Question:
CB, Protestants refer to Christians who are not Catholic. — That’s not necessarily true. I’m Christian and I don’t protest your false religion. I just expose the lies of the rcc. I am sorry that you feel that the Catholic Church finds it necessary to lie. It is unfortunate that you have taken this view, as I believe, after much research, that it actually teaches the truth as passed down by apostolistic tradition (since the apostles predate the New Testament).
Your point? Does that mean the Bible is not true? If there is any particular subject that you’d like to discuss, I’d be happy to in a respectful way. However, you’re assertions that a particular Church "lies", and yet not providing proof, is particularly vexing, given the doctrine that Jesus teaches to ALL Christians – love thy fellow man.
I have proved it many times over. I don’t think you are advancing this by vindictive posts. All I can say is "What would Jesus say to the spirit of your postings?" Regardless of how you feel about the Catholic Church, this is certainly not the way to go about disagreeing with it (as per Christ’s teachings)
According to whom? You? The rcc? To someone who feels a need to protect a lie? I speak the Truth. If you don’t like it, please feel free to ignore it. Most catholics ignore Truth. The others just do what the pope says without even knowing why. Joe Kussey
– Psalm 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
Response:
CB, Protestants refer to Christians who are not Catholic.
– That’s not necessarily true. I’m Christian and I don’t protest your false religion. I just expose the lies of the rcc.
I am sorry that you feel that the Catholic Church finds it necessary to lie. It is unfortunate that you have taken this view, as I believe, after much research, that it actually teaches the truth as passed down by apostolistic tradition (since the apostles predate the New Testament). If there is any particular subject that you’d like to discuss, I’d be happy to in a respectful way. However, you’re assertions that a particular Church "lies", and yet not providing proof, is particularly vexing, given the doctrine that Jesus teaches to ALL Christians – love thy fellow man. I don’t think you are advancing this by vindictive posts. All I can say is "What would Jesus say to the spirit of your postings?" Regardless of how you feel about the Catholic Church, this is certainly not the way to go about disagreeing with it (as per Christ’s teachings) SIncerely, Joe Kussey
Response:
CB, I am sorry that you feel that the Catholic Church finds it necessary to lie. It is unfortunate that you have taken this view, as I believe, after much research, that it actually teaches the truth as passed down by apostolistic tradition (since the apostles predate the New Testament). Your point? Does that mean the Bible is not true?
How do you come up with that? Where does it say in my reply to you that the Bible is false??? I am only saying that I am not aware of these "lies" that you purport that the Catholic Church finds necessary to tell. I am not a life long Catholic, am not brainwashed, etc. After researching both sides (protestant and catholic), I have come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church WAS established by Christ, is the guardian of scripture, and the legitimate interpreter of the Bible. I have yet to see you disprove that. If there is any particular subject that you’d like to discuss, I’d be happy to in a respectful way. However, you’re assertions that a particular Church "lies", and yet not providing proof, is particularly vexing, given the doctrine that Jesus teaches to ALL Christians – love thy fellow man. I have proved it many times over.
Not to me. Humour me. I don’t think you are advancing this by vindictive posts. All I can say is "What would Jesus say to the spirit of your postings?" Regardless of how you feel about the Catholic Church, this is certainly not the way to go about disagreeing with it (as per Christ’s teachings) According to whom? You? The rcc? To someone who feels a need to protect a lie? I speak the Truth. If you don’t like it, please feel free to ignore it. Most catholics ignore Truth. The others just do what the pope says without even knowing why.
According to any unbiased observer. You come up with outlandish accusations, such as the Pope is sending a million people to hell, etc., but you can’t back it up. Prove to me a different church was commissioned on this earth by Jesus Christ. Prove to me millions are going to hell because of the Catholic Church. I understand you disagree with the Catholic interpretation of things. However, can’t we agree to disagree? What is the purpose for these unwarranted attacks? Any atheist reading these posts (or unbiased person) will see that you are the one advancing vindictive, unsubstantiated attacks, not me. You are certainly NOT advancing the Word of Jesus in this manner. As to the Truth, truth is not relative. You have not proven anything by simply stating that your interpretation is correct. It is unconvincing not only to Catholics, but any third person entering this conversation. So again, I say to you…Prove it. Show me why the Pope is wrong, etc…. Regards, Joe Kussey
Response:
CB, I’ve been looking for this "protestant" church for a long time. Could you please direct me in finding one? Is the "protestant church" an organized religion like the rcc? If not, then your posts make no sense. BTW, I’ve never killed anyone. Protestants refer to Christians who are not Catholic. Amazing as it seems, there are some in Ireland.
And in California too, right Danny? Err… CB? Anyway….
Response:
Joe, I think I love you. The hypocrisy and scapegoating do get tiresome, don’t they? You’d think the average Protestant hasn’t cracked a history book in years or is so blinded by the Dave Hunt-Jack Chickesque propaganda that they’d reject the Truth if it crawled into their lap and cuddled. Tracy <—statue-worshipping, romanish, cannibalistic, ring-kissing, Bible-hatin’, goin’-straight-t’Hell Mariolater. Yeah, that’s it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – CB, I’ve been looking for this "protestant" church for a long time. Could you please direct me in finding one? Is the "protestant church" an organized religion like the rcc? If not, then your posts make no sense. BTW, I’ve never killed anyone. Protestants refer to Christians who are not Catholic. Amazing as it seems, there are some in Ireland. I believe if you look in your local phone directory under "Protestant", you will find many various assundry of "churches". As to organization, some "protestant churches" are locally organized, such as Baptists, and others have national organization, like the Lutherans. However, being that there are so many protestant churches, it is hard to keep up with them. As to you killing anyone, what does that have to do with anything? Neither have I, and I am Catholic… Regards, Joe Kussey
Response:
CB, I’ve been looking for this "protestant" church for a long time. Could you please direct me in finding one? Is the "protestant church" an organized religion like the rcc? If not, then your posts make no sense. BTW, I’ve never killed anyone. Protestants refer to Christians who are not Catholic.
That’s not necessarily true. I’m Christian and I don’t protest your false religion. I just expose the lies of the rcc. Amazing as it seems, there are some in Ireland. I believe if you look in your local phone directory under "Protestant", you will find many various assundry of "churches".
Maybe you could help me. As to organization, some "protestant churches" are locally organized, such as Baptists, and others have national organization, like the Lutherans. However, being that there are so many protestant churches, it is hard to keep up with them. As to you killing anyone, what does that have to do with anything? Neither have I, and I am Catholic… Regards, Joe Kussey
– Psalm 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
Response:
Tamas The pope personally initiated the 4th crusade and gave blessings to participant warriors. Then he silently told them that they can stop at Constantinople if they wished and do to the orthodox, what they would have done to muslims in Jerusalem. And finally accepted stolen goods gathered there. You are incorrect. I just happen to be a historian and must tell you that you discuss only half of the story. Although the Pope "initiated" the Crusades, there is no record of such "secrets" that you imply.
Thanks Joe. That was very interesting to read. I really appreciate your taking the time, and making the effort. Peace, Lisa http://users.javanet.com/~lanat/lisa.htm http://users.rcn.com/projectrachel http://users.javanet.com/~lanat/life.htm
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you apologise for something, it implies that you were responsible for it. I don’t believe that the church officially condoned the massacre, so what is it doing saying sorry? If I went to confession and asked forgiveness for my friend’s sins the priest might tell me off for wasting his time. Such apologies may be well-intentioned but they do the church no good. They just play into the hands of its critics, allowing them to say: "You see? It is corrupt.". Apologies also pander to those who deliberately or unintentionally confuse the teaching of the church with the way her members behave. Some use the fact that Catholics sin as a pretext for non-belief.
I share you views on the ‘apologies saga’, or I did, until I read that the Holy Father did not apologise to the Greeks. He asked God for forgiveness. This is a different matter, because it suggests that the souls of the Catholics who may have sinned were the objects of the Pope’s attention. Stephen
Response:
CB, I’ve been looking for this "protestant" church for a long time. Could you please direct me in finding one? Is the "protestant church" an organized religion like the rcc? If not, then your posts make no sense. BTW, I’ve never killed anyone.
Protestants refer to Christians who are not Catholic. Amazing as it seems, there are some in Ireland. I believe if you look in your local phone directory under "Protestant", you will find many various assundry of "churches". As to organization, some "protestant churches" are locally organized, such as Baptists, and others have national organization, like the Lutherans. However, being that there are so many protestant churches, it is hard to keep up with them. As to you killing anyone, what does that have to do with anything? Neither have I, and I am Catholic… Regards, Joe Kussey
Response:
Lisa, Glad you liked it. Amazing how many half-truths are floating around about Catholics… Joe
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Tamas The pope personally initiated the 4th crusade and gave blessings to participant warriors. Then he silently told them that they can stop at Constantinople if they wished and do to the orthodox, what they would have done to muslims in Jerusalem. And finally accepted stolen goods gathered there. You are incorrect. I just happen to be a historian and must tell you that you discuss only half of the story. Although the Pope "initiated" the Crusades, there is no record of such "secrets" that you imply. Thanks Joe. That was very interesting to read. I really appreciate your taking the time, and making the effort. Peace, Lisa http://users.javanet.com/~lanat/lisa.htm http://users.rcn.com/projectrachel http://users.javanet.com/~lanat/life.htm
Response:
*Pope Innocent III, neither knew about nor sanctioned in the least this massacre and sacrilegious pillage. In fact, he had FORBIDDEN the Crusaders, on pain of EXCOMMUNICATION,
"Pain" of excommunication? That would be a blessing, not pain. Joe Kussey
– Psalm 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
Response:
If you apologise for something, it implies that you were responsible for it. I don’t believe that the church officially condoned the massacre, so what is it doing saying sorry? If I went to confession and asked forgiveness for my friend’s sins the priest might tell me off for wasting his time. Such apologies may be well-intentioned but they do the church no good. They just play into the hands of its critics, allowing them to say: "You see? It is corrupt.".
I knew the rcc is corrupt long before any confession by pope. Apologies also pander to those who deliberately or unintentionally confuse the teaching of the church with the way her members behave. Some use the fact that Catholics sin as a pretext for non-belief.
– Psalm 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – CB So when is the Protestants going to apologize to the Catholics in Ireland? How about the THOUSANDS of English woman who were burned at the stake by Protestants? When are you going to realize that more Catholics were killed by Protestants during the 4 centuries of Inquisitions then Protestants? When are they going to apologize for what happened at Salem? When are the Protestants going to apologize to Catholics for murders they participated in during the Middle Ages in Germany? Why are you such a hypocrite?
I’ve been looking for this "protestant" church for a long time. Could you please direct me in finding one? Is the "protestant church" an organized religion like the rcc? If not, then your posts make no sense. BTW, I’ve never killed anyone. Joe Kussey
– Psalm 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
Response:
Tamas The pope personally initiated the 4th crusade and gave blessings to participant warriors. Then he silently told them that they can stop at Constantinople if they wished and do to the orthodox, what they would have done to muslims in Jerusalem. And finally accepted stolen goods gathered there.
You are incorrect. I just happen to be a historian and must tell you that you discuss only half of the story. Although the Pope "initiated" the Crusades, there is no record of such "secrets" that you imply. *Pope Innocent III, neither knew about nor sanctioned in the least this massacre and sacrilegious pillage. In fact, he had FORBIDDEN the Crusaders, on pain of EXCOMMUNICATION, to attack Byzantium, instructing the leader, Boniface of Montferrat, that: "The crusade must not attack Christians, but should proceed as quickly as possible to the Holy Land." He only found out the full horror of what had happened more than eight months later, and wrote to Cardinal Peter Capuano, denouncing the sack in no uncertain terms: These "soldiers of Christ" who should have turned their swords against the infidel have steeped them in Christian blood, sparing neither religion, nor age, nor sex . . . They stripped the altars of silver, violated the sanctuaries, robbed icons and crosses and relics . . . The Latins have given example only of perversity and works of darkness. No wonder the Greeks call them dogs!" {cited in Carroll, ibid., p. 158; from Mann, Popes of the Middle Ages, vol. 12, pp. 266-267} ***Yet there had been several similar scandalous atrocities or unsavory, treacherous incidents which occurred BEFORE the sack, on the part of the Byzantines, which have not received their due attention. For the sake of fairness and historical objectivity (not polemics and controversy), we will review some of these. Warren Carroll notes: Horrible and utterly indefensible as the sack was, it should in justice be remembered that it was not totally unprovoked; more than once (as in the massacre of 1182) the Greeks of Constantinople had treated the Latins there as they were now being treated . . . Historians who wax eloquent and indignant – with considerable reason – about the sack of Constantinople . . . rarely if ever mention the massacre of the westerners in Constantinople in 1182 . . . a nightmarish massacre of thousands [about 2000 Greeks were killed in Constantinople in 1204, according to secular historian Will Durant], . . . in which the slaughterers spared neither women nor children, neither old nor sick, neither priest nor monk. Cardinal John, the Pope’s representative, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the streets at the tail of a dog; children were cut out of their mother’s wombs; bodies of dead Westerners were exhumed and abused; some 4,000 who escaped death were sold into slavery to the Turks. {Carroll, ibid., pp. 157, 131} Bishop Ware also honorably writes about the Orthodox share of the blame in these massacres: Each . . . must look back at the past with sorrow and repentance. Both sides must in honesty acknowledge that they could and should have done more to prevent the schism. Both sides were guilty of mistakes on the human level. Orthodox, for example, must blame themselves for the pride and contempt with which during the Byzantine period they regarded the west; they must blame themselves for incidents such as the riot of 1182, when many Latin residents at Constantinople were massacred by the Byzantine populace. {Ware, ibid., p. 70} Catholic historian Warren Carroll recalls two other lamentable Byzantine incidents: In 1171, on the orders or at least with the tacit approval of the Byzantine government, thousands of Venetians in the Eastern empire had been killed, mutilated, or arrested and held for years in prison. {Carroll, ibid., p. 150} [In 1188] Frederick Barbarossa . . . requested permission of the Eastern Emperor, Isaac II Angelus, for passage of his army through Byzantine dominions on the way to the Holy Land, and for the right to purchase food for his troops within them. Isaac said he agreed . . . but in fact Isaac was resolved to oppose the passage of the crusaders, and made contact with Saladin [the Muslim commander] to concert plans "to delay and destroy the German army." About this "Byzantine treachery" there is no doubt; even the many modern Western historians sympathetic to Byzantium and hostile to the Crusades have to admit it [e.g., Emperor Isaac, in 1187, had written Saladin to congratulate him for his great achievement of re-taking Jerusalem from the Latin crusaders] . . . [Frederick's envoys, imprisoned for a time] returned to Frederick . . . with infuriating (and accurate) reports of the Byzantine alliance with Saladin, plans to destroy the crusading army as it crossed the Dardanelles, and the violent anti-Western attitude of Patriarch Dositheus of Constantinople, who had offered unconditional absolution to any Greek killing a Westerner. Frederick passed on this information to his son Henry, . . . to ask the Pope’s approval for a crusade against the Eastern Empire because of its treachery and dealings with the enemy. No Papal approval was given and Frederick soon thought better of the idea . . . Though a war against Christians was indubitably a perversion of the crusading ideal, Emperor Isaac’s acts against the crusaders had clearly been acts of war . . . Everything that the Fourth Crusade later did to Christendom’s discredit, Frederick Barbarossa refused to do, though he was directly provoked as the leaders of the Fourth Crusade never were. The extent of Byzantine provocation of the Third Crusade is obvious from the sequence of events. It would be a long time before anyone in the West would trust them again. {Carroll, ibid., pp. 130, 132-133} As can be seen by the above quotes, the Byzantines in Constantinople were not innocents. Nor did the Third Crusades destroy Constantinople, despite the rules of war suggesting that they had every right to after discovery Byzantinium traitorous behaviour. So to focus on the sack of Constantinople of 1204 is very one-sided and doesn’t get much sympathy from the knowledgeable historian. The only way to compensate would be that Pope goes to Turin, grabs the Holy Shroud and takes it to Moscow ASAP, to present it to the Moscow metropolita, successor to Constantinople’s archbishop. Crusaders confiscated that sacred clotch from Byzant in 1204, so it’s due back and it is the single most precious item in the Universe, a perfect "gift".
As to the Holy Shroud, there is no proof that this is Jesus’ burial wrap – just a man from His time frame. Do you really believe that giving this cloth back will straighten out everything? Will the Byzantium Church then fall in line with the successor of Peter? I highly doubt that would happen, although, in my opinion, this is a legitimate desire. Until the Holy Shroud’s intervention to the Lord wins friendly agreement between catholic and orthodox, the Catholic chruch will be unable to properly meet today’s challanges, because its basis is shaken due to the large number of its crimes (against orthodox, indians,etc.) accumulated during history and the spread of consumer mentality among catholic population. Today orthodox and other apostolic churches are more faithful to the teachings, especially if you consider their flocks’ behaviour compared to e.g. NA catholics.
crimes against indians? Which? Are you talking about India? Or American Indians? As to saying which Church is more well behaved and following of the teachings, that is simply conjecture and highly opinionated. One can easily point to atrocities created by Orthodox members, such as recent events in Bosnia, Macedonia, World War 2, massacre after WW1 of a million Turks, etc…However, to attach these atrocities to the CHURCH is ridiculous, just as attaching your above inferences to the Roman Church. The fact that the pope is polish, himself full of hatred towards orthodox slavic nations, especially Russia; propels the catholic church into great danger.
That is utterly ridiculous. John Paul 2 is probably the best Pope for peace that we have had in hundreds of years. Your assertions have no basis. Regards, Joe Kussey
Response:
Talk about lack of gratitude! It was only thanks to the efforts of the western Crusaders that Byzantium got a four hundred year stay of execution. Considering how much it cost the average Frank, Briton or German to get over to the middle-east, it is not surprising that eventually they became sick and tired of the cowardly and treachorous Byzantines. Maybe the Greeks might like to apologize for not pulling their weight in the war against Islam all those years ago. Heinz
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Regards, Good point. This is like the Catholics apologizing for the sacking of Constantinople in 1204. The Pope expressly forbid such behavior under threat of ex-communication, yet, the 4th Crusades sacked Constantinople in what can be accurately termed a revenge atrocity for what happened to Christians in Constantinople in 1172. snipped Sincerely: Tamas Feher.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sunday, 27 May, 2001, 13:47 GMT 14:47 UK Poland to apologise for Jewish massacre The Polish Roman Catholic Church will apologise today for the killing of about 1,600 Jews in a pogrom during World War II. A special ceremony will be held in a cathedral near the old Jewish ghetto in the capital, Warsaw. The country’s chief rabbi, Michael Schudrich, has welcomed the apology, but declined to attend the ceremony – which correspondents say is a sign of the sensitivity of the issue. Until recently the Nazis were blamed for the attack in 1941 in which the Jewish people were burned alive in a barn. But new research published in a book has suggested Poles carried it out, provoking a nationwide debate over the country’s war-time role. Ceremony at 1700GMT. From the newsroom of the BBC World Service "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Blaise Pascal, philosopher and mathematician (1623-1662)
How many more apologies are forthcoming from the rcc? I wonder if apologizing for murder makes everything OK? — Psalm 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
Response:
CB So when is the Protestants going to apologize to the Catholics in Ireland? How about the THOUSANDS of English woman who were burned at the stake by Protestants? When are you going to realize that more Catholics were killed by Protestants during the 4 centuries of Inquisitions then Protestants? When are they going to apologize for what happened at Salem? When are the Protestants going to apologize to Catholics for murders they participated in during the Middle Ages in Germany? Why are you such a hypocrite? Joe Kussey
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sunday, 27 May, 2001, 13:47 GMT 14:47 UK Poland to apologise for Jewish massacre The Polish Roman Catholic Church will apologise today for the killing of about 1,600 Jews in a pogrom during World War II. A special ceremony will be held in a cathedral near the old Jewish ghetto in the capital, Warsaw. The country’s chief rabbi, Michael Schudrich, has welcomed the apology, but declined to attend the ceremony – which correspondents say is a sign of the sensitivity of the issue. Until recently the Nazis were blamed for the attack in 1941 in which the Jewish people were burned alive in a barn. But new research published in a book has suggested Poles carried it out, provoking a nationwide debate over the country’s war-time role. Ceremony at 1700GMT. From the newsroom of the BBC World Service "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Blaise Pascal, philosopher and mathematician (1623-1662) How many more apologies are forthcoming from the rcc? I wonder if apologizing for murder makes everything OK? — Psalm 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
Response:
Regards, – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Good point. This is like the Catholics apologizing for the sacking of Constantinople in 1204. The Pope expressly forbid such behavior under threat of ex-communication, yet, the 4th Crusades sacked Constantinople in what can be accurately termed a revenge atrocity for what happened to Christians in Constantinople in 1172. This story in Poland is another example of good Christians gone bad (Do we really know all of the circumstances? This was in the middle of WW2) …However, I don’t see how this reflects on the Catholic Church, considering that the Church did not condone or initiate this. Is the Church really responsible for all of its members actions? I don’t think it can possibly held accountable.
But the The pope personally initiated the 4th crusade and gave blessings to participant warriors. Then he silently told them that they can stop at Constantinople if they wished and do to the orthodox, what they would have done to muslims in Jerusalem. And finally accepted stolen goods gathered there. The only way to compensate would be that Pope goes to Turin, grabs the Holy Shroud and takes it to Moscow ASAP, to present it to the Moscow metropolita, successor to Constantinople’s archbishop. Crusaders confiscated that sacred clotch from Byzant in 1204, so it’s due back and it is the single most precious item in the Universe, a perfect "gift". Until the Holy Shroud’s intervention to the Lord wins friendly agreement between catholic and orthodox, the Catholic chruch will be unable to properly meet today’s challanges, because its basis is shaken due to the large number of its crimes (against orthodox, indians,etc.) accumulated during history and the spread of consumer mentality among catholic population. Today orthodox and other apostolic churches are more faithful to the teachings, especially if you consider their flocks’ behaviour compared to e.g. NA catholics. The fact that the pope is polish, himself full of hatred towards orthodox slavic nations, especially Russia; propels the catholic church into great danger. Sincerely: Tamas Feher.
Response:
If you apologise for something, it implies that you were responsible for it. I don’t believe that the church officially condoned the massacre, so what is it doing saying sorry? If I went to confession and asked forgiveness for my friend’s sins the priest might tell me off for wasting his time. Such apologies may be well-intentioned but they do the church no good. They just play into the hands of its critics, allowing them to say: "You see? It is corrupt.". Apologies also pander to those who deliberately or unintentionally confuse the teaching of the church with the way her members behave. Some use the fact that Catholics sin as a pretext for non-belief.
Response:
Sunday, 27 May, 2001, 13:47 GMT 14:47 UK Poland to apologise for Jewish massacre The Polish Roman Catholic Church will apologise today for the killing of about 1,600 Jews in a pogrom during World War II. A special ceremony will be held in a cathedral near the old Jewish ghetto in the capital, Warsaw. The country’s chief rabbi, Michael Schudrich, has welcomed the apology, but declined to attend the ceremony – which correspondents say is a sign of the sensitivity of the issue. Until recently the Nazis were blamed for the attack in 1941 in which the Jewish people were burned alive in a barn. But new research published in a book has suggested Poles carried it out, provoking a nationwide debate over the country’s war-time role. Ceremony at 1700GMT. From the newsroom of the BBC World Service "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Blaise Pascal, philosopher and mathematician (1623-1662)
Response:
I can’t see how the church can or needs to apologise. Only those who perpetrated the act need to do that. Maybe the church meant to provide a vehicle for such an apology.
Response:
Paul, Good point. This is like the Catholics apologizing for the sacking of Constantinople in 1204. The Pope expressly forbid such behavior under threat of ex-communication, yet, the 4th Crusades sacked Constantinople in what can be accurately termed a revenge atrocity for what happened to Christians in Constantinople in 1172. This story in Poland is another example of good Christians gone bad (Do we really know all of the circumstances? This was in the middle of WW2) …However, I don’t see how this reflects on the Catholic Church, considering that the Church did not condone or initiate this. Is the Church really responsible for all of its members actions? I don’t think it can possibly held accountable. But the new attitude of reconcilliation will hopefully spur others down this path as well. Sincerely Joe Kussey
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I can’t see how the church can or needs to apologise. Only those who perpetrated the act need to do that. Maybe the church meant to provide a vehicle for such an apology.
Response:
Posted in Roman Catholic Cathedral | 
No Comments » | 
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I intend to take my complaint to every company listed in the phone book. -Barry Web page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~barry.og Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information. Voicemail/fax number +14136227640 
She’s not trying to pick a fight with anyone. She does disagree and that is her right just as much as it is ours. <It is obvious that you are only interested in picking fights. Again, not true. <With your departure from this ng, you will take your hate with you. CeCe doesn’t hate anyone. Can you blame her for expressing her views as she sees them? <Isn’t there an anti-Cath ng out there where you can find friends? CeCe is not ant-Catholic. Let me be clear on this point. Do not judge her on the posts she responds to in the same fashion as being attacked for her beliefs. <I hereby invite you to leave. How very kind of you (major sarcasm). Leave this news group? I don’t think that was very nice. I for one do not want CeCe to leave this group. She’s Catholic just as you and I are the same. Being Catholic doesn’t mean we can’t disagree with people. That is our God-given right, not only as Catholics but also as human beings. Monica "Our greatest vision comes from our heart. It allows us to see everything, even if we are blind." 