A professing Pagan wrote to inform me of her views concerning the Catholic religion. Her words are in black bold face:
I have long had the belief that the Catholic Church bases many, many of its beliefs and practices on Pagan traditions. There are so many similarities I always say if I was a Christian, I would probably be catholic.
Being Pagan, I do not doubt that you would feel quite comfortable within the embrace of the Catholic Church.
Being pagan, I was a bit thrown by the way you trashed both the catholic and pagan religions.
I accept no responsibility for your reaction if, indeed, you were "a bit thrown" by something I had written concerning Catholicism or Paganism. I am convinced that emotionally healthy people choose how they will respond to external stimuli; and that we responsible for our feelings. In other words, if you were "a bit thrown" by my writing, it was your choice to be so.
Everyone is entitled to their own belief system, and in my opinion it is wrong to try to “convert” someone, or “show them the light.”
I appreciate that in this you are stating your opinion, and accept that in your understanding what you write is valid. Do you not see that what you wrote here is in the nature of an oxymoron? First you write "everyone is entitled to their own belief system." This is immediately followed by "it is wrong to try to 'convert' someone, or 'show them the light'." Are you aware that Jesus Christ, whom all professing Christians claim to follow, commanded His followers to:
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:19-20, KJV)
It is a precept of Christianity that believers take the Gospel message to unbelievers in order “show them the light”. Your opinion in that matter runs counter to one of the guiding principles of my Christian faith. Were I to conform to your position in this, I would, in fact, be rejecting a command of my Lord. Seen in this light, would you not agree that your opinion, while in no way presented as a proscription, would appear to suggest that Christians might not be entitled to our own belief system?
As to your opinion concerning trying to 'convert' someone; I agree. Any Bible-believing Christian should be aware that it is not within the power of any mortal to 'convert' someone--not to or from the Christian faith at least. The Scriptures are quite clear that, though man is to take the Gospel message to the nations, the work of salvation is God's alone.
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. (1 Corinthians 1:18-21, KJV)
Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.(1 Corinthians 3:5-7, KJV)
The Scriptures seem clear enough on the matter. Mortal man can “save” no one; that job belongs to God alone. There is a place for man in God's salvific program. We are to share the Gospel with the lost and help to build up the church, for “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Romans 10:17)
Each person has the ability to seek out and follow their own path, without persuasion from extreme fundamentalists who take the teachings and stories in the bible and twist them to suite their own purposes.
I am not familiar with your term "extreme fundamentalists." By your reference to twisting the teachings and stories in the Bible, I would argue that you are referring either to the Catholic Magisterium and those who hold to its teachings or those soi-disant Christians who appear to have no more understanding of the Scriptures than does a catfish. The meaning of your term aside, once again it would appear that you are arguing in favor of freedom of religious choice while, at the same time, arguing against the free exercise of their beliefs by those whom you identify as "extreme fundamentalists." What I read in your words is, in effect, "I believe in freedom of religion, so long as your religious position is the same as mine." This has been the essential position of the Catholic Church since even before Pope Innocent III instituted the Inquisition.
What follows is a brief time-line of the Catholic Church's idea of religious freedom. As you read down this list, please bear in mind that the edicts and definitions of popes and so-called ecumenical councils in matters of faith and morals are considered infallible and immutable by the Catholic Church:
1179 - Third Lateran Council convened by pope Alexander III (1159-1181). It advocated and commended the use of force against heretics by secular rulers. It condemned both the heretic and any one who protected them. It called for a crusade against heresy with indulgences granted to those who participated…
1184 - Pope Lucius III (1181-1185) issued Ad Abolendam which identified the heretical sects and commanded every bishop or archbishop to visit twice yearly any parish in which heresy had been reported. The bishop was to enlist the aid of the local political authorities in identifying and trying heretics. Severe penalties were put in place for either the bishop or any local rulers who failed to cooperate.
1198 - Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) calls for the execution of relapsed heretics when excommunication was ineffective. Innocent…was firmly committed to both eliminating heresy and recapturing the Holy Land during his pontificate. ..
1199 - Innocent III declares heresy as "treason against God" and proscribes the confiscation of the heretics goods. (Vergentis in senium).
1204 - Innocent III attempted to use the Cistercian monks as preachers against heresy in Narbonne, but their training proved inadequate.
1206-1220 - The formation of the Mendicant Orders. On November 17 1206 Innocent III issued a papal bull calling for preachers to "go humbly in search of heretics and lead them out of error." …These Mendicant Orders were directly responsible to the Pope and enabled him to greatly expand the scope of the Inquisition.
1207 - After unsuccessful negotiations, the papal legate Peter of Castlenau recommends to Innocent III that Raymond VI of Toulouse be excommunicated. Although there were no direct charges of heresy against Raymond, he was accused of being too lenient on the heretics in his realm and, among other things, appointing Jews to public office. Raymond was excommunicated, his lands put under interdict (withholding of the sacraments), and threatened with the invasion and partitioning of dominion. . . .
1207 - Innocent III declares (Cum ex officii nostri) as a "perpetual law" that the heretics goods shall be seized with the proceeds divided three ways - a third to those who apprehended him, a third to the court, and a third for the building of prisons to house heretics. Further, the heretics house is to be destroyed and not rebuilt. Those who were found guilty of the less serious charges of being "believers", "favorers" or "defenders" of heretics would be fined one fourth of their goods.
1207 - Innocent III invites Philip Augustus of France to attack the heretics in Southern France (Languedoc) and offers remittance of sins to "crusaders" and the martyr's death (skip purgatory and go straight to heaven) to those who die in battle. ate.
1208 - Innocent III launches the "Albigensian Crusade" after his legate, the Cistercian monk Peter of Castlenau, is murdered. The suspicion that Raymond VI was involved increases the pope's anger who pulls out all stops, granting indulgences of remission of sins for those who die in battle and permits looting of property. …
1209 - Simon of Montfort massacres 7,000 "heretics" during the siege of Bezier….
1215 - IV Lateran Council . . .The Council established the Inquisition to establish the principle of the supremacy of the religious doctrine embodied in the Church and to make this principle a reality by suasion, teaching and, if these failed, by force applied (at the order of the Church) by secular authorities. The twelfth century had seen a great deal of flexibility in the presentation and discussion of theological matters. The Fourth Lateran Council clearly intended that this flexibility and toleration should be ended." (Compiled from a lecture series by Lynn Harry Nelson, Emeritus Professor of Medieval History, The University of Kansas)
It should be noted that, concurrent with the loss of political clout in the European nations and their colonies, the Catholic Church's Inquisition pulled in its fangs. The Inquisition is still alive and well within the Vatican, however; going now by the title of Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Its prefect is one of the most powerful men in the Curia. Before he was elected pope, Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, was Prefect of that body..
You have a freedom of speech icon on your website, what about freedom of religion.
Oh, I do believe in both freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Except for those elected by God to salvation -- an election that is in no way affected by human will -- man certainly is free to exercise those freedoms as he wishes. Of course, when the exercise of those freedoms runs afoul of either the law of man or the law of God, there may follow unpleasant and un-wished-for consequences. "You pays yer money and you takes yer cherce," as the cliché saying goes.
