P-1: Lula, I haven’t at all forgotten what Christianity may have contributed (got some facts to back up this nonsense?) … but you have. You need to spend more time excusing Roman (Catholic) Christianity for their atrocities against humanity instead of trying to make little meaningless forgotten footnotes of them. Why don’t we spend more time on The Crusades, The Inquisitions and The Dark Ages for example after all, these were the times when Roman Christianity flourished.

P-2: You claim to much here … international law whoa … I suppose contracts, treaties, borders, arranged cross-national marriages, cultural and educational exchanges to name a few, were what figments until the Catholics righted the world perspective. To listen to you one would think we would still be living in caves were it not for Christianity … give it a break

P-3: Hoe humm … Last sentence is complete braggadocio!

P-4: Lula, I can’t believe you even uttered the words “without discrimination”. It seems that this Voltaire was easily awed. The Catholic Church is one of the most discriminate organizations I have ever encountered. You seem to have a niche for everyone who is not of the “proper” faith, go figure.

P-5: He said she said they said … must be true then?
 
P-6: Have you ever been to a third world country after being ransacked by Christianity and Capitalism and I don’t mean downtown, I think not.

P-7: There is an overabundance of slavery around the world today as we speak so maybe you want to reword this nonsense. The largest dealers in slavery are the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church who will accept no less of its minions. 

P-8: So what … are you trying to say that universities and whatnot were not in existence before Christianity??? Or are you saying that they would have perished without your benign guidance???

P-9: I don’t know if you have looked around lately, but I think we are still lacking here. How many Priestesses and Bishopesses and Cardinalesses did you say were early Church practitioners …?

Not quite ready yet, sorry.

Hello BoobzTwo,

I know it's fashionable to take swipes like this at the Church and Christianity, but let's allow historical facts in, OK? Ever since 33AD, Christianity has expanded/is expanding around the world by teaching and preaching...those with ears to hear, heard and converted. The obstacles were/are immense and the means at the disposal of Christianity inadequate from a human pov. The only force which can account for Christian expansion is that given in the Acts of the Apostles. It was the power of the Holy Spirit, promised and sent by Christ. It is the Holy Spirit who enlightens minds and moves the obstinate will to embrace the lofty doctrines and moral obligations binding upon Christians. 

One thing is for certain and that is the Church and Christianity from Day 1 has no appeal to the pagan world. Christianity wounds the pride of cultured pagans by asking them to worship a Crucified Jew. Christianity attacks pagan morals, and demands that they should hate what they previously loved and love those things they previously hated.

Atheism today is very self righteous. It's not Christians practicing Christianity who are responsible for the most wars, persecutions, killing and destruction around the world. There is no comparison with the atheistic killing monster of Communism. The death toll in the name of religion free and godless utopias by tyrants like Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot is well over 100 million lives.

Check this out for a breakdown of the deaths from atheist regimes......the figure is over 169 million.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

Don't forget the Communist revolution in China which claimed 80 million dead. 

And last but not least, the death and destruction of 41.6 million innocents by abortion that occur each year around the world? The Church from Day 1 condemns abortion as a mortal sin and punishable by excommunication.

I separate the historical understanding of the Crusades from the popular myths used by many as a handy stick with which to engage in Catholic bashing.

For medieval people in medieval times, the Crusade was a means of defending their world, their culture and their way of life.

Have you read Robert Spencer's "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades"? In it, he definitively refutes 29 politically correct myths about Islam and the Crusades.

Guess what? The Crusades weren't acts of unprovoked agression, but were a delayed response to militant Mohammedan Turkish aggression which grew fiercer than ever in the 11th century.

Have you ever studied the hostility that began with Mohammad and was issued by Muslims upon Christendom during the course of 4 centuries (400 years) from 650 to when Pope Urban II called the First Crusade in 1095 upon the appeals of the Emperor of Constantinople and the Christians of the East?

It was the Muslims that stoked the hostility, profaned the Holy places of Palestine, seized Christian lands which amounted to 2/3 of what had formerly been the Christian world and massacred and enslaved thousands of Catholics.  Have you ever asked how difficult the sword had made life for them?

The role of the Catholic Church in the Crusades was not imperialistic, but rather the Crusaders (all 140,000 of them) fought to maintain the right of Christians to safe pilgrimage to the Holy Land, to recapture Christian lands and free those who had been enslaved by the Mohammedans.

In defense of the Christian faith, had the Church through the Crusaders failed to hold back the Muslims and Islamic Jihad, there would have been no Christian Europe. It would have been Islamic Europe.

Think about it.  What kind of world would we live in had the Christians not resisted Islamic jihad and escaped from Muslim dhimmitude? Certainly not the lofty ideals of freedom and dignity for all people which grew out of European Christianity.

 So, I must ask...

Why BT, is the fact that the Holy Land had been invaded and that Christian pilgrims, who had been going there peacefully for generations, were then being robbed and slaughtered never brought up? 

Why BT, is the focus only on the failings that befell many of the Crusading elements? I mean, even we know that in modern times, in war, there will always be "collateral damage" and misdeeds. That is certainly true in medieval times as well. 

Why BT, is there no consideration of the defensive nature of the Crusades?

Last Point.

Today, Christians are suffering atrocities are being enslaved, and killed at the hands of Islamic tyrants in the Sudan.Yes, ethnic cleansing is being perpetrated against Catholics in southern Sudan....When have you railed against that?

Lula, as you know, I am not at all comfortable in these circles so I will be brief. My research turned up the following article which pretty well expresses my feelings as it pertains to Catholicism. In answer to your original question, as you are only interested in trying to justify everything throughout history with Catholic dogma (of which I abhor), the reason there are so many religions is simply because people are different. Their geography, resources (or not), history, government, supernatural beliefs of their own etc. has shape them just as your slavery to the Vatican has shaped you. No problems mate, have a ball … just do not ask me to participate in your folly.

The Difference between Catholicism and Christianity?
 
Catholicism and Biblical Christianity are divergent religions. They are built on different foundations, and they propose different ways of salvation. In principle, Christianity is built solely on the Holy Scriptures, the written Word of God. The Bible is our only infallible rule of faith, being sufficient to give us the sure knowledge of the Gospel for our salvation and holiness.

Roman Catholicism demands submission of the intellect and will to the doctrines taught by the Roman magisterium (the Pope and bishops). It is claimed that the Catholic Church derives its doctrines from the "sacred deposit" found in Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. However the faithful cannot verify these doctrines by referring to the original sources. The Scriptures are inaccessible because only the magisterium is able to establish the authentic meaning. Similarly the contents of Sacred Tradition can only be known through the magisterium. Roman Catholicism is mental and spiritual slavery to the Vatican.

As expected, since the foundations are different, so also are the edifices built upon them. Christianity stands on the Gospel of God's sovereign grace. In love, God predestines His chosen ones to be adopted as sons through Jesus Christ, their sole mediator. The Son became man and gave His life as a ransom to secure their freedom from sin. Being dead in sin, they are completely unable to convert ourselves or merit God's favor. Therefore God graciously grants His people repentance and faith to turn to Him and trust in Christ Jesus for salvation. Believers are accepted in Christ, solely on the merit of His righteousness and blood, and not because of any goodness or human merit. God also resides in His people by the Holy Spirit, enabling them to obey and glorify the Father, and to guarantee their inheritance in heaven forever.

Rome's "gospel" is not good news at all. The Roman institution, calling itself "The Church", usurps Christ's mediatorial office, proclaiming herself as the "sacrament of salvation." The "Church" dispenses salvation to her faithful in small portions, starting at baptism and continuing throughout life. Forgiveness can only be obtained through the sacrament of penance. The benefits of Christ's sacrifice are accessible through the sacrifice of the Mass. Instead of teaching the faithful to rest in Christ by faith, Catholics are taught to perform religious works to "merit grace" and to do penance to make satisfaction. Even after death, Catholics remain dependent on the "Church" to relieve their suffering in Purgatory by masses and indulgences.

The Roman Catholic Church is a mighty obstacle to anyone seeking salvation, enslaving millions of people to a religious system and preventing them from coming directly to Christ. The choice is between the Bible and the Roman magisterium; the choice is between salvation by grace through faith in Christ, or through human merit and effort in the Roman religion.

Copyright Dr. Joe Mizzi. Permission to copy and distribute this article without textual changes.

I would be no more interested in Islam than I am Christianity, Judaism or especially Catholicism. I am not going to play this game of yours anymore. I am tired of you taking words and phrases and running rampant with them. Personally I don’t take a word or phrase and then write an article or response around it, rather the other way around. The Roman Catholic Church has done more to prevent mankind from achieving enlightenment than any other group in existence. More books were burned than written as Kings and clerics everywhere were ‘persuaded’ to destroy any knowledge that contradicted Catholic doctrine.  As a simple example: The world was known to be round 400 years before the supposed birth of Christ, but because it contradicted Catholic doctrine, the knowledge was suppressed for a couple thousand years (reference Copernicus and Galileo)… are you naïve enough to think there was only this one disservice to humanity.

You talk of Christian benevolence and gloss over the fact that their sack of Jerusalem in 1099 resulted in the murder of most Jews and Muslims inside … after the fall of the city. By early June 1099 Jerusalem’s population had declined from 70,000 to less than 30,000. Consequently, when in 1187, the city was wrested from the Crusaders by Saladin who allowed the Christians to leave unmolested and permitted Jews and Muslims to return and settle in the city. Under the Ayyubid dynasty of Saladin, a period of huge investment began in the construction of houses, markets, public baths, and pilgrim hostels as well as the establishment of religious endowments. How unchristian was that?

Do you actually know what The Inquisition was? How about this for a short: "a former organization in the Roman Catholic Church established to find, question, and sentence those who did not hold orthodox religious beliefs." … for an example.

Copernicus dethroned Earth as the center of the universe which began the downfall of Catholic dominance and Galileo who proved the realities of his theory with a 3X telescope. Copernicus is still hounded today by Catholic endeavors to disprove him which of course is utterly impossible to do, go figure???

The Lord’s Prayer … from my (Catholic) Holy Child Mass-Book, 1959:

Our Father, Who art in heaven
Hallowed be Thy Name;
Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us;
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil. Amen.

In almost every department of life, the world has benefited greatly by Christianity, the one, true Christian religion established by Christ in 33AD, also called Catholicism.

The world is in distress and full of troubles because people, nations and state governments, are unwilling to put Christian principles, such as Christ's command to love thy neighbor as thyself, into practice. Let all men live up to Christian principles,  and then if the world is not  better, you can blame Christianity. 

First, I must introduce a bit of information about the author of this article you found. 

Dr. Joe Mizzi apostatized from Catholicism, the one, true Christian religion to the Protestant religion. Mizzi left the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Bible, established by Christ as per St. Matt. 16:13-20 for a Protestant church set up by his brother.

Dr. Joe Mizzi Question from John Stevens on 5/5/2002:

Recently Bruce posted to your forum about a web site by a Dr. Joe Mizzi. A group of Protestants and Catholics in the Houston area began meeting and debating with one another a couple of years ago. Some of this discussion and debate shifted to e-mail and Dr. Joe Mizzi joined (uninvited) into our discussions. For about a year, another Catholic and I carried on a dialogue with Joe Mizzi. During this time we effectively answered every challenge he gave us and he was able to answer essentially nothing of what we presented him with. His replies totally ignored anything we sent to him and consisted of more anti-Catholic diatribe. I often got the impression he never read our replies. He certainly never dealt with them. After about a year he decided that he didn't want to correspond with the two informed Catholics anymore. However, to this day he still sends info from his web page to a very close Protestant friend of mine who copies me so that I can see what old Joe is up to. Joe Mizzi is a pediatrician who lives on the island of Malta. He was born a Catholic. His brother was influenced by an evangelical and left the Catholic Church to establish his own church. Joe Mizzi belongs to his brother's church. Apart from his religious discussions he seems like a very fine man, but like many who have left the Catholic Church he is consummed with the need to prove that the Catholic Church is an apostate Church. His theology is primarily Calvinist although Calvin would not agree with much that he has to say. There is a question that I posed to Joe Mizzi and to every Protestant who challenges the Church. Neither Joe nor anyone else has been able to answer it. In the Gospel of Matthew Christ promises to be with His Church all days even to the end of the world. If that is true then there must have existed since the time of Christ - true Christians who believed correctly and practiced their faith correctly. I doubt Christ would promise to be with apostates. Since the time of Christ Catholics can name many people who believe as we believe and practiced their faith as we practice it. I challenge those who accuse the Catholic Church of being a false Church to name only 3 historically verifiable people in each century who believe as they believe and practiced their faith as they practice it. If Joe Mizzi and others are correct then there must have been 'true Christians' in each century who believed and practiced as they do. This challenge leaves us with 3 possibilities: 1) There were Christians who believed and practiced like Joe Mizzi.(Name 3 per century) 2) Those real Christians through the centuries were Catholics. 3) Christ lied. Which is it? None of us thinks Christ lied. Catholics can list countless people in all centuries who attended Mass, believed in the 'Real Presence', etc. Joe and others should be able to find 3 people who believed as they did. If they cannot identify these people then I submit they didn't exist. There is a historical record of the pagans, the heretics, the Mohammedans, etc. The only people for whom there is no historical record is this remnant of true Christians who believed and practiced like Joe Mizzi. True Christians would not be much of a 'light to the world' if nobody even knew they existed. I have yet to hear anyone other than a Catholic fully address the above question. If Bruce has further concerns about the material in Dr. Joe Mizzi's web page he can e-mail me at johnstevens@mail.ev1.net. I will make sure he receives a correct Catholic response. I don't want him to be led astray by those who have an agenda against the Church. Sorry for the length of this post but I felt compelled to address this concern. Thanks for your wonderful forum Fr. Echert. Yours in Christ, John Stevens

Mizzi writes:

Mizzi is a foolish man. Catholicism  IS  Christianity, Christ's true Christian religion; so there is not/can not be a difference between them.

There is, however, a difference between Christianity and Protestantism though. A big difference. Christianity was established by Christ in 33AD. Protestantism was established in 1517 by Luther and its thousands of different sects churches are not recorded in the Holy Bible. Christ said, "I will build My Church" (singular), not thousands of different "churches". As a matter of fact, the Bible denounces non-Catholic, Protestant "churches" with their different faiths and doctrines. St. Paul said, "There is one body, and one Spirit...one hope..one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all..." He also said, "...that you all speak the same thing, ...no schisms among you, but that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment." 

Mizzi writes:

Mizzi is wrong again....talking quite simply a fantasy that depends entirely on a sustained ignorance of history. 

Catholicism IS Biblical Christianity.

The reality is that Christ's Gospel was complex and hierarchical from the beginning and that the reason bishops and priests took over the Church after the death of the Apostles is that the Apostles, specifically and carefully designed the Chruch to be hierarchical and run by bishops whom they themselves chose. That is why 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus were written (to instruct bishops running the Church in the Apostles' stead) and that is why we find the Apostles already appointing (by the laying on of hands) such successors way back in Acts 14:23.

The official beginning of Catholicism was on the day of the First Pentecost, 50 days after the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, not somewhere in the 4th century as Protestants claim.

Mizzi writes:

Catholicism is Biblical Christianity whose foundation is Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Himself.

Protestants such as Mizzi refuse to understand what St.Matt. 16:13-20 means.

The exchange between Christ and Simon is deeply moving.

Christ, speaking in Aramaic, gives Simon the name Kepha or Rock, being Petra in Greek and Peter in English. Christ said to Simon, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build My Church and the powers of Hell will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven."

Mizzi writes:

Poor Mizzi. He's still Wrong. 

In principle, Christianity is life in Christ.

Of course, Catholics acknowledge the Holy Bible is the written Word of God. They also know and acknowledge that Jesus Christ did not leave us a Bible.

So, BT, how did the early CHristians learn the Faith? How was the Faith communicated to them? How did Our Lord tell the Apostles to communicate the one true Faith, the truths which must be believed for salvation? 

He commanded them, "go forth and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.". He said to Simon, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church." And Saint Paul clearly taught that the Church is the pillar and mainstay of truth." Our Lord gave Peter His authority and He commissioned the Apostles to preach in His Name. "AS the Father hath sent Me, I also send you."

As I said, Our Lord wrote no books nor did He tell His Apostles to write Bibles and scatter them all over the world and let everyone read them and decide for himself what it means which is the essence of Protestantism ---each individual reads the Bible and decides for himself what are the truths of Christianity. 

No, no, no. Our Lord established a Church to teach in His name. He left us a Pope (Simon renamed Peter) and an Apostolic teaching office, (the Magisterium). He said, "He that heareth you, heareth Me, he that despiseth you, despiseth Me."   And,

"If he will not hear the Church, let him  be to thee as the heathen and the publican."

The Church and Christianity (the one, true Christian Faith of Christ) existed BEFORE  the New Testament. The Church was spreading the Catholic Faith throughout the whole Roman Empire before a single word of the New Testament was written.

So how did the Jews and pagans become Christians? By reading the Bible? NO.

For over 300 years, the Church didn't have all the Books of the Bible compiled into one Book. So, BT, how does Mizzi know the Bible is the infallible written Word of God? This brings us to the question of authority. Books by multiple authors don't write themselves and compile themselves into one big book and proclaim itself to be the written Word of God.

NO,it was someone which God Himself gave the authority to teach infallibly in His name that told us which books were the infallilble written Words of God. It was the Catholic Church, her bishops at the Council of Carthage in 397AD through the guidance of the Holy Ghost, that settled once and for all which books were divinely inspired and which ones were not. 

It was the Catholic Church that joined the 27 Books of the New Testament with the 46 Books of the Old Testament and gave the Holy Bible to the world. It was the Catholic Church that produced the Bible, and not the Bible that produced the Church or Christianity.

Mizzi writes:

Not true.

But, let's go with it and think it through......IF it were true, then it would be necessary to read the Bible for people to be saved if faith cometh by reading the Bible only.

But the printing press was invented in the middle of the 15th century by Gutenberg (a Catholic btw!). Before that Bibles were few and far between for they were all hand copied, a laborious time-consuming venture. And then there was the problem of literacy. No many of them could even read.  We've only had Bibles widely distributed for a little more than 400 years. So, what about the millions of Christians who lived before that, who went through their entire lives without ever seeing a Bible? 

So, the Protestant idea of following the Bible alone as the path of salvation presupposes that the Bible should have been in the hands of all men from the foundation of Christianity. Well....sorry, not the case.

The Books of the New Testament weren't even written until 65 years after Our Lord ascended into Heaven. The Bible wasn't compiled until 397 and it wasn't widely available until the printing press was invented in the 15th century. So, the Protestant principle of "the Bible alone as our only infallible rule of faith" has no basis whatsoever in history. 

Thrid point..

Mizzi's confirmation that the Protestant principle of "the Bible alone is our only infallible rule of faith" is contrary with reason.

Yup, this is the Protestant system....give someone the Bible, tell him to read it and believe the Bible alone is his only guide to salvation. That person reads it and decides his own interpretation for himself.

What's the inherent problem with the Protestant doctrine of the Bible alone?

Even though they all read the Bible and claim it's their only guide, each Protestant comes up with his own ideas on the rules of faith and thus that's why there are tens of thousands of conflicting ideas of competing Protestant sects and why so many of them are mutually exclusive. 

Go to the Lutherans, and you're buying into Luther's private interpretation of the Bible. The Methodists subscribe to John Wesley's private interpretation. Presbyterians go by John Knox's interpretation.

And some Protestants who disagree with their forefathers read the Bible and come up with their own interpretation. If they are zealous an d eloquent enough they could start to preach and start their own Protestant sect...becasue this is how they all started! 

This is the sad consequence of the Bible only private interpretation of Scripture. This isn't Bible Christianity. The logical conclusion is that there could be as many Protestant religions as there as individuals. 

In Protestantism, there is no Church established for them by Christ to teach in His Holy Name. In Protestantism, there is no authority by God to tell them they may have made a mistake. 

So perhgaps you should think twice before you agree with Mizzi.  His idea of the Bible alone is contrary to Scripture, not supported by history, and is contrary to reason for it ends up with thousands of conflicting interpretations of Scripture, and is contrary to what Our Lord established His one, true, catholic , holy and Apostolic Church to be.

Interpretation of Scripture is not left to individuals, but to those given the authority and the ability to interpret by Christ Himself while He was on earth present among us.

Ah, first try to attack the Church with the Crusades and the Inquisition, now feeding the myth about Galileo.

First, the Galileo/Church incident was about the location and movement of the earth and the sun, the newly developing heliocentric theory. Galileo's work had nothing to do with the earth being round. They all knew the world was round  from reading Old Testament Scripture. The Church was well familiar with the OT specifically the Septuagint version from about 180 BC when it was translated from the ancient Hebrew into Greek by 72 Jewish scholars.

In her handling of the Galilieo incident, the Church committed no disservice to humanity. None whatsoever. You're wrong in asserting that, but you aren't the first and won't be the last. The Chruch didn't suppress the knoweldge for a couple thousand years. The facts of history show the Church wasn't then or ever has been hostile to science. The Church never attempted to squelch science. Rather, its actions were consistent with its mission of guarding the integrity of the Catholic Faith and Sacred Scripture.

What happened with Galileo?

In 1616, the Church's theologian committee appointed to consider Galileo's hypothesis declared that it was wrong and they were mistaken about that. It was a reversible decision and it was reversed in due time....the complete and final vindication of Copernicus came in 1758 when his work disappeared from the revised index of Benedict XIV. 

What's important to remember is that both the scientists of the day and the Catholic theologians were rightly convinced that Galileo had not adduced a single scientific proof of his novel idea and the prudence of the prohibition forbidding Galileo's hypothesis from being taught as fact (truth), is more than defensible, in light of circumstances at the time. 

Actually, Copernicus was induced by his clerical friends to put his works into print.

Nicolaus Copernicus dedicated his most famous work, On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs, in which he gave an excellent account of heliocentricity, to Pope Paul III. Copernicus entrusted this work to Andreas Osiander, a Lutheran clergyman who knew that Protestant reaction to it would be negative, since Martin Luther seemed to have condemned the new theory, and, as a result, the book would be condemned. Osiander wrote a preface to the book, in which heliocentrism was presented only as a theory that would account for the movements of the planets more simply than geocentrism did—something Copernicus did not intend.

Ten years prior to Galileo, Johannes Kepler
published a heliocentric work that expanded on Copernicus’ work. As a result, Kepler also found opposition among his fellow Protestants for his heliocentric views and found a welcome reception among some Jesuits who were known for their scientific achievements.

But do you give those others equal time, as it were, in bashing?  

Depends what you mean by "enlightenment"! 

Yea, I'm sure we differ on enlightenment. All I said was that I agree with Dr. Joe Mizzi’s Catholic views … geez; you are wired to tight if you get my meaning. Never heard of him before and like I said I was just slumming in the religious stuff and it jumped out at me. Glad to see I’m not the only one on your shit list, hahaha. Imagine that, he left the fold and turned into a monster hell-bent on your destruction … samo samo for you guys isn’t it. That is my story too … right.

Glad to see some interest at least in people like Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler, but you are a day late and a dollar short. In May this year I started a series entitled “The Privileged Planet, the search for purpose in the universe” and I believe this Copernicus – Galileo nonsense was of utmost concern to The Church there too. You declined my invitation when the floor was totally there… I wasn’t going to waste my time with reviews or whatnot without participation.

Lula, it is easy to pick out your sore points because you are a dead giveaway, amazing. All I did was drop a couple names and off you go to the races … in defense of the infallible Church. My-oh-my, why does an infallible Church preaching the infallible word need defending one might wonder. Sanctimonious as ever but to be expected I guess.

Ask yourself this: When I (me) die (appropriate assumptions made in jest), do you think your opinions of me or any of your expectations … or that of The Catholic Church either are worth anything to anyone besides maybe yourselves? You know, all these things that you know to be true beyond reproach … did God or some facsimile actually tell you about these things … any one of them? How about anyone you know or that they know or anyone alive today or living 100 years ago? Get my drift here?

So what has changed in the last 100 years? As far as The Church is concerned what, we can eat meat on Fridays now … samo samo there. How about the rest of the world outside your self-sanctified halls? We have trans-global transportation and communications with computers that rival human thought capabilities. We have sciences that teach us of the realities of life … down to the smallest particle or cell. Encyclopedias are available to an IPhone user.  The clincher is that all this and so much more is available to anyone who wants it with a few clicks of a button. News flies around the world than faster the ‘would be’ news organizations can establish their misrepresentations. Is it any wonder that most others ‘seem’ to hate you when the reality is that you have made them your enemies of your own free vocation … not the other way around?

The Church in all its majesty and infallibility was directly responsible for the ‘Dark Ages’ throughout the known world. You know, the time when humankind was the most uneducated. They also decimated other cultures around the world with their benevolence.  While Europe was in the dark ages, the Americas were unknown (sort of like the universe was unknown) and in their full bloom isolated from the contamination overseas. Then the Church and the Spanish (among others) set about bringing the rest of the world down to the standards set forth by The Catholic Church. Complete cultures like the Mayans as well as most of their written word were deliberately destroyed. But of course, you have a myriad of “excuses” justifying these types of exercises done by, for or in the name of The Church (not God) … your masters. Is it your opinion that Catholics always do good or is it just advantageous to pretend that it is so?

I remember you posting that series. It's not that I was disinterested rather that as a wife and mom first, I have only so much time to dedicate to being in front of my computer.

Earth IS the privileged planet as it is the only one with life which comes from Our Creator, God.

From the standpoint of life, a case could be made that Earth is the center of the Universe.

Re: the highlighted....What do you mean? Catholics are Christ's Fold...Mizzi left for Protestantism and you left for secular/atheistic humanism.

Read Mizzi again. Isn't he as a Protestant, as you say, "hell-bent on my destruction (which is the destruction of the Catholic Church and Faith)?

That whole piece he wrote is all hogwash, but I guess it tickled/s your fancy.

You see the world isn't afraid of Protestantism which has always been ready to water down down Christian obligations to suit it. But instinctively the world hates and fears the Catholic Church which will make no compromise but insists upon the fullness of Christian doctrine as Christ presented it, comfortable or uncomfortable.

Scripture teaches "the Church is the pillar and mainstay of truth". The CC insists upon obedience of Faith, and not a picking and choosing of one's personal likes and whims. The Church's repitition of Christ's axiom, "Deny thyself; take up the cross and follow Me." interferes too much with the comfort of men.

If Christianity demanded merely the admission of a few religious doctrines, men wouldn't object to it. But since it imposes moral obligations difficult for human nature, I'm not surprised that people like Mizzi, refuse it in its austere form when they are offered a less exacting substitute with the assurance (albeit a false One) that it is just as good or better.

You just don't get it Lula. If anyone has disagreement with Catholic doctrine, pray tell, what are they supposed to write about? I cannot speak for the author, but I personally don't care why or who you choose to subjugate yourself to. You defend against someone else’s word by personal attacks trying to discredit the person while glossing over the accusations … how typical of you (samo samo get it). You have made enemies of everyone around you simply because they refuse to take your nonsense to heart. So you have an ancient Book … I have plenty of books of my own that do not reflect the attitudes and demeanor of the intellectual Dark Age in Europe like yours does.

You offer nothing besides slavery or destruction to all you encounter. To err is to be human … so what are you besides the most self-righteous person I know? I offer knowledge, science and actual proof and you would give me the supernatural ... if I disavow my knowledge, science and proofs and enslave myself as you have done. This is surely a demonstration of insanity, go figure. And no, a case cannot be made that Earth is the center of the Universe. Good grief woman, have you never seen a galactic map, geeze? You usurp too much from your one God. Not only are you God’s self-appointed spokesperson and only valid interpreter, you have insight as to what He may or may not have decide to do elsewhere without your permission. Is there no end to your folly? Lula, you wouldn’t know the truth if it jumped out and bit you on the arse … all you know is Catholic dogma and all I have is your word that it is the truth. I don’t believe you.

Lula, I tried to discuss ‘brainwashing’ on a couple of occasions and was soundly reproached by the Roman Catholic minority as well as some normal Christians. Back to my normal generic dictionary: Brainwashing; to impose a set of usually political or religious beliefs on somebody by the use of various coercive methods of indoctrination, including destruction of the victim's prior beliefs. As far as I am concerned, this could and probably should be The Churches’ mantra. You have no respect for anyone or anything not sanctioned by The Church. Lula, do you know what freedom means … Freedom; a state in which somebody is able to act and live as he or she chooses, without being subject to any undue restraints or restrictions. As Chomsky put it “… I think irrational belief is a dangerous phenomenon and I try hard to avoid it”. Works for me.