That's really quite interesting, Ian.  I know you've made similar assertions yourself at times.  A bit baffling though... why would it be then, that there is the general perception, (widely held) that the numbers are so much greater?  Do you feel that there has been some sort of concerted efforts to skew this view of history?

Still, I feel that the Church has very much 'lost its way' in parts of its history, straying from Jesus' clear teaching of non-violence.  I'm sure that (being one of the few hundred or so) it would have been of little consolation!

I accept that there may have been many distortions in what has been believed in history, and that this historian may be clearing some mis-held beliefs.  I'm not particularly interested in condemning the acts of the Church over the years.  

One chapter of human history I find disturbing and yet inspiring is the bright light of the attitude and outlook of Otto Frank, who despite the unthinkable hardship and pain he suffered at the hand of the Nazi's, was a great advocate for TOLERANCE.   He dedicated his years after WWII to trying to help us see that "us & them" thinking is one of the most dangerous and destructive forces in human behaviour, and that we do well when we see past and through each others' differences.  Sadly though, I still see many cases where people (including those who claim Christian values)  have totally missed the point, and remain intolerant of those with views different to their own.


Dog.

  Brothers, the Catholic Church like any group, undergoes some form of metamorphic development toward the better. The Second Vatican Council is one such prime example. Well the cultural and political makeup of the times and histories such as Medieval certainly attest to some adaption resulting in some form of misunderstanding. On the other hand protestant history isn't blood free either.

blessings dudes

Eric  

Hi, Dog.

That's really quite interesting, Ian.  I know you've made similar assertions yourself at times.  A bit baffling though... why would it be then, that there is the general perception, (widely held) that the numbers are so much greater? I'd suggest that the misunderstanding/misrepresentation largely has to do with the general popularity of Foxe's Book of Martyrs in Protestantism more generally. Foxe intended for his book as a polemical work, and in this respect he succeded admirably. But it's been a rather sad indictment on Protestant Christianity that his claims weren't tested more rigorously, then and now. Do you feel that there has been some sort of concerted efforts to skew this view of history? I put it down to general ignorance and apathy, mainly. People are generally lazy creatures; consequently, a majority will generally believe whatever the powers-that-be tell them they should believe.

Still, I feel that the Church has very much 'lost its way' in parts of its history, straying from Jesus' clear teaching of non-violence. And I would agree with you completely. I'm sure that (being one of the few hundred or so) it would have been of little consolation! No doubt, but one does need to keep in mind that during the period in which such injustices occurred, Western society and culture was uniformly understood as 'Christendom': a confusing amalgamation of the religious and the social. So we must carefully distinguish between the Christian Church, as Scripture presents it, and 'Christendom', as history presents it. The two really aren't one and the same.

I accept that there may have been many distortions in what has been believed in history, and that this historian may be clearing some mis-held beliefs.  I'm not particularly interested in condemning the acts of the Church over the years. I would that many more people felt the same. But as I said earlier, people are basically lazy creatures, and they will largely swallow whatever tripe is put before them.

Blessings,

Ian

Really??!!  I know that I bought a copy of Foxe's book, having been introduced to it thru revivalism, along with all the anti-Catholic carry on.  I recall getting thru a couple of chapters and had enough!  But I would have thought that the general populous would be largely ignorant of that stuff.  Seems to me that there is a generally held belief in widespread bloodshed prescribed by the Church.  And certainly, I agree that people (myself included) are pretty lazy in just accepting what is taught to be history.  But then, that could lead to all sorts of distortions, and really, only the most zealous historian can feel assured of the facts.  Makes one wonder what agendas there are at play when reading history at all!
  Heck, even in very recent years, I learned through some very brave journalists of atrocities  in Sri Lanka against the Tamils and all that happened beneath the noses of the United Nations and the attention of the world.  That even in these times, a smokescreen can (almost) deceive the rest of us is really disturbing.  So I guess, its good to have a fair dose of skepticism when considering matters of human history.

Dog.

I think Lloyd Longfield would have made a good Pope. He thought he was infallible, collected huge sums from his followers, launched inquisitions and crusades against dissident elements, carried out excommunications, thought he could decide when to forgive sins. I am sure in time there would be transubstantiation, praying to Mary, worship of saints and relics, etc.

Hi Willem,

One of the greatest ironies of Revivalism involves their shared (but baseless) hatred of Roman Catholicism on the one hand, and their hypocritical, self-serving 'popery' on the other! It matters little whether one considers a Lloyd Longfield here, a Noel Hollins, John Kuhlmann or Scott Williams there, the elevation and worship of the respective pontifs remains plain. In point of fact the RF have tilted even further in this direction with their 'College of Cardinals', the so-called 'Pastor's Council' :)

Blessings,

Ian

Hi Willem,

Now let's point out some differences.  Unless Lloyd had been able to get his head around at least 4 years of university study he wouldn't have qualified even as a junior curate.  Also, I hardly think Lloyd would have patiently waited in blessed singleness until around age 70 to (if elected) humbly accept the possition of leading the flock.

Strong authoritative (and in Lloyd's case, autonomous) leadership to keep everyone under the thumb and thinking Revival was always a big thing in these groups and Lloyd had it all going his way for a very long time.

John of RF, so the old story went, had a in his youth in Mudamuckla/Ceduna a strong desire to be a Baptist Minister, but chose, fast tracking to the top of S.A,  RCI because they had the truth.  A point somewhat overlooked during the power play leading up to 'The Great Schism' of 1995 and seizure of half of Lloyd's (a schismatic himself) empire.  So John leads his very own Australia wide and International RF group, including the large and much vaunted P.N.G group, which strangely still bears the RCI horse and rider logo.

To digress a little here I noticed on the RCI Website that RCI also claim large numbers in P.N.G and their footnote below the list of P.N.G. assemblies states:-   "There are hundreds of individual assemblies within P.N.G.  The above are zone areas.  Each zone contains multiple assemblies"  I wonder if they intermingle a bit there, unaware of the history of the two groups.

In their short history these groups and their leaders have woven a tangled web and twisted scripture more than the oldest of churches.

Epi



 

Hello, Willem.

My advice to you would be this: instead of presuming that you understand what Roman Catholicism believes and teaches, try a little objective research in order to get at the facts. Arguing from ignorance is seldom a successful method of winning over converts to one's cause ;)

Blessings,

Ian

Thanks Ian, I have updated my avatar accordingly