anglican Christians were not able to convince other people within in this empire from the gentleness and beauty of the christian religion. The number of anglican Christians is astonishing low.

http://youtu.be/63o8exNK4-Q

 

Then the Angles, and the Saxons invaded England in the 5th century. We have Christianity in England thanks to Irish Missionaries, and St. Augustine of Canterbury from the 6th century.

 

That's right!!

 

The Roman Emperors sporadically persecuted Christians, but by the 3rd century, the Church became more organized, and had been viewed by the Romans as a state within a state that was undermining the empire. Which is the reason Emperor Decius(249-251) and Emperor Diocletian(284-305) responded with more systematic persecutions in order to stamp out the growing faith.

How so? In order to get what he wants, many of his wives met a rather unfortunate end, and he put a good and loyal friend of his (Thomas Moore) to death. H8 was a very orthodox Catholic, and defended the Papacy when Luther attacked the institution. I believe it was H8 that was being dishonest. He was a very devout Catholic. He just didn't like the fact he couldn't have absolute power over ever everything, including not just the secular realm, but religious as well. Yet he clung to his Catholic faith. Only difference, is that he rejected the authority of the papacy.

"The palace is the Emperor's, the Church is the Bishop's"

-St. Ambrose of Milan

 

You evidently can't read very well, as I made it very clear that I despise both the Catholic and Muslim religions. They have massacred, murdered, and tortured millions of people, over many centuries, and all in the name of a 'made up' deity, that might make us welcome us sometime in the very distant, obscure future. The Muslim religion even offers you 72 virgins, as if anyone, beyond the pubescent stage of their life, would ever be bothered with a virgin! Whilsty teh Catholic Church had no hesitation in allowing (and hiding) those priests who sexually mutilated under age boys.

And you expect any rational person to to still believe in religion!

 

There were never any Celts in Britain, nor an English Empire, and I don't know what anyone so totally muddled could possibly know about the number of Anglican communicants. What is this urge of yours to hold forth about matter which you do not understand?

 

You forgot that we all are also ancient Greeks if we are Europeans. And you forgot the Normans what brougth England to the center of the crucades against the Seljuks (Ottomans, Turks).

And "we" never had an empire. We were living here in the middle of Europe - that's all. "We" were part of the roman empire as well as "we" were part of the holy roman empire. "We" just simple had from time to time some troubles in history with different tourists from Rome, Istanbul, Hungaria, Mongolia, France, England, Prussia, America, Russia ... and other countries. In the moment "we" are a minority in our own country and the chances are good that we are dying out - like lots of other native tribes in this world.

http://youtu.be/0_6qwtazffk

 

My point was that Christianity was persecuted until Constantine, Roman Catholicism being read back into that time as a result of papal pretentions a good deal later.

He wanted, like most kings, to see the succession safe, as did his subjects, and believed he was being punished by the lack of a legal successor for his undoubtedly incestuous marriage, which clearly should have been annulled. Once the Pope had denied all canon law for political reasons Henry set up a reformed Catholicism in his own realms. Like most people who are overpraised and have a bad accident (jousting) he got bossy and paranoid as he got older, but that is a different question.

 

the normal due course of the evolution of "GOD" shall determine the very future of the Vatican and it's gang.

polscie

 

bloody

http://youtu.be/X0rXMv_K0Tc

 

Point? Unlike the Papalists he never had anyone burned or encouraged assassination.

 

What is a Papalist?

http://youtu.be/JPrGUYlG5XA

 

A schismatic in England who wants to impose domination by the Bishop of Rome, I believe.

 

Has this something to do with Monty Python?

http://youtu.be/LsiaPcLHusA

 

You should know - you played the organ there!

 

So: What is a Papalist? What are you imagining with this expression?

http://youtu.be/0NA1b8TeMNI

 

I have heard the term Papist. This was person who believed in the infallibility of the Pope in temporal and spiritual matters. A very dangerous doctrine to ahere to if you lived in England during the reign of Henry V111 and thereafter!

 

The dogma (teaching) of the infallibillity (in-deceivability, deciding significance ...) of the word of the Holy Father if it is spoken "ex cathedra" in case of religious or moral questions was a result from the 1st Vatican council in 1870. The psychopathic and sociopathic british king Henry VIII lived some centuries ago.

The doctrine itselve is not a problem for me - you can compare it for example with the decision of a referee or with a last resort. Nevertheless keeps the question "Who said so?" and wether this is politics and not religion. But every church needs an organization in this world here and every organization has to have an authority what is in the end able to give a clear signal: "That's the right way - and this is the wrong way. That's the catholic doctrine - and that's not the catholic doctrine". Whoelse than the servant of the servants of god should do so, if there's a need for a quick decision?

http://youtu.be/4Q8i0CYs-CM

 

I would love to see them try and defend this criminal sex offending cult.....Nothing good has ever come from these manipulating lying monsters .......

 

LOL. You are a full blown idiot

 

Not for most. The terrorist faction wanting to murder Elizabeth and James were in some danger later of course, but would-be assassins are frowned on in most countries. A Papalist wants to establish the secular authority of this foreign cleric.

 

The reason why people dislike the Catholic Church is because it contains the truth, and the truth is sometimes difficult to hear, especially when you do not like what it has to say.

Every governmental institution and religious institution has abused their authority. Child molestation is not only to be found in the Catholic Church as some would have us believe. It is in every Protestant church also. This by no means is a defence for the wrongs committed by those who are within the Catholic Church who have committed such atrocities. Those within the Church should know better, especially those who are supposed to be religious leaders. However it is not a phenemeon of the Catholic Church.
I have only taken a quick glance at this thread, but I have not seen one person say anything wrong about the teachings of the Church. If someone can please tell me what teachings of the Catholic Church they disagree with or hate, then I could maybe give some sort of defense. I cannot give a defense for every wrong every Catholic has committed. In just the same way no Protestant can give a defence for every wrong every Protestant committed.
No one is denying wrongs were committed by the Church and there was cover-ups, that is down to human weakness, not down to the teachings of the Church.

 

Tell you what. When the International Criminal Court can develop a "test" that would determine whether or not a person has a propensity for pedophilia, please let us know. The world would be able to fight such deplorable sickness across the board in all walks of life.

The problem is, of course, that forgiveness is a moral principle taught by Jesus. When a person confesses sin and is contrite of heart -- IOW tries hard to avoid such sin in the future, he/she is forgiven. He/she is told to make restitution toward anyone offended by his/her sin in some way e.g. a work of charity, seek forgiveness from the offended, financial restitution or possibly all. The penitent is no longer told to recite a litany of prayers as an act of contrition.

The Church once sent abuser priests on long sabbaticals, which called for extensive psychological counseling. Later, the priest was reassigned. Unfortunately, not all priests were reassigned to positions where they would have no contact with children. So the abuse continued. It wasn't until modern psychology discovered that there isn't a cure for such a psychological sickness. Thus, the Church made a monumental move by allowing secular law to prosecute serial offenders.

As much as you would like to condemn the Church as a whole for working slowly toward resolution, the fact is the Church is taking action with local law enforcement worldwide.

What ever doesn't kill you, only makes you stronger. The Church will survive this controversy as it has survived other controversies in the past.

Cover-up? Nah. The Church has always tried to handle sensitive issues within the confines of its own community. Believe me I know. As a parochial school teacher for more than a decade I reported child abuse cases to DYFS. My principal was livid each time I called social services. I had to go fifteen rounds with her in the company of our staff psychologist. It wasn't easy but she eventually came around. She was an old school nun. God bless her.

 

The Catholic Church is pretty resilient; they'll bounce back and survive this latest crisis.