1
   

Celtic christianity, Catharism a threat! maybe the truth

Forums: Religion, Religious
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
couchp
 
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 02:12 pm
Why did the Vatican purge the Cathars, and surpress the Celtic Church.
In Gigondas in France, there are some weird things still going on! Almost secretive in fact 'Men in black even!
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,659 • Replies: 58
No top replies

 
STNGfan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 02:15 pm
@couchp,
because don't you know they have witches in teh celtic church and is unclean and all that garbabge. Maybe they didn't give enough money. Who knows. The Vatican is an idiot and a puppet anyways. Who cares..it is good that he Celtic church is not with these nut jobs.
couchp
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 02:30 pm
@STNGfan,
STNGfan;22136 wrote:
because don't you know they have witches in teh celtic church and is unclean and all that garbabge. Maybe they didn't give enough money. Who knows. The Vatican is an idiot and a puppet anyways. Who cares..it is good that he Celtic church is not with these nut jobs.


Yeah' they probably wanted to call the shots. Anyone with a different view no matter how articulate or academic was a heretic. And had to go, look at the Templars. Phillip of France saw they were richer than him, so he got his puppet Pope to condemn them as heretics 'burn them'
0 Replies
 
Silverchild79
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 02:31 pm
@couchp,
the Catholic or "Universal" church of the Roman Empire was a marriage of their Pagan beliefs with the Greek scriptures which was a functioning part of the Empire. They would naturally appose any other type of influence in their Christianity as it wasn't a part of their Universal Church
0 Replies
 
couchp
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 02:33 pm
@couchp,
Do you think the Celtic Church was purer, therefor a threat to the money men?
0 Replies
 
Silverchild79
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 02:36 pm
@couchp,
nope, it's amazing we have thousands of chuches representing hundreds of religions and they're ALL right (try to find a 2nd Church of Christ in the yellow pages)

but most probably all wrong
0 Replies
 
couchp
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 03:00 pm
@couchp,
Yeah' in my opinion! they are wrong, there is something missing. The church did not like people getting together in good faith to practice what they believed without the direction of the church. Telling them how they should worship. I think the Cathars had this, and could have threatened the very existence of the catholic church. So they were destroyed 'or were they'
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 03:03 pm
@couchp,
Okay... you're accusing the Vatican of being 'an idiot.'

LOL.
couchp
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 03:07 pm
@couchp,
No, I'm saying it was big business & Rome wanted it for itself. Like all business crush the opposition!
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 03:18 pm
@couchp,
No, STNGfan said that. Uh, well, if the people of, say, Rhode Island decided to follow a set of beliefs that are totally unacceptable in our modern sense and to flout the US authority, wouldn't the US be justified in invading it? In 500 years, would that even matter? Stop focusing on the past, or you'll see things only through what happened involving them centuries ago and in no way applies to anything today.

From the Wikipedia Celtic Christianity article:

Quote:
[edit] Identity and terminology
It is easy to exaggerate the cohesiveness of the Celtic Christian communities. Scholars have long recognised that the term “Celtic Church” is simply inappropriate to describe Christianity among Celtic-speaking peoples, since this would imply a notion of unity, or a self-identifying entity, that simply did not exist.[4] As Patrick Wormald explained, “One of the common misconceptions is that there was a ‘Roman Church’ to which the ‘Celtic’ was nationally opposed.”[5] Celtic-speaking areas were part of Latin Christendom as a whole, wherein a significant degree of liturgical and structural variation existed, along with a collective veneration of the Bishop of Rome that was no less intense in Celtic areas.[6] Nonetheless, it is possible to talk about certain traditions present in Celtic-speaking lands, and the development and spread of these traditions, especially in the sixth and seventh centuries. Some scholars have chosen to apply the term ‘Insular Christianity’ to this Christian practice that arise around the Irish Sea, a cultural nexus in the sub-Roman period that has been called the ‘Celtic Mediterranean’.[7] The term “Celtic Christianity” may also be employed simply in the sense of different Catholic practices, institutions, and saints amongst the Celtic peoples, in which case it could be used meaningfully well beyond the seventh century.

STNGfan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 03:52 pm
@couchp,
yeah I called the Pope and idiot. I mean seriously when does man have the right to just do away with "limbo" becuase the church just ups and decides that limbo does not exist.
Idiots all of them.
Drinking the blood of Jesus and eating his body. Sounds like they endorse cannabilism.
rugonnacry
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 06:49 pm
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;22150 wrote:
Okay... you're accusing the Vatican of being 'an idiot.'

LOL.


The Vatican as a entity is a genius. Took the entire world and convinced them of the Bible being divine.

I put them on the same genius level as I do Hitler ( A fukking Nut job) WHo convinced an entire country of his ideas.



For the record this is the second time I have compared SOmething OF GOD to the nazis LOL

I eagerly await the next oppurtunity
0 Replies
 
aaronssongs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 07:03 pm
@couchp,
As the sex scandals proved...the Catholic hierarchy would rather sweep scandal under the carpet, pay victims ( or allegded victims) millions of dollars (praying the bad press will go away), and go back to "business as usual". Hypocrites...
The pope is an idiot, as well as most of the clergy. Lest we forget the history of the church (The Borgias, The Reformation, the politics behind Henry VIII's ouster from the church, etc....)
People are so disillusioned with "the church" which is the reason for the rise in secularism and spirtualism.
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 07:22 pm
@STNGfan,
STNGfan;22165 wrote:
yeah I called the Pope and idiot. I mean seriously when does man have the right to just do away with "limbo" becuase the church just ups and decides that limbo does not exist.
Idiots all of them.
Drinking the blood of Jesus and eating his body. Sounds like they endorse cannabilism.


Funny, that's what the Jews thought too. Because Peter and his succesors can change things on Earth, and that is how they will be in heaven.

And you called the Vatican an idiot (even if it was the Pope, the guy's a hell of a lot smarter than you, or me for that matter), which is impossible, because the Vatican is not a person (making it funny because it is an idiotic statement.)
0 Replies
 
aaronssongs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 10:09 pm
@couchp,
Pope Benedict is no Pope John Paul II, and John Paul II was no Pope John XXIII, ok? Both lost cred, when they could have been more stand up about the US sex scandals....actually moving the offending priests from parish to parish, instead of throwing them out of the church...get real. Besides, I was brought up Episcopalian...and we don't answer to him(them)
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 08:11 am
@STNGfan,
STNGfan;22165 wrote:
yeah I called the Pope and idiot. I mean seriously when does man have the right to just do away with "limbo" becuase the church just ups and decides that limbo does not exist.
Idiots all of them.
Drinking the blood of Jesus and eating his body. Sounds like they endorse cannabilism.

Quote:
Drinking the blood of Jesus and eating his body. Sounds like they endorse cannabilism
Yur next.
0 Replies
 
couchp
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 08:33 am
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;22160 wrote:
No, STNGfan said that. Uh, well, if the people of, say, Rhode Island decided to follow a set of beliefs that are totally unacceptable in our modern sense and to flout the US authority, wouldn't the US be justified in invading it? In 500 years, would that even matter? Stop focusing on the past, or you'll see things only through what happened involving them centuries ago and in no way applies to anything today.

From the Wikipedia Celtic Christianity article:


Sorry I'm a bit behind, different time zone!
What about free speech, I think the 'US of A' has already done that, and paying the price by invading Iraq, as are we! ( rightly or wrongly ) but don't debate that!
It applies today, because of the past, the past determines the future.
So, if Catharism had become the dominant religion you would settle for that!
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 11:18 am
@aaronssongs,
aaronssongs;22235 wrote:
Pope Benedict is no Pope John Paul II, and John Paul II was no Pope John XXIII, ok? Both lost cred, when they could have been more stand up about the US sex scandals....actually moving the offending priests from parish to parish, instead of throwing them out of the church...get real. Besides, I was brought up Episcopalian...and we don't answer to him(them)


Quote:
Pope Benedict is no Pope John Paul II, and John Paul II was no Pope John XXIII, ok? Both lost cred, when they could have been more stand up about the US sex scandals


Well, Benedict is cracking down more on scandal, I suppose. If you really think the Popes were personally involved in any of the priest moving business, then you don't have any idea of the size and scope of the Catholic church. It was a minor thing blown up by the media, but you don't see pedophilia "scandals" with teachers or even Protestant ministers covered by the media, do you?

Quote:
Besides, I was brought up Episcopalian...and we don't answer to him(them)


Okay... good for you.
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 11:19 am
@couchp,
couchp;22273 wrote:
Sorry I'm a bit behind, different time zone!
What about free speech, I think the 'US of A' has already done that, and paying the price by invading Iraq, as are we! ( rightly or wrongly ) but don't debate that!
It applies today, because of the past, the past determines the future.
So, if Catharism had become the dominant religion you would settle for that!


I suppose so, as long as they didn't become secessionist, like medieval Cathars in France were.
aaronssongs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 11:33 am
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;22298 wrote:
Well, Benedict is cracking down more on scandal, I suppose. If you really think the Popes were personally involved in any of the priest moving business, then you don't have any idea of the size and scope of the Catholic church. It was a minor thing blown up by the media, but you don't see pedophilia "scandals" with teachers or even Protestant ministers covered by the media, do you?



Okay... good for you.


I didn't say the popes were "personally involved" in "priest moving"...however, when you're the "head of the Roman church, on Earth", you might be concerned with perception and appearances, is all...and you don't put a band-aid over a "gaping wound"....and being Episcopal, and attending a Episcopal boys choir school, in the English tradition, and singing mass 6 days out of 7, for 3 years, I'd say I do have some idea of the size and scope and doctrine, and pomp and circumstance associated with the Episcopal Church and the Catholic Church, by proxy(The Episcopal Church in the US, being subject to The Anglican Church in Britain (Anglo-Catholic).
It was "hardly" a "minor thing blown up by the media"...or are you living under a rock? I'd say any scandal involving children is fodder for the media, and should rightfully be aired. What? The Catholic Church is supposed to get some kind of pass? Wrong is wrong. And pedophilia, is really, really wrong.
A "minor thing", indeed! Amazing.....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

What if no religions are correct, but there still is a God? - Question by neologist
We are all like little children who often say: "Mom, Dad, leave me alone, I want to be on my own". - Question by Leaffan
How can we be sure that all religions are wrong? - Discussion by reasoning logic
Beyond tribalism; How well does your religious label serve you? - Discussion by MattDavis
Is religion responsible for the opposition to peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict? - Question by maxdancona
Concern for Religious Freedom or Preaching Political Messages? - Discussion by wandeljw
Why People Seek Solace In Gods. - Question by mark noble
Catholic remarried couples should abstain from sex - Question by Tes yeux noirs
How can a good God allow suffering - Question by SawyerMentink
Religion and Fear - Discussion by TomTomBinks
Does the Bible's account allow for living things to change over time? - Question by anthony1312002
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Celtic christianity, Catharism a threat! maybe the truth
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 03:02:05
▲ ▼