Catholicism & Christianity

[Villager]

I suppose most Catholics do

Their forebears strangled and burned the translator of 85% of a Bible they have used themselves often, including in official English documents, so I'm not at all sure that they do. When that version seemed outdated, they took a more modern Protestant version, re-labelled it 'Catholic', and issued it to the faithful, intact, except for a few changes that they have since restored! Their leaders seem to have rather variable principles, in this as well as in other matters. They seem to use the wet finger in the air school of theology in almost all its branches.

It was not that they opposed heretical and ignorant translations at all, because their latest translations are as pure as any Protestant one (no doubt largely copied), if the notes are disregarded. It was that they opposed any translation that could be understood by anyone other than their paid staff, however inadequate it was. This was one of the chief scandals that precipitated the Reformation; that thousands of local priests could not read the very Bible of which they were supposed to be the experts intended for their parishes. Though, as the common people knew, few priests would have been very interested in reading it anyway, so taken up were they with the pleasures of the flesh, and with worldly entanglements generally- the other chief non-theological complaint.

 

[Kathryn]

So salvation is a game?

Or is the question completely to the point?

You're almost pathological about this question thing. But like I said, I'll continue answering your questions when I see you answering some directed at you.

 

[Renji]

See, how they make mince meat out of your posts & being reduce to just asking questions? Now you are learning. Your question is water to drench the fire. Catholics are fiery. Just don`t let them catch you dry or you`ll get burn. :beach:

Sure krsnaraja, I am hot! FYI, Kathryn isn't Catholic.

 

[Renji]

You're almost pathological about this question thing. But like I said, I'll continue answering your questions when I see you answering some directed at you.

That's all he's doing so far. Throwing questions or responding based only on his opinions. He can't even support his claims.

 

[Renji]

Their forebears strangled and burned the translator of 85% of a Bible they have used themselves often, including in official English documents, so I'm not at all sure that they do. When that version seemed outdated, they took a more modern Protestant version, re-labelled it 'Catholic', and issued it to the faithful, intact, except for a few changes that they have since restored! Their leaders seem to have rather variable principles, in this as well as in other matters. They seem to use the wet finger in the air school of theology in almost all its branches.

It was not that they opposed heretical and ignorant translations at all, because their latest translations are as pure as any Protestant one (no doubt largely copied), if the notes are disregarded. It was that they opposed any translation that could be understood by anyone other than their paid staff, however inadequate it was. This was one of the chief scandals that precipitated the Reformation; that thousands of local priests could not read the very Bible of which they were supposed to be the experts intended for their parishes. Though, as the common people knew, few priests would have been very interested in reading it anyway, so taken up were they with the pleasures of the flesh, and with worldly entanglements generally- the other chief non-theological complaint.

Quack! Protestant removed the 7 books in the Bible, considered by the Catholic Church as inspired. Also, Luther emphasized a verse "through faith alone" and you can never find that in the Catholic Bible. If it's just "copied" then those similarities will be evident ,7 books will not be found too on the Catholic Bible and the verse 'faith alone' could also be found in the Catholic version, but the thing is, they're not. Never get tired inventing things?

 

[Mister Emu]

Their forebears strangled and burned the translator of 85% of a Bible they have used themselves often, including in official English documents, so I'm not at all sure that they do.

Which version is that?

When that version seemed outdated, they took a more modern Protestant version, re-labelled it 'Catholic', and issued it to the faithful, intact, except for a few changes that they have since restored!

Protestants removed several books of the Bible, you call them "apocrypha". All Catholic Bibles have them. Which Protestant version did the Catholic Church use?

It was that they opposed any translation that could be understood by anyone other than their paid staff, however inadequate it was. This was one of the chief scandals that precipitated the Reformation; that thousands of local priests could not read the very Bible of which they were supposed to be the experts intended for their parishes.

Then either the early reformists were great propagandists or the early followers of the reformation were idiots. Vernacular translations were created throughout history, By the 1500's you could find French, German(starting in the 8th century), Italian, and Spanish versions. In all there were almost 200 translations, all accepted by the Catholic Church, in lay languages before the Reformation happened.

As I said, the Church did not oppose translation.

Though, as the common people knew, few priests would have been very interested in reading it anyway, so taken up were they with the pleasures of the flesh, and with worldly entanglements generally- the other chief non-theological complaint.

This was a major problem however.

 

[Renji]

This was a major problem however.

This, I agree.

 

[Kathryn]

Mister Emu, I wager that Villager will not answer you with any sources to back his wild and mostly ridiculously skewered version of history or pseudo theology.

 

[Villager]

Which version is that?

It was never given a name, so ashamed were its progenitors. But it's called 'the King James Bible'. If that is not contradiction in terms.

Protestants removed several books of the Bible

They removed the antichrist books written and added by antichrists.

Which Protestant version did the Catholic Church use?

The RSV. It's now caught up.

By the 1500's you could find French, German(starting in the 8th century), Italian, and Spanish versions.

Of course. If you really tried.

 

[Renji]

So far so good at inventing things.

 

[Renji]

..and ignoring the important points on this thread...

 

[Kathryn]

1. Villlager is talking about the RSV (Revised Standard Version) edition of the bible, which is based largely on William Tyndale's English translation. He claims that Tyndale was burned at the stake by the Catholic Church for writing this translation of the Bible. I guess you could stretch some facts to claim that - but you'd be leaving out that fact that it was his opposition to the divorce of King Henry V (who was Catholic at the time) which was the MAIN reason for his execution. Henry VIII simply used the excuse of heresy to validate that execution.

Yep, the same Henry VIII who also had Sir Thomas More executed a few months earlie for his opposition to the divorce.

These were confusing times - a time in which politics and religion were so intertwined that it is impossible to call either execution solely for either religious or political reasons. For example, Thomas Cromwell pleaded for clememcy for both men, and even visited Sir Thomas More in prison to beg him to reconsider his position regarding the divorce. Cromwell was a leader in the Reformation and More was a staunch Roman Catholic.

It's also a bit of a stretch to say that the RSV bible is the work of William Tyndale, since it wasn't written till the 20th century. Tyndale wrote the Tyndale bible, not the RSV. The RSV translation panel used the 17th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek text for the New Testament, and the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text for the Old Testament. In the Book of Isaiah, they sometimes followed readings found in the newly discovered Dead Sea Scrolls.

But back to current times. The Catholic version of the RSV includes the 7 deuterocanonical books in question, in the Catholic order, not in a separate section. It also corrects some of what the Church considers Tyndale's mistakes (either intentional or otherwise) in English translation.

One more note - Tyndale's translation was the first English translation taken directly from the Greek and Hebrew version, though he also used Jerome's Latin translation as well. Before the RCC adapted the Catholic version of the RVS, they changed passages they felt reflected Tyndale's errors.

So - the RCC doesn't use Tyndale's bible - the similarity between Tyndale's bible and the Catholic RSV is that both are translated from the original Greek and Hebrew, as well as Jerome's Latin bible, to English, and many of Tyndale's English phrases that are so well known now are retained - because they were deemed as accurate.

Tyndale's rendering of the word "virgin" as "young woman" is explicitly changed, since many Christians, Catholic and non Catholic, believe that Tyndale's translation, and the Protestant RSV translation as well, undermine the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. In fact, the RSV rollout in the 20th century sparked the "KJV Only" movement.

Ironic, I think.

Villager's comments about the history of the KJV and Tyndale's version are simply not historically accurate.

2. The deuterocanonical books, aka the Apocrypha: The Apocrypha was included in the KJV of 1611 and many versions afterward. These books are used by the Anglican Church, many Reformed churches, Orthodox churches, and others.

Now many "protestant" versions of the bible contain these books.

 

[Villager]

1. Villlager is talking about the RSV (Revised Standard Version) edition of the bible, which is based largely on William Tyndale's English translation. He claims that Tyndale was burned at the stake by the Catholic Church for writing this translation of the Bible. I guess you could stretch some facts to claim that - but you'd be leaving out that fact that it was his opposition to the divorce of King Henry V (who was Catholic at the time) which was the MAIN reason for his execution. Henry VIII simply used the excuse of heresy to validate that execution.

Yep, the same Henry VIII who also had Sir Thomas More executed a few months earlie for his opposition to the divorce.

These were confusing times - a time in which politics and religion were so intertwined that it is impossible to call either execution solely for either religious or political reasons. For example, Thomas Cromwell pleaded for clememcy for both men, and even visited Sir Thomas More in prison to beg him to reconsider his position regarding the divorce. Cromwell was a leader in the Reformation and More was a staunch Roman Catholic.

It's also a bit of a stretch to say that the RSV bible is the work of William Tyndale, since it wasn't written till the 20th century. Tyndale wrote the Tyndale bible, not the RSV. The RSV translation panel used the 17th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek text for the New Testament, and the traditional HebrewMasoretic Text for the Old Testament. In the Book of Isaiah, they sometimes followed readings found in the newly discovered Dead Sea Scrolls.

But back to current times. The Catholic version of the RSV includes the 7 deuterocanonical books in question, in the Catholic order, not in a separate section. It also corrects some of what the Church considers Tyndale's mistakes (either intentional or otherwise) in English translation.

One more note - Tyndale's translation was the first English translation taken directly from the Greek and Hebrew version, though he also used Jerome's Latin translation as well. Before the RCC adapted the Catholic version of the RVS, they changed passages they felt reflected Tyndale's errors.

So - the RCC doesn't use Tyndale's bible - the similarity between Tyndale's bible and the Catholic RSV is that both are translated from the original Greek and Hebrew, as well as Jerome's Latin bible, to English, and many of Tyndale's English phrases that are so well known now are retained - because they were deemed as accurate.

Tyndale's rendering of the word "virgin" as "young woman" is explicitly changed, since many Christians, Catholic and non Catholic, believe that Tyndale's translation, and the Protestant RSV translation as well, undermine the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. In fact, the RSV rollout in the 20th century sparked the "KJV Only" movement.

Ironic, I think.

Villager's comments about the history of the KJV and Tyndale's version are simply not historically accurate.

2. The deuterocanonical books, aka the Apocrypha: The Apocrypha was included in the KJV of 1611 and many versions afterward. These books are used by the Anglican Church, many Reformed churches, Orthodox churches, and others.

Now many "protestant" versions of the bible contain these books.

That really is amusing.

 

[Renji]

That really is amusing.

Sure it is. And you can't even answer.

 

[Renji]

Ok here’s another point that Villager will once again ignore.

But sins are not what the church does. Not with premeditation, anyway. Whatever commits crimes cannot be the church of Jesus.

[FONT=&quot]While it is true that the Church has been involved with many scandals (but none of which that he mentioned, for they are source less, hence, non feasible), we cannot deny the fact that no one is perfect (Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God). Even the Jungian psychology agrees with that : According to psychologist Carl Jung, every person has a side of which he/ she is conscious. It includes person’s positive attributes, the aspects of their personality they are aware of, perhaps even proud of. But every person also has a side of their personality that they are unaware of. It is hidden from their view in darkness of their own unconscious. Often others are aware of these negative traits, but the individuals themselves do not notice it. (Rohr & Martos, 1989, with Imprimatur)” Even with simple logic, we can say that “the greater the light, the darker the shadow it casts. That is true of any source of light, whether we speak literally or metaphorically. The sun’s shadow on the dark side of the moon is absolutely black; the shadow cast by candle in a room is much softer. Great and influential people are bright lights in history: They do much good, but they also can do much harm. The same is true of great institutions, such as the Catholic Church.(Rohr & Martos, 1989)” What he didn’t understand is that the Church is never exempted of temptations. Ever found any verse like that in the Bible? Jesus did not say that temptations or sin will not /did not occur in His Church. What he said is that it will endure till the end (Mathew 24:14). Even the followers of Christ are not excused. Even Peter was tempted (Luke 22:31:32- “Simon, Simon! Satan wants to test you, to shake you as the farmer shakes wheat to sift the grain from the chaff. But I have prayed for you that your faith will not fail. When you have turned back to me, you must turn to your brothers and strengthen them.”) and gave in ( John 18: 17, 25-27 “Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art though also one of this man’s disciples? He saith, I am not… And Simon Peter stood and warned himself. They said therefore unto him, Art though also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said I am not. One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him? Peter denied again: and immediately the **** crew.”), so does Paul who used to persecute the followers of Christ (Acts 8:3 “As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.”) But did those circumstances stopped them of being a Christian? It didn’t! (Even as we go back in the Old Testament, Isaiah who is a prophet thinks that has “unclean lips” Isaiah 6:5-7 “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty. Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. With it he touched my mouth and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.”) So does the Church, for as stated earlier, it will last till the end of days. Also, using again his argument it would seem that no denomination will fit as the Church of Christ because other Christian denominations too has controversies[/FONT][FONT=&quot](how many times have we heard of news like these: BBC News - [FONT=&quot]Pastor jailed[/FONT] for trafficking African child 'slaves , Nigerian [FONT=&quot]Pastor Jailed[/FONT] For 14 Years For Luring Nigerian Girls Into ...). This is not alien to the Catholic Church. Villager also failed to see that these sins are personal sins, and not the sin of the Catholic denomination itself. For example, even though there are pedophile priests, the Church, in its tradition has never allowed this or tolerated this nor would you found the church tolerating it. As of why this happen, the Church is actually compared to a fish net that will catch every people regardless of state of being, but in the end, it is Jesus who will separate the faithful to the unfaithful and will decide who will be “thrown back into the sea”. Also, we have to remember that God’s judgment is individual, and not by the group (Church). God will not judge you based on the faith of your priest and what he has done, but you will be judged based on your faith in Christ and what you’ve done. In short, it is about YOU and Jesus.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]













[FONT=&quot]


[/FONT]

 

[Renji]

[FONT=&quot]

The record and apparent instinct of the RCC was actually to murder Christians, when the RCC had the political influence required to do that; and Christians have no reason at all to believe that the RCC would not do the same again, given the opportunity. Displacing the church was the original purpose of the RCC, and there is no reason to believe that this is not the purpose now. The continued warm association of supposedly democratic political leaders with the hierarchical, unelected Vatican looks sinister (and threatens more than just Christians).

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Then let us again reiterate the points from my posts where he failed to answer:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

Then again: “The bishops and the Pope remind us that peace of Christ cannot be enforced by military might and that justice of God’s kingdom cannot be produced by either communism or capitalism. The peace of Christ means harmony, not tension, and the justice of God means cooperation, not competition.”

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

He failed to recognize that the Church isn’t excused of the persecution itself: “As a matter of historical record, the number of Christians grew enormously during the period of Roman persecution” also, “In early Rome being a Christian was a political offense, as was being Catholic in England during the reformation.”

[/FONT]

 

[doppelganger]

Well, Lawrence, in all honesty, I think you'd have to admit the Church participated in killing or calling for the killing of quite a great many people it considered apostate or heretical Christians - just by way of low-hanging fruit, there was the Albigensian Crusade (which gave birth to the Spanish Inquisition).

I bet you didn't expect me to mention the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[Renji]

[FONT=&quot]

But the RCC gets support from more than politicians and the wealthy, anyway. Given its moral record in every age, the RCC ought to be completely unacceptable, even to the non-religious. The reason that it survives, that its agents are free men, is because too many people fear the innocent real church more than they fear predatory priests and bishops. So the survival of the RCC is testament to the truth of the gospel, and it has some use.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Then let us see the law: Separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]And then again, let us reiterate this to understand why sometimes the Church gets in touch of politics:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

“ In ancient Rome Church leaders protested against gladiator fights and other forms of killing for sport. Christians were forbidden to attend such “public games”, and eventually the Church compelled the government to outlaw them. Church leaders also were instrumental in getting laws passed that protected the rights of widows and orphans… In the middle ages, the Church protected peasants against tyranny of nobles.”

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In addition, “In modern times missionaries have fought against the enslavement of Africans and Indians in agrarian societies, Pope Leo XXIII and Pius XI both wrote encyclicals denouncing the dehumanization of factory workers in industrial societies. Popes John XXIII and Paul VI called for a equitable distribution of the world’s wealth between rich and poor nations. Pope John Paul II likewise has called for the humanization of the workplace and the Christianization of marketplace. Bishops continue to protest against the exploitation of migrant laborers, to call public attention to the plight of farm families, to support the homeless and persons with AIDS, and to condemn the arms race and the use of nuclear weapons.” (Rohr & Martos, 1989)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Their concern is human welfare. Anything that is stated above didn’t actually harm people but aimed to improve them, hence, the reason why the church sometimes touches politics.[/FONT]

 

[Renji]

[FONT=&quot]

In principle, Christians can associate with any Protestant organisation. As far as the RCC is concerned, Christians cannot agree to any association with it, in any way- except to inform and evangelise its members. It cannot agree that Catholics are Christians, because a Catholic declares himself not a Christian simply because he goes to Mass. To go to Mass is to declare the righteousness of Jesus insufficient, to say that he is not the Christ- it is in fact blasphemy. Christians can have no positive association with that; in fact they must condemn it unreservedly, or be in great danger of losing their own salvation. So on practical moral grounds, acceptance of the RCC is out of the question, and the same applies for theological reasons.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Then let us see what he actually failed to understand:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

“Even before the Second Vatican Council, Catholics had pretty clear idea of what it meant to be Catholic. Being Catholic meant going to mass every Sunday and to do confession at least once a year. It meant praying the rosary, making novenas and going to Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. It is also meant believing in the authority of the pope and bishops, in transubstantiation and the seven sacraments, in the Assumption and other doctrines (of course, this is just part of being a Catholic).”

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Why do we state then that going to mass isn’t enough? Sometimes, there are people who just go to Mass- that’s it. Ask them what they learned about the Gospel and the homily, they would hardly answer. All I am saying is, a Catholic should attend to mass with his heart offered to God; because he loves God he/she attends the mass with sincerity, not simply because it is required as a Catholic (See the difference?). Also, going to mass isn’t just the way to be Christian, for there are many others that is associated with being a Christian. Attending mass is just ONE of them. Being a Catholic does not simply mean that one needs to go to Mass and that’s it. We also need to follow what Jesus says: Mark 12:28-31 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the[/FONT][FONT=&quot]most important?”[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with your entire mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Therefore, we as Catholics also practice this since Jesus mentioned these as the most important commandments, in addition to other Christian obligations. And: Luke 14:27 “And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.” As Catholics we are also expected “carry our cross” (duties and stuff) and “follow Christ”. [/FONT]

 

[Renji]

Well, Lawrence, in all honesty, I think you'd have to admit the Church participated in killing or calling for the killing of quite a great many people it considered apostate or heretical Christians - just by way of low-hanging fruit, there was the Albigensian Crusade (which gave birth to the Spanish Inquisition).

I bet you didn't expect me to mention the Spanish Inquisition.

Good thing that you asked. I was waiting for that. Ironically, I was very much expecting it.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Inquisition

About the Spanish Inquisition:

Historical analysis

The Spanish Inquisition deserves neither the exaggerated praise nor the equally exaggerated vilification often bestowed on it. The number of victims cannot be calculated with even approximate accuracy; the much maligned autos-da-fé were in reality but a religious ceremony (actus fidei); the San Benito has its counterpart in similar garbs elsewhere; the cruelty of St. Peter Arbues, to whom not a single sentence of death can be traced with certainty, belongs to the realms of fable. However, the predominant ecclesiastical nature of the institution can hardly be doubted. The Holy See sanctioned the institution, accorded to the grand inquisitor canonical installation and therewith judicial authority concerning matters of faith, while from the grand inquisitor jurisdiction passed down to the subsidiary tribunals under his control. Joseph de Maistre introduced the thesis that the Spanish Inquisition was mostly a civil tribunal; formerly, however, theologians never questioned its ecclesiastical nature. Only thus, indeed, can one explain how the Popes always admitted appeals from it to the Holy See, called to themselves entire trials and that at any stage of the proceedings, exempted whole classes of believers from its jurisdiction, intervened in the legislation, deposed grand inquisitors, and so on. (See TOMÁS DE TORQUEMADA.)

Also, according to Catholic Defense:

The Inquisition was intended not to convert people, but to find people who were outwardly claiming to be Christian but secretly practiced another religion, such as people who had become Christian outwardly, but who were still secretly practicing anti-Messianic Judaism, Islam, or Albigensianism, this last being a religion claiming that there are two gods, one good and one evil. The inquisition was thus an attempt to protect the purity of the Christian community.
Also point out that the Protestants had a counter-inquisition that killed Catholics. Thousands of Catholics were killed in England alone after the Reformation struck there. The same thing was true in Ireland and other areas where the Reformation came. John Calvin, for instance, was known for burning people at the stake.
In addition, Protestants were the big witch-burners. Witch burning never caught on in Catholic countries. When the Spanish Inquisition examined the cases of reported witches, it almost invariably concluded that the charges were false and the accused were not guilty. But tens of thousands of supposed witches were burned at the stake, hanged, or drowned in Protestant countries, including the American colonies.

And an apologetics from the Catholic Answers:

The Inquisition

Sooner or later, any discussion of apologetics with Fundamentalists will address the Inquisition. To non-Catholics it is a scandal; to Catholics, an embarrassment; to both, a confusion. It is a handy stick for Catholic-bashing, simply because most Catholics seem at a loss for a sensible reply. This tract will set the record straight.
There have actually been several different inquisitions. The first was established in 1184 in southern France as a response to the Catharist heresy. This was known as the Medieval Inquisition, and it was phased out as Catharism disappeared.
Quite separate was the Roman Inquisition, begun in 1542. It was the least active and most benign of the three variations.
Separate again was the infamous Spanish Inquisition, started in 1478, a state institution used to identify conversos—Jews and Moors (Muslims) who pretended to convert to Christianity for purposes of political or social advantage and secretly practiced their former religion. More importantly, its job was also to clear the good names of many people who were falsely accused of being heretics. It was the Spanish Inquisition that, at least in the popular imagination, had the worst record of fulfilling these duties.
The various inquisitions stretched through the better part of a millennia, and can collectively be called "the Inquisition."

The Main Sources

Fundamentalists writing about the Inquisition rely on books by Henry C. Lea (1825–1909) and G. G. Coulton (1858–1947). Each man got most of the facts right, and each made progress in basic research, so proper credit should not be denied them. The problem is that they did not weigh facts well, because they harbored fierce animosity toward the Church—animosity that had little to do with the Inquisition itself.
The contrary problem has not been unknown. A few Catholic writers, particularly those less interested in digging for truth than in diffusing a criticism of the Church, have glossed over incontrovertible facts and tried to whitewash the Inquisition. This is as much a disservice to the truth as an exaggeration of the Inquisition’s bad points. These well-intentioned, but misguided, apologists are, in one respect, much like Lea, Coulton, and contemporary Fundamentalist writers. They fear, while the others hope, that the facts about the Inquisition might prove the illegitimacy of the Catholic Church.

Don’t Fear the Facts

But the facts fail to do that. The Church has nothing to fear from the truth. No account of foolishness, misguided zeal, or cruelty by Catholics can undo the divine foundation of the Church, though, admittedly, these things are stumbling blocks to Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
What must be g.asped is that the Church contains within itself all sorts of sinners and knaves, and some of them obtain positions of responsibility. Paul and Christ himself warned us that there would be a few ravenous wolves among Church leaders (Acts 20:29; Matt. 7:15).
Fundamentalists suffer from the mistaken notion that the Church includes only the elect. For them, sinners are outside the doors. Locate sinners, and you locate another place where the Church is not.
Thinking that Fundamentalists might have a point in their attacks on the Inquisition, Catholics tend to be defensive. This is the wrong attitude; rather, we should learn what really happened, understand events in light of the times, and then explain to anti-Catholics why the sorry tale does not prove what they think it proves.