/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

You don't debunk something that's true. It's a matter of history that many were persecuted and killed on behalf of the rcc.

It's hard to debunk because it's impossible to prove a negative

I don't know of forced conversions being used by Catholics during the missionary colonial era - it was actually the reverse, natives often killed Catholic missionaries en mass and we responded by volunteering more to die until they converted

there were religious based perseuctions in Europe lduring the reformation against christians. There were also the two famous SJW examples - crusades and inquisition but both are highly misrepresented, I think that topic has been discussed to death on 8chan so I'll lat another anon fill in

>>5313

Lol 'true', many of the times it was self-defense such as the case of the Templars who protected pilgrims and relics from Anti-Catholics and then people cry '99999 gorrillion murdered by the kurch'?

Its like we're not allowed to defend ourselves ever.

>>5309

Much of it originates from the black legend, what Anglo protestants propagated against their rivals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Legend#Others

>>6968

>it "printed on Protestant minds the indelible conviction that Catholicism was a bloody and treacherous religion"

Lol, did you ever see what happened in England?

It's easy for you to take the high ground because "non-denominational" "Christianity" wasn't even a thing until the 20th century.

>>6968

What, are you just going to ignore the fact that other Protestants turned on them first and attacked them in 1562, a decade prior in Orleans? Even not too long after in England the Spitalfeld riots occured as a result of ethnic tensions between them and the Irish. The Huguenots had an established reputation for instigating violence and what happened during the massacre was a knee jerk reaction from the local monarchy after an assassination took place.

The whore of Babylon only applies to ancient Rome regarding being a center of commerce and frequent persecution of the exact faith you deride as the Whore, with countless martyrs of he katholike ekklesia during the Apostolic age up until the legalization of the faith when the Edict of Milan was issued, some 300 years after the church was founded.

>>6971

>Lol, did you ever see what happened in England?

What you mean the just wrath of the crown against insurrectionist traitors who literally tried to overthrow the state because the true loyalties of a papist are not to their country but the pope in Rome?

>>6985

You leave out the part of the frequent executions and brutal repressions the crown carried out against the Catholic faith, all because some retard didn't want to be criticized for subverting the faith to get a divorce. Repression in England was harsh and frequent, including outright dirty where people would go to bed Saturday night, walk up to the parish Sunday morning and see that their house of worship was forcibly changed overnight. They were loyal to God for not selling out even under the pain of death.

>>7016

>You leave out the part of the frequent executions and brutal repressions the crown carried out against the Catholic faith

These by and large occurred after and in response to Romanist rebellion. I am unaware of persecution prior to that, but if it did happen it did not happen nearly as much, and would have been an archaism. Note that I am not counting persecution under Henry, since he was separated in both time and doctrine from the Protestantism of Elizabeth and James. He persecuted us no less than you, we refuse to have him as ours.

>They were loyal to God for not selling out even under the pain of death

Who were they loyal to for obeying this decree? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regnans_in_Excelsis

>>7059

I admit I have mostly been going off King Henry, but on the other hand loyalty to the church is higher than that of the state regarding it's ecclesial nature. Long before any of this happened the church keeping secular monarchs in check had been the status quo.

Queen Elizabeth aside from her stances had replaced heavily restrictive laws against the faithful forcing worship underground and was of illegitimate birth. Mary Queen of Scots was supposed to be on the throne. Despite all of this they were willing to put the series of conflict behind them in 1588 just to repel the Spanish invaders.

>>5309

The real redpill is that most of them deserved it

>>7154

>loyalty to the church is higher than that of the state

So you admit my premise

<the true loyalties of a papist are not to their country but the pope in Rome

Papists are as much natural traitors as the Jews. If a papist is forced to choose between his nation and the pope in Rome, he will choose the pope every time.

>Long before any of this happened the church keeping secular monarchs in check had been the status quo

And long before that the state had authority over the church as is the case in scripture. Why does Regnans in Excelsis run squarely against Romans 13:1-7? Why didn't Peter see fit to dethrone Nero, if he had such authority? Why did the ancient churchmen consistently answer the summons of emperors to meet in councils, if they had authority over him?

>forcing worship underground

Yes she did, but did not ban it outright. For them to be allowed to practice in private but not be granted equality to the true religion is the very definition of tolerance. It shows that they did not seek tolerance, but supremacy, and were willing to fight for it.

>Mary Queen of Scots was supposed to be on the throne

No she was not. Her claim was still not as strong as Elizabeth's. If we want to talk about who was 'supposed' to be queen, then bloody Mary should have never sat the throne, because Edward had appointed Lady Jane Grey as his successor.

Regardless, the illegitimacy and policies of Elizabeth were clearly not the papal motivation. He issued the bull because he wanted to reclaim England as part of his domains.

>Despite all of this they were willing to put the series of conflict behind them in 1588 just to repel the Spanish invaders

Yes, but the pope was not. Though the majority of English papists stood with Elizabeth against the invaders, they were acting in direct defiance to the bull and incurred automatic excommunication as a result. At the time, good Catholics were traitors to their country.

>>7162

Bruh by your arguments you can say that Xi Jiping and China is a tolerant country lmao

"Muh no loyalty to supreme leadar1!!" is literally the same argument every totalitarian government used ( including rome kek )

This is what angl*cans actually believe, disgusting.