italo: @ Zickky,
Its okay, you have a right to believe the Church is wrong or right...and of course, you have a right to remain eternally confused about issues pertaining to your salvation. But since you are talking about "infallibility" I will only ask you questions - one by one.

Peter wrote two books in the Bible and of course must have conducted many teachings to the Church which are not in those two small letters. Was he writing and teaching fallibly or infallibly?

To be honest, I don't know if Peter was 'teaching fallibly or infallibility'. The scriptures is silent on this.

Zikkyy:
To be honest, I don't know if Peter was 'teaching fallibly or infallibility'. The scriptures is silent on this.

To be honest, most of these anti-Catholics are also confused. They just won't admit it, so I admire your honesty.

If you don't know whether Peter was teaching fallibly or infallibly, the same applies to Paul, Matthew, Luke, Mark and all the other writers of scripture.

That means you don't know whether the Bible is the word of God or not. That means you don't know whether all that was taught in the Bible are true or not. You don't know whether God even exists or not.

Do you see what you fall into when you cut yourself off the Church that Christ built?

Do you know what it means to sacrifice? Read this statement by a young African pastor.
Found among his papers in Zimbabwe after he was martyred

I'm a part of the fellowship of the unashamed. The die has been cast. I have stepped over the line. The decision has been made. I'm a disciple of His and I won't look back, let up, slow down, back away, or be still.
My past is redeemed. ...My present makes sense. My future is secure. I'm done and finished with low living, sight walking, small planning, smooth knees, colorless dreams, tamed visions, mundane talking, cheap living, and dwarfed goals.
I no longer need preeminence, prosperity, position, promotions, plaudits, or popularity. I don't have to be right, or first, or tops, or recognized, or praised, or rewarded. I live by faith, lean on His presence, walk by patience, lift by prayer, and labor by Holy Spirit power.
My face is set. My gait is fast. My goal is heaven. My road may be narrow, my way rough, my companions few, but my guide is reliable and my mission is clear.
I will not be bought, compromised, detoured, lured away, turned back, deluded or delayed.
I will not flinch in the face of sacrifice or hesitate in the presence of the adversary. I will not negotiate at the table of the enemy, ponder at the pool of popularity, or meander in the maze of mediocrity.
I won't give up, shut up, or let up until I have stayed up, stored up, prayed up, paid up, and preached up for the cause of Christ.
I am a disciple of Jesus. I must give until I drop, preach until all know, and work until He comes. And when He does come for His own, He'll have no problems recognizing me. My colors will be clear!

italo:
To be honest, most of these anti-Catholics are also confused. They just won't admit it, so I admire your honesty.

I don't understand why you would call me anti-catholic.

italo:
If you don't know whether Peter was teaching fallibly or infallibly, the same applies to Paul, Matthew, Luke, Mark and all the other writers of scripture.

I still don't see Peter teaching fallibly or infallibly has to do with the Pope being infallible.

italo:
That means you don't know whether the Bible is the word of God or not. That means you don't know whether all that was taught in the Bible are true or not. You don't know whether God even exists or not.

I don't even 'know' what you are talking about here. in accepting 'all that was taught in the bible', 'fallibility' (of the apostles) was never a consideration for me.

Zikkyy:
I don't understand why you would call me anti-catholic.

I don't consider you 'anti-Catholic.' And I certainly didn't call you that. I was making reference to some of the other guys here who obviously are. I think more highly of you than you think, Zikkyy.

Zikkyy: I still don't see Peter teaching fallibly or infallibly has to do with the Pope being infallible.

A lot. If Peter taught fallibly, then obviously, no one can claim infallibility. But if Peter taught infallibly, then we must find out how he, a mere man came to be infallible...and if that infallibility died with Peter or if it was passed on to his successors.

Zikkyy: I don't even 'know' what you are talking about here. in accepting 'all that was taught in the bible', 'fallibility' (of the apostles) was never a consideration for me.

You accepted what you THINK the apostles taught in the Bible...but if you believe they taught fallibly it means it is possible that they taught you error. And if they could teach error, it means ANY and/or EVERY part of the Bible could be UNTRUE. So in your thinking it is possible that God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, heaven, hell and any or every other thing the apostles taught in the Bible could all be a big farce. Afterall, 'the were fallible.'

So you see? As a Christian, you cannot afford to sit on the fence.

Did Peter teach fallibly or infallibly?

You should know. But if you don't know the answer to this fundamental Christian question, you have no business trying to even discuss whether the Catholic Church is fallible or infallible.

Kay 17: ^^ you asked the questions which obviously go against my position. You were to make authoritative statements! Like the Bible is provisional!

My position has always being the sum total of OT, Apocrypha and NT make up the Bible which is the foundational guide for Christianity. That without these books, the Christian experience can not be captured.

Hence it is difficult to imagine a provisional bible without any of Jesus' teachings or a narrative on his death!!

The two links were endless debates. I need to study right?! Looool!!

Maybe the below will begin to help you see your ignorance that I've been trying to point out to you!

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

The Bible (from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía, "the books" ) is a canonical collection of texts considered sacred in Judaism or Christianity. Different religious groups include different books within their canons, in different orders, and sometimes divide or combine books, or incorporate additional material into canonical books. Christian Bibles range from the sixty-six books of the Protestant canon to the eighty-one books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church canon.

italo:
I don't consider you 'anti-Catholic.' And I certainly didn't call you that. I was making reference to some of the other guys here who obviously are. I think more highly of you than you think, Zikkyy.

Thank you.

italo:
You accepted what you THINK the apostles taught in the Bible...but if you believe they taught fallibly it means it is possible that they taught you error. And if they could teach error, it means ANY and/or EVERY part of the Bible could be UNTRUE. So in your thinking it is possible that God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, heaven, hell and any or every other thing the apostles taught in the Bible could all be a big farce. Afterall, 'the were fallible.'

I accepted EVERYTHING the apostles taught in the Bible. if i was to assess the apostles teachings for errors, on what basis will that be done? i mean what benchmark will be used for this assessment? Do you have an alternative source for checking the validity of the apostle's teachings? For me, the apostles teachings cannot be accepted in parts. The alternative for me would be to reject EVERYTHING they taught and go back to worshiping sango, or become an atheist. We cannot say the same for Pope. I don't see how somebody that was no different from zikkyy or italo at some point in his life suddenly becomes infallible simply because he now occupies a certain position. This is what i think we should be looking at. I expect the Pope to teach from the scriptures and the teachings of the apostles then becomes the benchmark for assessing his teachings. What you are telling me is that the Pope can come with teachings previously unheard of and it will be accepted as truth. what if the Pope comes on air today and say true baptism can only be achieved by going to 3rd mainland bridge and jumping into the Lagos lagoon, would that be accepted as truth?

^^^ At one point at least, they were preaching and selling indulgences. What happened to "infallibility" then?

italo:
So you see? As a Christian, you cannot afford to sit on the fence.

Did Peter teach fallibly or infallibly?

You should know. But if you don't know the answer to this fundamental Christian question, you have no business trying to even discuss whether the Catholic Church is fallible or infallible.

Asking if Peter taught 'fallibly' or 'infallibly' is like asking if Flora Shaw (Lord Lugard's madam) got the spelling of Nigeria right, when she named the country Nigeria.

Enigma:


Maybe the below will begin to help you see your ignorance that I've been trying to point out to you!

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

In other words, the Bible is a random collection of provisional thoughts

If I was to concede again to your definition of Bible, upon what authority do additional books get added into the Bible?

Now how did i miss this thread?

Enigma: ^^^ At one point at least, they were preaching and selling indulgences. What happened to "infallibility" then?

do you actually know the best historian on planet earth cant prove that any particular pope preached d sale indulgence? Please do correct yourself.
And again are u aware that if all the popes did it wont even make a case against infalliability unless u can prove he spoke ex-cathedra with the aim of establishing doctrine.
The stuff been pedled around by fundamentalist as "sales of indulgence" wouldnt even affect infalliability at all. Besides d fact that d suppose "sale" can hardly be proved.

Enigma: ^^^ And a "foundational guide" (in the sense you are using the phrase) of Christianity that was the first to be called "the Bible" is The Septuagint.

I wonder if you know what The Septuagint is and its role in the New Testament.

oga enigma, u seem to be runing round circle. Maybe i'll ask d question directly. Does the christian bible as compiled by the earlier xtians have d deterocanonical books or not? And dont give me d septuagist crap because it also also d said books. So u may want to tell us why d removal of d detero books isnt suspect.

Enigma: ^^^ Let me let you in on a little secret; keep it under your hat and don't let anyone know!

For most of its early history the Roman Catholic Church itself did not believe in papal infallibility at least. Don't forget that papal infallibility is a key if not the main plank of the Roman Catholic doctrine of "infallibility".

hehehe, an invitation to the long road we have gone thru so often.

Zikkyy:

No confusion at all. The Pope did not write his own version of rhapsody of realities or any of those pastoral books and claim it was the word of God. Just imagine a situation where the Pope comes up to altar one sunday morning and lay before the congregation some set of books previously un-heard of and say some were written by Paul, some by Peter and some by Jesus himself. He then instruct that the books should be accepted as the word of God, am sure italo will not believe the pope is serious. Infallibility was not the basis for accepting the books in the bible. validity is further reinforced by the fact that these books were already in use by the early Christians. Am sure the church adopted a scientific approach at the point of deciding the authors of these books, it was not done by divine revelation abi? or did the pope wake up one morning and say this one was written by Paul & this one was written by Peter with no basis for such decision? So if we decide to flow with the arrangement, it's probably because we see sense in the approach adopted not because the pope cannot be wrong.

u mean d scientific appoach used by d bishops cannot be wrong abi? Oh and dont forget many books were in use that didnt enter d canon.

Ubenedictus: oga enigma, u seem to be runing round circle. Maybe i'll ask d question directly. Does the christian bible as compiled by the earlier xtians have d deterocanonical books or not? And dont give me d septuagist crap because it also also d said books. So u may want to tell us why d removal of d detero books isnt suspect.

Ube bros

See the answer to your question in what I said recently here: https://www.nairaland.com/1179270/pastor-god-should-listen-christians/2#14169726

truthislight: someone posted this on the queen of heaven thread:



ok, in the instance someone wishes to enlightens us, let me open this for ease of quote:
....................................................
>>>
As someone who hails from a mostly Catholic family, I have been having my own problems with digesting the dogmatic (in my opinion) statements about Mary and the Church in general. I'm even getting disillusioned with all forms of religious formalism. After years of careful observation and introspection leading to freedom from denial, I am beginning to view religion the way it is currently practiced (and even what has being in practice in the past) with great suspicion. It's beginning to look more to me as a pardonable cause for brazen hypocrisy. I do however, still believe in God. Here are my problems with the Roman Catholic Church:

1. Mary is the Mother of God? This statement sounds very misleading to me. When I hear the word: God, I think of a Divine Being that exists from everlasting to everlasting. How can He then have a mother? Did Mary give birth to Jesus' divinity as the statement suggests? If anyone decides to give an answer, I would remind you that I am no longer in the frame of mind to deceive myself anymore. Please give a reasonable explanation.

2. Why is the Pope said to be infallibl

i also remember i answered them all. Dont draw me back. Dont bring a dead goat for flogging, all interested shuld go to d said thread.

Ubenedictus: u mean d scientific appoach used by d bishops cannot be wrong abi?

No o! it means the scientific approach used by the bishop is acceptable in the absence of information that shows otherwise.

Ubenedictus: Oh and dont forget many books were in use that didnt enter d canon.

We know.

italo:

NO! By talking about the role the Bible plays, you are hitting the nail right on its head...and you will find your arguments are baseless.

One question: what is the pillar and foundation of the truth?

Xtians!!! Sheessh... Tis Jesus na...

Zikkyy:
No o! it means the scientific approach used by the bishop is acceptable in the absence of information that shows otherwise.

You believe the bishops when they tell you that they used certain scientific methods to compile the Bible, but when they tell you that the whole process was guided by the Holy Spirit, they sudden become liars?!

italo:
when they tell you that the whole process was guided by the Holy Spirit, they sudden become liars?!

shuo!

how did you arrive at such conclusion? did i say anybody lied? my brother, this is false accusation o!

chukwudi44:

What sort of reasoning is this? Are trying to refute a hhistorical fact with this trash!!! You really amaze me

FYI

The last stanza of the creed professes belief in the holy catholic church.If you do not believe this as it obviously seems you are not catholic

Last i checked we are meant to place our belief in God... So mind elaborating?

^^^ See how Christians who are not Roman catholics understand that expression and why Lutherans, Evangelicals, Anglicans and even some Pentecostals can all say they believe/belong in "one, holy, catholic, apostolic, church."

https://www.nairaland.com/1032312/scandal-church#11979108

“Why do we say that we believe in the Roman Catholic Church when we are Protestants?” they ask. The confusion arises because the word "catholic" is not in common usage in English today. Most people hear it used only in reference to the Roman Catholic Church. And so, when they read or hear the word "catholic" in another context, they assume it refers to the Church of Rome. But this is mistaken. "Catholic," in this context, means "universal" and is not a reference to the Church of Rome.

Kay 17:

You'd be guilty of circular reasoning. Who told you that the Holy Spirit exists and that it helps you interpret the Bible correctly??

R u seriously saying this? Like really? Be careful of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as its the unforgivable sin... #NuffSaid

Enigma:

Ube bros

See the answer to your question in what I said recently here: https://www.nairaland.com/1179270/pastor-god-should-listen-christians/2#14169726

do u mind pasting d reply?

Enigma: ^^^ See how Christians who are not Roman catholics understand that expression and why Lutherans, Evangelicals, Anglicans and even some Pentecostals can all say they believe/belong in "one, holy, catholic, apostolic, church."

https://www.nairaland.com/1032312/scandal-church#11979108

dis is a joke d only "catholic' church available wen d creed was composed was "presided in love" by d roman see. So which oda one are u talking abt?

Ubenedictus: do u mind pasting d reply?

Below

^^^ The apocrypha are not of the devil necessarily; it is just that Christians are divided on whether to have them or not. Some other Christian denominations which are not Roman Catholics still have them.

Interestingly even the King James Bible always had the apocrypha and they were only removed by some denominations much later.

Meanwhile if the Roman Catholics tell you that their "pope" is infallible or that the words of their "church" are the words of God, ask them about the following statement by their church and one of their "infallible" popes.

Per "Pope" Boniface VIII (Unam Sanctam).

“We declare, state, define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.”

Zikkyy:

No o! it means the scientific approach used by the bishop is acceptable in the absence of information that shows otherwise.



We know.

so u simply accept their scientific method which for all we know was prone to all sorts of mistakes. Dat means ur nt is a fluke.

viruz007:

R u seriously saying this? Like really? Be careful of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as its the unforgivable sin... #NuffSaid

You have a foundational issue* don't you see it?!

i have seen a lot of things spewed here and i am utterly disappointed in most of the posters inability to answer without sentiments and doing proper research as at when due.

On the issue of kneeling before a statute and praying to Mary, here are a few points of mine showing that its idolatry;

"I am The Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me."
"You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I The Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love Me and keep My Commandments." (Exodus 20:2-6 RSV)

What Is Idolatry?

Idolatry can be defined as "worship or reverence given to any created object or person." It actually takes many forms, not just the "praying to statues" that many people think of when they hear the word "idolatry."

Fetishism (fetish is derived from the Latin word factitius, meaning to make - ironically the word fact originated from the same Latin word) is when "any living or inanimate object is regarded with awe and devotion." While thousands of everyday things and habits can be included in this category, especially if they get in the way of one's obedience to, and worship of, the True God, statues and religious images are the most common and obvious examples:

"Therefore take good heed to yourselves. Since you saw no form on the day that The Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth." (Deuteronomy 4:15-18 RSV)

"for the customs of the peoples are false. A tree from the forest is cut down, and worked with an axe by the hands of a craftsman. Men deck it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so that it cannot move. Their idols are like scarecrows in a cucumber field, and they cannot speak; they have to be carried, for they cannot walk. Be not afraid of them, for they cannot do evil, neither is it in them to do good." (Jeremiah 10:3-5 RSV)

As for the Bible, this was the word of God inspired by his holy spirit. Take for instance most of the events of the OT where written down for the understanding, teaching and proving to the future generations of Jews about the wonderful things God did for Israel. If you read the NT, it was exactly the same, the where writing down the events for future generations learning, understanding and belief. i'll cite a few examples

- Luke Luke 1:1-4 "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may have certainty of the things you have been taught."

- John John 21:25, Rev 1:10 (Read this too)

This r the few examples i can cite as for the inspiration of the bible.

Then i"ll throw a question at you all? Why did the catholic church prevent the bible from being translated and persecuted those who did and challenged their teachings?

Kay 17:

You have a foundational issue* don't you see it?!

Cool story. Please you need to ask yourself that cause last i checked your the one who asked and if the Holy Spirit exists....

This list constitutes an honest, unflinching look at some black moments in Roman Catholic history.


10
John Wycliffe

In a nutshell, John Wycliffe presaged Martin Luther as a Protestant reformer. Wycliffe lived from c. 1328 to 31 December 1384, about a hundred years before Luther, and Wycliffe saw very much the same problems in the Roman Catholic Church. Catholicism itself was fine with him, but the Church was largely corrupt by his day. A lot of its practices will make entries farther down.

Wycliffe wanted people to worship God and Jesus according to the Bible, not according to the popes and their bishops and priests. He saw that people are corruptible, while the Bible is not, and thus, there was no good sense in taking one’s troubles to a priest, so the priest could make one feel better. Communication directly with God, via prayer, was not impossible, but required an understanding of the Bible, and the next entry outlines a specific grievance Wycliffe had with the Church on this subject.

Wycliffe preached in England, and on the Continent, that priests should do nothing more than oversee church services and help the laypeople interpret the Bible for themselves. He argued based on various Bible passages that secular kings and queens had a divine right, direct from God Almighty, to be kings and queens. Thus, their rule should not be opposed by anyone, anymore than God’s rule should be opposed. The popes, however, routinely told Europe’s monarchs what was what in every field of activity.

It didn’t take long for Wycliffe to irritate a few Catholics, especially Pope Gregory XI. Their animosity toward each other may be without rival in the history of the Catholic Church. Gregory issued no less than five Papal Bulls attempting to shut Wycliffe up, but he would not be silent. Wycliffe went so far as to argue that the pope and the Antichrist were practically equivalent, and denounced the papal throne as the throne of Satan on Earth. He may have been the first to declare this now-popular idea (popular among Protestants).

He was the first to translate the complete Bible into English, which did not endear him to the Catholic hierarchy. The Church did not attempt to catch and kill Wycliffe, ostensibly because it could not find him (he traveled extensively in England, France, and the Netherlands), or because it did not like the risk of invading England to get him. He died three days after suffering a stroke during Mass. 30 years later, the Council of Constance ended “the three popes’ reign” and elected Alexander V, who immediately denounced Wycliffe as a heretic, had as many of his books burned as could be found on the Continent and in England, excommunicated and consigned to everlasting flames from the moment of his death. In 1428, Pope Martin V had him dug up and burned at the stake.


9
Vernacular Bible

Pope Damasus I commissioned Saint Jerome, in 382, to revise the Vetus Latina, which was the compendium of all biblical texts, translated into Latin. Jerome’s product became known as “versio vulgata,” or “common version.” It was the translation used most often from then on throughout Western Europe, and from 400 to about 1530, the Latin Vulgate was the one and only Bible most Western Europeans ever encountered. It is, in fact, still the only official Bible of the Catholic Church.

Nothing is wrong with any of this, because Jerome’s translation is perfectly accurate and at its time of publication Latin was spoken throughout most of Europe. It is, more or less, the King James Version in Latin, since the King James translators used it as one of their primary guides. But the problem arose when the commoners throughout Europe told their priests, who told their bishops, who told the popes, that the commoners did not understand the first thing about Latin. It was not spoken except in church ceremonies, and thus, in order to learn it, the commoners had to get their priests to teach them. But the priests would not bother teaching them. Why?

Because knowledge is power, and the Catholic Church had all of both. For about 1,000 years, the Bible remained well known only to the church officials, clergy of all orders, and an elect few well educated scholars. It was never counter to any Papal Bull for any person to translate the Bible into another language. However, anyone who intended to do so was strongly admonished by the Pope himself, with every archbishop, bishop and priest of the continent told not to translate the Bible into any language besides Biblical Hebrew, Ancient Greek or Latin. These three languages were almost dead at the time, meaning no one spoke them commonly.


8
Indulgences

Indulgences are various degrees of the remission of punishments from sins that have already been forgiven. Indulgences are given, not sold, to anyone who performs a Christian act, especially doing a good deed for someone else, or for saying a prayer. This practice really isn’t that un-biblical, in itself, but the problem is that people immediately see it as a “Get Out of Jail Free” card. Sin all you want, then say a Hail Mary, and you’re good to go. It has never worked that way according to the Bible and official Catholic doctrine, and anyone who reads the Pauline Epistles will realize this.

But certain Bishops of the Catholic Church saw indulgences as a very good way to get rich, and it worked magnificently. Threaten an ignorant person with eternal burning, and he’ll give you some money to feel safe again. It got ridiculously out of hand from about 500 until Martin Luther spoke against it in his 95 Theses, in 1517. One of the most notorious abusers of the practice was a man named Johann Tetzel, to whom is attributed this infamous couplet, “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs.”

These Bishops extorted people for years by horrifying them that they’re departed loved ones were currently frying in Purgatory, and would remain there for a very long time, unless their surviving loved ones paid the Church money. This money would atone for the dead persons’ sins, and they would then enter Heaven. Indulgences are not supposed to be sold. If they were, people with lots of money would be holier than thou art.

Indulgences are still given in the Catholic Church – some which remit part of the punishment owed for sin, and some which remit all. The most recent indulgences were granted in 2007 by Pope Benedict XVI, for people who took part in pilgrimages to Lourdes.


7
Knights Templar

The origin of the superstition of Friday the 13th began on Friday the 13th of October, 1307. King Phillip IV of Spain had borrowed a very large amount of money and personnel from the Templars, in order to wage war against the English, and when Pope Clement V sent him word that there were suspicions about the Christian nature of the Templar brotherhood, Phillip seized the opportunity, sending his men out to round up, arrest and imprison all the Templars in Spain.

Phillip accused them of the most atrocious sins imaginable for that time, including apostasy (which means renouncing Christ), heresy, idolatry and even sodomy. Any one of these “crimes” warranted death back then, and the Templars were guilty of precisely none. But Phillip saw an extraordinary chance to eradicate the Templar order from his entire country and seize its incalculable wealth for himself. He bullied Clement V with political embargoes, and Clement acquiesced with an Inquisition convened to investigate these accusations.

The “investigation” involved torturing the Templars via very perverted, horrifying methods, with the single proviso that no blood be spilled. If they died from the torture, it was deemed “righteous punishment.” But none of them did, according to the records we have. Most were put on the rack and stretched until their shoulders dislocated. Some had their testicles crushed in vises, which caused them to bleed profusely, of course, but internally. No blood was spilled. Some were shackled to the dungeon floors and had their feet roasted to the bone in furnaces.

They, understandably, confessed to all sorts of horrible offenses to the Church, including the above mentioned, along with spitting on the cross. As soon as their tortures were over, the recanted their confessions. They may have been in possession of the Shroud of Turin at this time, which constituted idolatry. Clement issued a Papal Bull on 22 November, ordering that Templars be arrested and tortured all over Europe, and they were.

Phillip IV is the most directly to blame, but the Catholic Church was officially and directly responsible in torturing and executing the Templar knights, knowing full well that they were innocent of all charges. Most of the Templars across Europe actually escaped or were acquitted, but those convicted, including the Grandmaster Jacques de Molay, were, to a man, burned at the stake, most after gruesome tortures. He is said to have screamed out of the flames that Phillip and Clement would both meet him before God, “and that right soon.” They both died within a year; Phillip had a stroke and fell off his horse while hunting; Clement died of natural causes, and a rumor persists that his body lay in state during a thunderstorm, when lightning struck the building and burned it to the ground.


6
Galileo

The trial of Galileo Galilei is one of the most infamous and embarrassing moments in Catholic history. It still hasn’t gone away. Galileo seems to have been always at odds with the Catholic Church’s hegemony on all education, even though he was good friends with Pope Urban VIII, and dedicated some of his works to him. But he discovered, via his own pet design for the refracting telescope, that Jupiter has moons, and Jupiter’s moons orbit Jupiter, NOT Earth. Know what that means? Orbits are based on gravity, not mankind’s arrogance. This idea is called heliocentrism, which is, Mr. Sun is at the center of the solar system, and Earth, like everything else nearby, orbits Mr. Sun.

Galileo was of the opinion that Nicholas Copernicus was right. The Earth is not the center. The Church didn’t want to hear that. Galileo went to Rome to persuade the Church not to ban Copernicus’s works, and instead of convincing them, the Church officials turned on Galileo and demanded that he desist with his ideas of Heliocentrism. He refused, but did back off for a few years. Urban VIII tried what he dared to help him, but the facts themselves were deemed vehemently heretical, and Galileo was finally brought before an Inquisition (more on those later), and forced under threat of excommunication and torture to “abjure, curse, and detest” heliocentrism.

The legend goes that, seated in a chair in a bare room before the table of Inquisitors, Galileo sighed, put his hands behind his back, crossed his fingers and said something to the effect of, “Fine. The Earth does not move around the Sun.” Then, under his breath, he muttered, “E pur si muove,” which is, “And yet it moves.” How much of this is true cannot be ascertained for certain, but at one point he did let his Italian temper get the better of him (after several years of aggravation), when he stood and bellowed, “The Bible tells you how to go to Heaven! It does NOT tell you how the heavens go!”

The Catholic Church did not lift its ban on heliocentrical thought until 1758. It was not until 1992, 350 years after his death, that a pope, John Paul II, formally apologized for the Church placing Galileo under house arrest for the last 9 years of his life, and denouncing his discoveries which, ironically, were also incorrect as Galileo taught that the Sun was the center of the universe – not just our solar system. John Paul II’s successor, Benedict XVI, is on record as stating that the Catholic Church’s “verdict against Galileo was rational and just and the revision of this verdict can be justified only on the grounds of what is politically opportune.” Politically, mind you; not factually.





5
Joan of Arc

Joan of Arc believed that God had called her to lead the French in kicking the English out of France once and for all. She instigated an uprising in 1429, and led a successful relief force to the besieged city of Orleans, where she aided Gilles de Rais (who, you may recall from another list, was also a savage serial killer), as well as Jean de Dunois and Jean de Brosse, in lifting the siege and routing the English oppressors.

Long story short, Joan roused the political irritation of quite a few Catholic honchos in the area. But when they set about opening up a trial against her, they could find no legitimate evidence. But they opened the trial anyway, and also refused to allow her any legal counsel. This was patently against their own rules. During this farce, the inquisitors (French Bishops who favored the rule of the English), especially Jean LeMaitre, tried to trap Joan with her own words, just like the Pharisees and Sadducees tried to trap Jesus with his own words. And Jesus is probably quite proud of how Joan handled herself, because she calmly and carefully turned all their traps back against them. She left them no ground at all on which to base her execution, so of course, they killed her anyway. They hated her and wanted to kill her. In the end, they had to lie.

Joan of Arc was executed for heresy, not because she claimed to hear the voice of God, not because she defied and killed the English, but because she was said to have worn a man’s clothing while in prison. This was also forbidden, and thus punishable by being burned at the stake. She requested that her last meal be Holy Communion. The Church officials refused, in essence trying everything they could to consign her to Hell. It was even discovered after her death that she had never worn a man’s clothing. Her case was successfully appealed 25 years later, and she was exonerated by the Pope at the behest of St Joan’s mother. Nevertheless, the Church did not canonize her until 16 May, 1920, five hundred years after she was killed.


4
Jan Hus

Along with the next entry, this is one of the two most appalling incidents of criminal cowardice in the history of the Catholic Church. Jan Hus (c. 1369 – 6 July 1415) was a Czech priest and Catholic reformer who could not stand what he saw as various corruptions rife throughout the Roman Catholic Church. It would take too long to explain every detail of his arguments with the Church, but they can all be simplified to his view that the priests, bishops, archbishops and popes were immoral and given to sin, just as any other human. Thus, any rule the Church established was corrupt, because 100% of the rules necessary for Christian living and salvation had already been written by God in the Bible.

He made no secret of his disdain and outright antagonism for the Church in his Prague pulpit. He was strongly influenced by #10, and when #10 died a peaceful death, Hus carried on in his place. He especially wanted the papal schism to end. There were two popes at the time, Gregory XII and Benedict XIII. In 1409, Alexander V was elected to appease both sides, but this backfired. Hus saw it was one more proof that the Church was a human institution, and no longer divine.

In 1411, indulgences received a sudden surge of popularity following the death of Prague’s Archbishop, Zbynek Zajic, when Antipope John XXIII advocated indulgences to insure that all those under his bishopric would be cleaned of the sin of following Hus. Hus sternly preached against indulgences. So, in 1415, the Church convened the Council of Constance to put an end to the papal schism, but also to put an end to Hus. They tricked him into coming to the Council under a letter of indemnity, which meant they promised to do no harm at all to him. All they wanted was to talk.

While he was there, the Church started the rumor that he was trying to escape the city of Constance (Konstanz). He was not trying to escape, because he wrote his will before leaving Prague. He knew they might try to kill him, and they did, arresting, trying and imprisoning him for heresy. He was held in an underground dungeon, fed very little, contracting the flu and possibly pneumonia. He was ordered to recant his teachings, and he refused, stating that he stood firmly and solely on the Bible, that for the Church to demand his recantation of the Bible was the same as demanding God’s genuflection to the Roman Catholic Church. This infuriated the Church officials, who promptly sentenced him to death. They refused him the Last Rites and burned him at the stake.


3
William Tyndale

Tyndale dedicated his life to translating the Bible into vernacular English, so the laypeople of England could read it for themselves. This was not expressly against the rules, as mentioned in entry #9, but Tyndale could not get anyone in the Catholic Church to help him with room and board. Everyone was uncomfortable with the Bible being readily accessible to the commoners, because how could the Church then keep power?

Not to be deterred, Tyndale went into hiding in Belgium and Germany, evading capture while he translated the New Testament, finishing it in 1525. It was printed en masse and smuggled all over Europe, especially into England, where the Catholics in charge burned a number of them in public. Tyndale also wrote fearlessly against the divorce of Henry VIII, calling it anti-Scriptural, and infuriating the king. Tyndale finished translating the Old Testament in 1530.

He was finally caught after some help from a backstabbing friend named Henry Phillips, charged with heresy for no other reason than translating the Bible into English, and strangled, then burned at the stake, on 6 October 1536, in Vilvoorde, outside Brussels. The Catholic Church has never apologized. All subsequent English Bibles, including the King James have borrowed extensively from Tyndale’s Bible.


2
Inquisitions

Because they spanned the entire latter half of the Middle Ages, lasting into the 1800s, the Inquisitions themselves deserve their own entry. Their typically accepted dates are from the 1100s to 1808. The Inquisition still exists today, but torture and execution are no longer allowed. The word itself simply denotes an investigation into possible heresy.

For those seven centuries or so, anyone who roused the anger or suspicion of the Roman Catholic Church was in very real danger of the arrival of Inquisitors, whose job was “to root out and purge the Christian civilized world of heresy and crimes against God.” Torture was not only defended as a means to gain a confession; the Church encouraged it.

Aside from the specific cases mentioned in other entries, it must not be forgotten that the Catholic Church routinely arrested and tortured Jews, Muslims, Waldensianism (Christian), Hussitism (Christian) and numerous other religions and religious sects. These people were given prior warning to vacate the given area (a pogrom), after which anyone found in the area was arrested and given an ultimatum: convert to Christianity or be executed. Anyone who foolishly refused was tortured until he or she did convert, and the Inquisition allowed no exemptions for anyone, men, women, children, the elderly or the disabled.

These tortures were lurid beyond belief, including branding, the rack, hanging by the toes or thumbs, toe crushing, bone breaking, simple beatings, foot roasting, and blinding by red-hot pokers. After such tortures, the condemned was almost always strangled, then burned at the stake. For seven centuries, the Catholic Church was all powerful, even terrifying monarchs, and the Inquisition held absolute sway by the most brutal methods imaginable.

Interestingly the office of the Inquisition still exists today under the name “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”.


1
Medieval Witch Hunts

This travesty gets its own entry for several reasons. The so-called “witches” were rounded up and slaughtered for centuries throughout Europe. Casualty numbers vary drastically because records were not well kept, but the average total is anywhere from 40,000 to 100,000 dead, just in the period of c. 1480 to c. 1750.

The hunts had been perpetrated for centuries before, and they were carried out for one or both of two reasons: fear and personal animosity. If a particular person irritated someone, the latter could accuse the former of witchcraft, and the Catholic Church showed up like a bloodhound. Or a nation or local government could suddenly become afraid of the influence of the Antichrist and take care of the matter with the Church’s blessing.

It was established doctrine that witches were not witches by their own volition, but by Satan’s, and so burning them at the stake would purify them by pain so they could enter Heaven. The Church actually believed, and led the populace to believe, that it was doing witches a favor by torturing them and burning them to death. The methods by which to prove a witch were ludicrous, to state the obvious: a mole or birthmark was deemed proof of trafficking with the Devil; uttering blasphemy (and back then it was nearly impossible to open your mouth without offending the Church); denouncement by another witch (and since denouncing another passed the blame, the accused could save himself this way); to be afraid during interrogation; and the most infamous of all, anyone who could swim was most assuredly a witch, since only the Devil could teach someone to conquer water.

Tortures were not always overseen by the Church itself, and thus, the rule of not shedding blood was ignored in these instances. So the tortures became much, much worse: flogging, skinning alive, castration by red-hot pincers, disemboweling, drawing and quartering, head crushing, tooth extraction, de-nailing. Death, if not by torture, was always via burning at the stake.

Another very serious mistake the Church made in pursuing and slaughtering people because of the slightest hint of heresy is that in so doing, it also ordered that all witches’ “familiars” be hunted down, killed and burned. These familiars were pets that witches were believed to keep, whether frogs, or owls, or rats or especially cats. From the 1100s until the late 1300s, cats were slaughtered wholesale all over Europe. When the fleas bearing bubonic plague rode on the backs of rats from the Black Sea area and Western Asia into Italy and Western Europe, there were no cats to check the rats’ spread. The Black Death of c. 1340 to c. 1355 spread so well, in large part, because the rats multiplied out of control. The Plague finally dwindled away because the people were too busy dying to kill cats, and the cats repopulated Europe and brought the rats back down.

It should be noted that witch hunts were not unique to the Catholic Church, as all of the protestant nations in Europe also partook of this cruel abuse. Alas, no one was immune from guilt.

Inasmuch as i can't judge anybody or any church, i'll like someone to explain this moments to me and why someone would believe a human to be infallible....