Are Catholics Christian?

- The Catholic Church does not teach about purgatory, that was just a medieval lie to scatter fear among believers. Nonsense such as purgatory and creationism are being left behind by the more intelligent modern Catholics.

That so isn't true. They do teach purgatory I had an arguement about it with a nun who was teaching it in my high school CCD classes. I specifically asked her if we have purgatory now what ever happened to hell or does it not exist? Of course she couldn't give an answer and just got frustrated and tried to pull the wool over my eyes with old you just have to believe trick because god says it's so. I find allot of the older priests and nuns like to pull that.

Most of the newer younger one's try their best to explain but in the end it all comes down to having faith and weather you choose to believe in God in the same light as them or choose to believe your own way. I choose my own way but I will still defend the Catholic's in saying they are Christian, they just have a different point of view.

To finish the story with the nun she pulled me out of class and out into the hall way cause I kept pushing the question of purgatory on her. In the end I got her so frustrated she told me I was going to Hell. I corrected her and said don't you mean purgatory at which point I got sent home. So purgatory does get taught in the catholic faith.


[edit on 6-7-2008 by OWoutcast]

I was born and raised Catholic. I am no longer. I dont even go to church, I will not take my kids to any church.

If you want to get technial about it, there are no true Christians left. Everyone, every denomination has twisted all rules and beliefs around to fit them.

Oddly enough the ones that I have found who are more "Christian" than all others are the Hasidic Jews.

reply to post by jmdewey60


"If this Catholic doctrine of dispensing salvation, a piece at a time, was so important, it would have been spelled out, in the Bible."

It was spelled out, throughout the gospels, and in the OT. From the manna in the desert to both of the miracles of the loaves and fishes themes that had a profound importance in pointing toward the fulfilment of God coming to His people body, blood soul, and divinity, for the perfect communion with mankind.

One must be in a state of spiritual grace to receive this wonderful gift, validly baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity, and absolved from serious sin by regular confession and true contrition for all sins. An unworthy communion is a very serious sacralige.

History is littered with eucharistic miracles, and I once heard a claim by a former satanist that when she was involved in satanic activity the satanists not only took great pleasure in desecrating a stolen consecrated host, but claimed if a hundred communion wafers were scattered across a table and only one was consecrated she and others could easily pick it out.

The miracle of Lanciano Italy is a communion host that literally changed to cardiac tissue in the early 14th century, a sign from God to a priest who was struggling with his faith in the real presence of Christ. The host has been preserved, and proteins in the blood have remained fresh for hundreds of years, which flies in the face of known science.

reply to post by OWoutcast


I'll answer any question you like to ask. Sounds like that was only someone dressed as a nun.

reply to post by OWoutcast


I would beg to differ, we are taught to believe in the existence of hell.
To add to that, we are also told that if you lack the believing of the existence of hell or satan, then you are most likely going to hell yourself.
On the issue of purgatory; it is set up in circles like hell is, some of the deepest circles of purgatory are as horrible as the deepest circles of hell.
Feel free to pick up the Cathechism if you haven't already, basically the rulebook (as some have called it) for Catholics. It's a nice little reference, not sure if there is an internet version of it or not though.

Edit: Found a link to several versions of it on the Vatican website:
www.vatican.va...

[edit on 6-7-2008 by spec_ops_wannabe]

reply to post by Robhaidheuch

quote
"The sabbath would fall into a category equivelent to a Canon Law, in that it is not a central doctrine of Christianity. "

The Sabbath is the fourth commandment, it is not a Canon Law.

Jesus states, if you want eternal life, obey the commandments,
Matthew 19:16, Jesus was asked what must be done to inherit eternal life. His answer: “If you want to enter life, obey the commandments” (verse 17).

and lets not forget Jesus and his followers observed the Sabbath.

Originally posted by drevill
Tradition = against Christ words

NOT REALLY.

1 Corinthians 11:2: “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.”

2 Thessalonians 2:15: “Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or be letter.”

2 Thessalonians 3:6: “Keep away from any borther who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.”

(Oral tradition being handed down) – 1 Corinthians 15:1-2: “I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast – unless you believed in vain”.

(Oral tradition being handed down) Galatians 1:9, 12: “If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which your received, let him be accursed .. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”

(Oral tradition being handed down) 1 Thessalonians 2:13: “When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as what it really is, the word of God”.

So you have at least these -

1 Corinthians 11:2: “maintain the traditions .. even as I have delivered them to you.”

2 Thessalonians 2:15: “hold to the traditions .. taught .. by word of mouth or by letter.”

2 Thessalonians 3:6: “… the tradition that you received from us.”

1 Corinthians 15:1: “… the gospel .. which you received.” (oral tradition)

Etc etc etc .. and on and on about oral traditions being passed on … and about how to hold on to them …

i could go on and on and on with RCC doctrine but for those who wish to see, it is clearly visible that the RCC goes against God.

That’s your opinion. I highly suggest that you crack open the Catechism and take a look first.

I cant find anything in the bible that sets out a "church" as we know it today

Matthew 16:18 – (Christs words) You are Peter, the rock, and upon this rock I WILL BUILD BY CHURCH … ‘ etc etc

Originally posted by EricD
How do we define what a Christian is with any specificity?

Someone who tries to follow Christ’s teachings to the best of their understanding.

Originally posted by doctorex
The very head of their church takes a title that Christ himself said belongs to God only (Pope=papa=Holy father), even their priests take on the title of "father"...

You had better take that up with the apostles, disciples and other scriptural ‘biggies’ like Abraham -

“For this cause have I sent unto you Timothy, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord..." (1 Cor 4:15,17 KJV)

"...as a son [Timothy] with the father [Paul], he hath served with me in the gospel" (Phil 2:22 KJV)

"we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children" (1 Thess 2:11 KJV)

"Look unto ABRAHAM YOUR FATHER, and unto Sarah that bare you: For I called him alone, and blessed him and increased him." (Isaiah 51:2 KJV)

MATTHEW 23:30 -- "And say, if we had been in the days of our fathers..."

LUKE 16:24,30 -- "And he cried and said, father Abraham.....And he said, nay, father Abraham...."

ACTS 7 : 2,11,12,15,32,38,39,44,45,51,52 -- "Men, brethren, and
FATHERS...unto our FATHER Abraham" (v. 2) "...and our FATHERS found no sustenance" (v. 11) "...he sent out our FATHERS first" (v. 12) "So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our FATHERS" (v. 15) "Saying, I am the God of thy FATHERS, the God of Abraham...." (v. 32) "spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our FATHERS..." (v. 38) "To whom our FATHERS would not obey..." (v. 39) "Our FATHERS had the tabernacle..." (v. 44) "...our FATHERS that came after...before the face of our FATHERS" (v. 45) "as your FATHERS did, so do ye" (v. 51) "Which of the prophets have not your FATHERS persecuted?" (v. 52) "Men, brethren, and FATHERS...." (Acts 22:1) "...according to the perfect manner of the law of the FATHERS" (v. 3) "And he said, the God of our FATHERS hath chosen thee" (v. 14)

"...so worship I the God of my fathers..." (Acts 24:14)
"...hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers..." (Acts 26:6)
"...nothing against the people, or customs of our father" (Acts 28:17)

"What shall we say then that Abraham our father..." (Rom 4:1) "...that he might be the father of all them that believe..." (v. 11) "...the father of circumcision...faith of our father Abraham" (v. 12) "...the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all" (v. 16) "I have made thee a father of many nations" (v. 17,18)

"yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you [or "become your father"] through the gospel" (1 Cor 4:15)

"...not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers" (1 Cor 10:1)
"...exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers" (Gal 1:14)
"...as a son [Timothy] with the father [Paul], he hath served with me in the gospel" (Phil 2:22)

"we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children" (1 Thess 2:11)

"Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith [that makes Paul his father in the faith]" (1 Tim 1:2,18)

"Rebuke not an elder, but entreat him as a father” (1 Tim 5:1)

"To Timothy, my dearly beloved son [again, that makes Paul his spiritual father in the faith]" (2 Tim 1:2; 2:1)

"To Titus, mine own son after the common faith [Paul is his spiritual father in the faith ]" (Titus 1:4)

"...received by tradition from your fathers” (1 Peter 1:18)
"...the fathers fell asleep, all things continue..." (2 Pet 3:4)

"I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him..." (1 Jn 2:13) "I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him..." (v. 14)

What has and still does the Catholic church have to say about that? They freely admit they have taken the authority upon themselves to change the law of God...."Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that worship should be changed from Saturday to Sunday.

Matthew 16:18 – CHRIST tells Peter – whatever you hold bound on earth is bound in heaven. You don’t like it? Take it up with CHRIST.

Originally posted by Christian Voice
Yet Catholics pray to God through Mary

Catholics ask Mary to pray for them and to intercede to her Son for them. So what? The bible encourages everyone to pray for everyone else. People ask other people to pray for them every day. This is no different.
Intercession

and they teach about Purgatory which is not Biblical at all.

According to YOUR interpretation. However, these are interpreted differently by different people-

Purification necessary for heaven Heb 12:14, Rev 21:27
An intermediate state of purification – Mt 5:26, Luke 12:58-59
Degrees of expiation of sins – Luke 12:47-48.
Dead can be aided by prayer – 2 Mac 12:45
After expiation comes heaven – 1 Cor 3:15

They teach that when you die your soul goes to purgatory and that it has to be prayed out to go to Heaven.

Not exactly.
Read this and then
and this

Originally posted by EricD
The Catholic Church is wealthy

Some Catholic churches are well off. Some are very poor. Most are in between. So what? That has nothing to do with theology. It has everything to do with the people who go to those churches and how much they donate.

Originally posted by josephine
and its pretty sick that they exhume the body of Padre Pio to worship it and put it on display.

1 – Catholics do NOT worship the saints.
2 – Catholics do NOT worship the remains of human bodies.
3 – Catholics VENERATE holy relics. This is found in scripture.
read this and then read about how the bones of Elisha brought a man back to life in scripture.

they prayed to him more than to Jesus or Mary.

DEAD WRONG. :shk:

what kind of a nut wants to worship a corpse on display.

1 – the corpse is not ‘worshipped’.
2 – ever been to a funeral or a wake with a loved one ‘on display’?

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
The Roman Church on the other hand does not recognize the existence of Jesus' siblings,

Because there is nothing in scripture that defines any. ‘The brothers’ of the Lord could be blood brothers … or cousins … or even those who believe the same way as Christ.

There is no place in scripture that states Mary had children or that so-and-so is the son/daughter of Mary and Joseph. If there had been any, then Christ wouldn’t have given Mary unto Johns care at the foot of the cross.
read here

Originally posted by passenger
“Well, if He was claiming to be King of the Jews and the Romans killed him, why are worshipping Him? Aren’t we the ROMAN Catholic Church. He sounds like the enemy!” .... , I never did get an answer.

Hello?? The ‘ROMAN Catholic Church’ is called that because it’s seat of power is in Rome (the Vatican actually).



[edit on 7/6/2008 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by Robhaidheuch
If anyone can provide me a direct quote from the Scripture, where Jesus says: “I want you to stop being good Jews and come up with a whole new system. Just forget about all this Jewish stuff and make up some new ways as you go along!” - I’d like to see it.

Christ establishes HIS Church. Matthew 16:18. BTW .. All along in scripture you see Christ doing what He wished even if it went against the Jewish way of doing things – healing on the Sabbath … his apostles picking corn on the Sabbath and eating it … sitting down to meals with sinners … His Church is full of ‘new’.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Jesus was saying this in a figurative way. By this time the diciples would have understood this, so Jesus did not have to explain it at this time.

It’s funny how people like to point to scripture and say that it has to be taken word for word as an absolute, and then when something like JOHN 6 comes up that makes them uncomfortable they then say ‘this is figurative’.

No, it’s not figurative. Jesus said ‘AMEN, AMEN, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you will not have Eternal Life within you.” He was very clear. And when the disciples walked away in droves because of this teaching he did NOT say it was figurative. He let the words stand and he did nothing to say that it was just figurative.

Originally posted by jmdewey60 the fake Mary that is presented to us to be worshiped as the Queen of Heaven.

1 – Mary is not presented ‘to be worshipped’ in the Catholic Church.
2 – There is nothing ‘fake’ about Mary.

You all SERIOUSLY need to crack open the Catechism and read. :shk:

Originally posted by Robhaidheuch
reply to post by doctorex

 

So does this mean that the Catholic church had no authority to change the Sabbath day, since scripture says that the Sabbath is the seventh day?

Deuteronomy 5:14 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.

The sabbath would fall into a category equivelent to a Canon Law, in that it is not a central doctrine of Christianity. The Church has authority to change to Sunday, thus reflecting the day of greatest event in history, the Ressurrection.

As someone else has already pointed out, the Sabbath is one of the commandments. As for Christ rising on Sunday, this is yet another tradition of the Catholic church and is actually contradicted by scripture. Christ said the only sign he would give that he was the messiah would be that he would be in the grave three day and three nights....

MATTHEW 12:38 Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah:
40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Christ was put into the tomb just before sundown, and three days and three nights later brings you to what time of day? Just before sundown. When the women turned up at Christ's tomb on early Sunday morning, they were told that Christ had already risen....

LUKE 24
1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulcher.
3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?
6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee.

Now that brings us to another falsehood the catholic church has perpetuated, Christ was not crucified on a Friday. Yes the day after Christ's crucifiction was a sabbath, but it was not a weekly sabbath, but a high day sabbath....

John 19:31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was a high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

Christ was crucified on the day of passover, and the next day is the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, an annual high day sabbath. Since Christ was already risen early Sunday morning, because he actually rose just before sundown the previous evening (Saturday), three days and three nights before that brings you to a Wednesday. These days were changed by the Catholic church to fit in with the pagan fertility festival, that's were you get you easter (Ishtar) bunny and easter eggs etc. You can come up with all the excuses you want, but the facts are out there. Saying Christ died Friday, and rose Sunday, actually denies the sign that Christ said would prove he was the messiah, it therefore denies Christ....

2Timothy 2:12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him : if we deny him, he also will deny us:

God bless

Originally posted by doctorex
Saying Christ died Friday, and rose Sunday, actually denies the sign that Christ said would prove he was the messiah, it therefore denies Christ....

At EVERY mass, in every Catholic Church, all around the world this exchange happens.

The Priest says - "let us proclaim the mystery of faith'

The people say - "Christ has died. Christ has risen. Christ will come again."

Between that and the creed that is proclaimed each and every mass -

Christ is not denied. The fact that He rose from the dead is proclaimed and not denied. The fact that He's the messiah is proclaimed and not denied. The fact that He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead is proclaimed and not denied. The fact that these things happen 'in fulfilment of the scriptures' is stated each and every mass and is not denied.

Christ is not denied. Neither is his mission.

reply to post by FlyersFan


quote
" All along in scripture you see Christ doing what He wished even if it went against the Jewish way of doing things – healing on the Sabbath … his apostles picking corn on the Sabbath and eating it … sitting down to meals with sinners … His Church is full of ‘new’. "
unquote



The problem with the way the Jewish were doing things is the pharisees sadducees
started adding their own rules to Gods laws. The
pharisees sadducees , Jews that were corrupting the religion, would
put heavy punishment on people who would help the sick on the
sabbath.

like when Jesus was healing a man and the pharisees sadducees
were mocking him.

Jesus did not come to change the law, he came to teach the law
was always about love. The pharisees sadducees are the ones
that added their own evil traditions, such as not helping the sick on
the sabbath.


Jesus did not come to do things his own way, he came to set things straight
and show how they were supposed to be done from the
beginning.

reply to post by Robhaidheuch


Jesus did not mean it literally when he spoke of eating his flesh
and drinking his blood.
Jesus tells us his method of teaching is in parables. He uses
representations, such as his mustard seed story. Do you think he
really means a mustard seed?

Many people had a hard time understanding his teachings, his
disciples also.

And by the way, if Jesus meant it literally, then why was bread and
wine used at the Passover meal?

reply to post by doctorex


I was always under the impression he was crucified on a Thursday. The Sabbath would of began at Sundown Friday. In Jewish tradition days go from sundown to sundown, not midnight to midnight.

A good way to figure that whole dilemma out would be just to look at a Jewish calendar from 33 CE and see what day Passover fell on.

Well I found a calendar courtesy of the US Naval Observatory and a Messianic Judaism site.
www.judaismvschristianity.com...

If that chart is correct well, wow.

In 33 CE passover fell on Sunday, May 3. So that means the year is off at the least.

The site argues that the crucifixion had to be prior to both sabbaths, the passover and weekly sabbath. They conclude it took place passover Wed Apr. 25, 31 CE.

If the crucifixion was on a Wed, then Wed-Thurs Sundown, is one day, Thurs-Fri is the second day, and Fri-Sat sundown would be the last day.

That would mean the "Lord's day" actually falls between sundown on Sat, when the Sabbath ends and sundown on Sunday. By sunrise Sunday the tomb was supposed to be empty.

If this is all correct then someone has been distorting times and dates.

reply to post by FlyersFan

1 – Mary is not presented ‘to be worshipped’ in the Catholic Church.
2 – There is nothing ‘fake’ about Mary.

You all SERIOUSLY need to crack open the Catechism and read.

You should crack a few books on the history of Mary.
There has always been a contingent of Mary worshipers in the Catholic Church.
They have been lobbyists to get bits of their agenda into the official teaching, by whatever means necessary.
What we have now, by way of a Maryology, is not what was in the beginning.
Her supporters have managed to slowly gain in their efforts to promote her, in the Church, over the centuries.


[edit on 6-7-2008 by jmdewey60]

reply to MikeboydUS

Your right, Jesus was crucified wednesday on the Passover.
The Old Testament Passover always preceded the annual Sabbath called the first Day of Unleavened Bread.
this is where people confuse
this Sabbath with Saturday Sabbath.Numbers 28:16-17

The most important sign Jesus gave us to prove to us he is the Messiah:
“An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign;
and there shall no sign be given to it,
but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
For as Jonas was three days and three nights
in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son
of man be three days and three nights
in the heart of the earth” (Matt. 12:39-40).

This is the most important sign Jesus gave us.
72 hours in the tomb.

After the ninth hour(3pm) Jesus cried
out and died.Matt. 27:46-50;

he died around 3pm wednesday Passover.

Therefore his resurrection was around 3pm Sabbath Saturday.

All this fancy dancing to the tune of scriptual verse is avoiding the central issue of the question raised by the OP, to wit: Are Catholics Christian?

So, for a moment, let’s take the Catholics argument as valid; the argument that Jesus actually did set out to create a New Church and the Catholic Church is that result. Therefore, it follows that whatever Catholics do, being soundly based on the teachings of Jesus, is the way He intended it.

Now, theological cherry-picking for obscure and vague comments aside, I‘d like to see a Catholic tell me - with a straight face - that Jesus would have heartily approved of the all the wonderful and hideous things the Catholic Church has done in His name. Can any Catholic out there claim - without breaking into a sweat - that Jesus actually would have instigated the Crusades, as the Catholic Church did? Can any Catholic reading this tell me - without crossing their fingers - that Jesus actually would have formulated and promulgated the Inquisition, as the Catholic Church did? Can any Catholic out there actually have the gall to state - without biting their tongue - that Jesus would have actually delighted at the persecution of Witches , Werewolves, Galileos and Brunos, as the Catholic Church did? I could list a whole heavenly host of other iniquities, irregularities, falsehoods, felonies and misdemeanors and out-and-out Evils that the Catholic Church has birthed, but space prohibits. You can dwell on the others at your leisure.

Now, there are only two possible answers to these inquiries; either Yes or No. Simple as that.

So, if you take the Yes position, I don’t really want to hear any more about Jesus because He would surely rank as one of the most sick, vicious and tyrannical of any persons that ever existed. Not someone whose Church I’d want to join - and I say that as a person of very low morals and judgment.

But if you answer No, then you need to explain how the Catholic Church is actually doing the work of the Lord. If it hasn’t been, then what good is it? If Jesus couldn’t approve of it’s actions then how can it claim to be the repository of His teachings and wisdom? Further, if He can’t control it, then it has turned into something that He never intended which it shows by it’s actions.

reply to post by passenger


I did not want to weigh in on this thread just yet as I have enjoyed watching it take shape and run it own course as there have been some great points brought up for both arguments, (keep up the good work everyone) but I had to make comment at this point.

Your post really takes the cake.

It was not quite in the vein of the original point but well put none the less!

I don’t normally advertise it but the star (the first one anyway as I am sure there will be more) was from me.

Don’t mind me. Please continue…..

reply to post by passenger


Well, here is what I will say 'with a straight face'. If your definition of a Christian is someone who is perfect and without fault or belongs to an institution with the same criteria, you aren't going to find any Christians on earth.

I'm caught between applauding you for attempting to return to the subject at hand (are Catholics Christians) and being disappointed that you so quickly veered into an assembly of wrongs that you believe were committed by the Church.

So, how do you define someone as a 'Christian'? Someone earlier said that it was someone that follows the teachings of Christ. Unfortunately people believe widely disparate things when it comes to Christs teachings. So what specific teachings of Christ need to be adhered to to be a Christian and do Catholics follow those teachings?

Eric

reply to post by VIKINGANT


Much obliged for the kind response. Every now and then I catch a coherent thought and try to capitalize on it. This time it paid off!

That being said, I hope that post doesn’t become a thread-killer for you. I’d really like to see this one go on for a while, as it is a subject near and dear to my sacred heart.

I would be greatly interested in your opinion on the subject as it has evolved so far. Whom do you think is making the stronger case?

Originally posted by EricD
I'm … disappointed that you so quickly veered into an assembly of wrongs that you believe were committed by the Church.

Wrongs that I believe were committed by the Church. That I believe…

I can honestly say that I don’t even know how to respond to your above statement. Am I to have the assumption that you believe the Catholic Church had nothing to do with the Crusades, the Inquisitions or the persecution of Galileo? That’s a hard belief to combat for sure. It’s akin to arguing with someone who states that the Moon is made of green cheese and I reply that it is not and they reply; ‘Well, that’s what you believe’. I really do not know how to counter that brilliant exhibition of substantive debate. I have not since it was first used on me in the third-grade.

Apparently, I have been sadly misguided by just about every history book I have ever read. I suppose there must be a ‘True History of the World According to the Catholic Church Despite what Everyone Else Says‘, that I haven’t been privy to. I’d like to read it someday. It must be full of interesting facts that would astound any non-Catholic. You seem to have read it. Why don’t you enlighten us as to how the Catholic Church did not do these things. Must have been the Jews (Again!), I suppose - after all they killed Jesus. But the Holy Mother Church would never attempt to avenge that insult with bloodshed either. Would it? But that's only what I believe...