Historic persecution of catholics, jews, muslims, or whoever by Bible Christians


#1

I’ve got a problem with someone who, in the course of a discussion, is just throwing ridiculous stories about persecutions by the RCC at me. He/she is not willing to answer any more questions, and instead of defending the church anymore, which is going nowhere, I’m thinking I’d like to show that his Christianity is just as guilty historically as anyone else.
I have no intention of claiming the people within the RCC have been perfect over the years, my goal is only to prove that the messenger has nothing to do with the truth of the message.
Thanks
Oh, and links would be great!


#2

Who are “Bible Christians” historically? This is the problem. They don’t really hold themselves accountable to any historical community, so you can’t throw these kinds of accusations at them. If they hold to a “Trail of Blood” theory, I suppose you could talk about the Donatist Circumcellions (supposedly religious bandits who attacked people), or the Albigensian attacks on Catholics (though that would be a bit cheeky given the far greater bloodshed committed by Catholics against Albigensians), or the wacky Anabaptists in Munster who beheaded people and practiced polygamy. But that’s about it (these groups have little to do with modern fundamentalism–the Albigenses in particular–but they are often claimed as predecessors). However, since fundamentalists typically reject any state church as intrinsically corrupt, you really can’t stick them with much actual persecution.

If you are talking to a Calvinist, that’s different. Calvinists have persecuted people quite a bit.

Edwin


#3

Try googling a few interesting topics.

Cromwell in Ireland

Penal laws in Ireland.

Calvinists in South Africa.

Luther and the Jews


#4

Yeah, Contarini, I think you are right, that no matter what I might find, they will disassociate themselves by saying that the offending group did not read Scripture correctly. I’m going to give it a try anyway, if I can nail anything at all down.
thanks


#5

This site details 19th Century American Protestant Churches attitudes on slavery.

medicolegal.tripod.com/bulwarks.htm

Luther On the Jews and their Lies is here

humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm

List of priests martyred in Ireland 1540-1715

juventutemireland.blogspot.com/2007/03/irish-confessors-martyrs-1540-c1713.html


#6

LAWS IN IRELAND FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF POPERY
commonly known as the
PENAL LAWS

STATUTES BY SUBJECT – OFFICES and EMPLOYMENT
10.1
English Statute 3 Will & Mary c.2 (1691):
An Act for the Abrogating the Oath of Supremacy in Ireland and Appointing other Oaths
Sec.1-3 . No person residing in Ireland shall be obliged to take the oath of supremacy of 1 Eliz. Ch 1, but the oaths appointed to be taken by this present act shall be taken by those persons who were required by the said act, or any other statute made in Ireland, to take the abrogated oath. That is to say: all bishops and archbishops of Ireland, all persons above the degree of baron, all persons in Ireland having any employment or office ecclesiastical, civil or military, the head and fellows of the University of Dublin, master of any hospital or school, barrister, clerk in chancery, attorney, and professor of Law, Physick or other science. All prior acts, to the extent that they required the oath of supremacy, are repealed…
1.02
English Statute 3 Will & Mary c.2 (1691):
An Act for the Abrogating the Oath of Supremacy in Ireland and Appointing other Oaths
Sec.4. Every person that shall become a barrister at law, attorney, clerk, or other officer of the court in Ireland shall take the oaths of allegiance and abhorrence and make the declaration against transubstantiation in open court between nine and twelve in the forenoon, and said fact shall be recorded, before he shall be admitted to practice.
And all persons that shall be admitted into any office or employment, ecclesiastical or civil, who should have taken the oaths required by 1 Eliz. c. 1, shall take the said oaths and make said declaration.
1.04
English Statute 3 Will & Mary c.2 (1691):
An Act for the Abrogating the Oath of Supremacy in Ireland and Appointing other Oaths
Sec.7 If any peer of Ireland or member of the house of commons, or barrister, attorney, clerk, etc. shall offend contrary to this act, he shall be disabled to hold any office or place of trust or profit, ecclesiastical, civil, or military, sit or vote in Parliament, sue in court, be guardian to any child, or executor of any person, or capable of any legacy or gift, and shall forfeit 500 pounds to be recoverable by any informer who will sue for the same.
law.umn.edu/irishlaw/offices.html


#7

10 Will III c.13 (1698):
An Act to prevent Papists being Solicitors
Sec. 1. Whereas by experience in this kingdom papist solicitors are the common disturbers of the peace of his Majesty’s subjects in general, and whereas there are great number of papist solicitors practising within the several courts of law and equity, by whose numbers and the daily increase of them, great mischiefs are likely to ensue, no person shall practice as a solicitor or agent in any suit in law or equity, who has not taken the oaths prescribed by English 3&4 Will & Mary, c.2, and subscribed to the declaration against transubstantiation
1p.06
10 Will III c.13 (1698):
An Act to prevent Papists being Solicitors
Sec.1, cont. For every such offence, such person shall forfeit 100 pounds to the informer, and be incapable of acting as executor or administrator, or take any benefit by legacy, gift, grant of lands, goods or chattels.
1.07
10 Will III c 13 (1698):
An Act to prevent Papists being Solicitors
Sec. 2-4. Such person must also educate his children in the protestant religion Excepted from this act are persons acting on their own behalf, menial servants on behalf of their master, and persons who were solicitors or agents in the reign of King Charles II and comprehended within the articles of Limerick.
1.08
English Statute 1 Ann stat 2, c.21 (1702):
An Act for enlarging the Time for taking the Oath of Abjuration …
Sec. 4,5. Every person that shall bear any office military or civil, or shall receive any grant from her Majesty, or shall have command or place of trust under her Majesty in Ireland, shall take the revised oath of abjuration, as well as the other oaths and declaration against transubstantiation required by {English) 3 Will. and Mary ch 2. All ecclesiastical persons, masters, head, and fellows of the university of Dublin, school-teachers, and barristers, attorneys, solicitors, proctors, and notaries in Ireland shall take such oath of abjuration during Easter term 1703 or upon first entering into such office.
1.09
English Statute 1 Ann, stat 2, c.21 (1702):
An Act for enlarging the Time for taking the Oath of Abjuration …
Sec. 6. Every person who shall fail to take said oaths etc. shall incur those penalties of English statute 13 Will. III c. 6, that apply to persons in England. (English Statute 3 Will and Mary, ch 2 viz shall be ipso facto incapable to enjoy the office etc.)
1.10
English Statute 1 Ann, stat 2, c.21 (1702):
An Act for enlarging the Time for taking the Oath of Abjuration …
Sec. 12. This act shall not extend to the inferior offices such as constable, overseer of the poor, church warden, etc.
1.11
2 Ann c.6 (1703):
An Act to prevent the further Growth of Popery
Sec. 16-17. All persons that shall bear any office civil or military, or receive any pay from or have place of trust under her Majesty, on the first day of Easter Term, 1704, shall personally appear in one of her Majesty’s Four Courts, and in open court take the several oaths and declaration of 3 Will & Mary, and also shall at the same time take the oath of abjuration of English Statute 1 Ann ch 17. And such person shall also receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper according to the usage of the established church of Ireland, and provide certificates of having done so. All persons that shall be admitted into any such office etc. after such date shall take the same oaths etc either in said courts or at the general quarter sessions where they shall reside, and fulfill the like requirements…
1.111
2 Ann c.6 (1703):
An Act to prevent the further Growth of Popery
Sec. 18. All persons aforesaid who shall refuse to take such oaths etc. shall be ipso facto incapable to enjoy the said offices or any profit appertaining to them. And any person who shall execute such offices after the said times expired wherein they ought to have taken the said oaths etc. shall on conviction be disabled to sue at law or equity, or be guardian of any child, or capable of any legacy or gift, or bear any office, and shall forfeit 500 pounds.
1.112
2 Ann c.6 (1703):
An Act to prevent the further Growth of Popery
Secs. 19-22. Give procedural details on administering this statute, and provide it shall not apply to inferior civil offices, or private offices, such as forester or keeper of any park or game.
1.12
6 Ann. c.6 (1707):
An Act to explain …An Act to prevent Papists being Solicitors
Sec. 1-4. Papists who act as solicitors or agents without having taken the required oaths forfeit 200 pounds. Any person whatsoever may demand that said oaths be tendered to a suspected popish solicitor etc, and upon refusal, and proof by two witnesses that said solicitor etc. has acted as such, such papist shall be convict and forfeit to the person demanding the oaths the sum of 200 pounds.
1.121


#8

8 Ann c.3 (1709):
An Act for explaining … an Act to Prevent the further Growth of Popery
Sec. 37. No papist in trade shall keep more than two apprentices at a time, except in the hempen and flaxen manufacture, and that for no less a term of apprenticeship than 7 years, on pain of forfeiting 100 pounds to the informer.
1.142
2 Geo I c.10 (1715):
An Act to Restrain Papists from being High or Petty Constables,…
Sec. 1. Whereas the due execution of the laws, and the preservation of the publick peace, do greatly depend on the diligence and fidelity of the high and petty constables, and forasmuch as the said offices in most parts of this kingdom, and especially in such places as are for the most part inhabited by papists, are placed in the hands of persons of the popish religion, who in favour to such as are of their own persuasion, and by the instigation and authority of the popish priests, do neglect to execute warrants, by means of which the many good and wholesome laws against notorious criminals, and especially against papists, have not the intended effects, from the 24th day of June, 1715 no person of the popish religion shall be high constable in any county, barony, or half-barony, or petty constable in any manor, ward, parish, constable-wick, or place within this kingdom.
1.143
2 Geo I c.10 (1715):
An Act to Restrain Papists from being High or Petty Constables,…
Sec. 2. Every person to be appointed high or petty constable shall first take the oath of abjuration and other oaths and declaration required by 2 Ann c. 6, as well as the oath of office of constable as set forth in section 7 hereof.

2 Geo I c.10 (1715):
An Act to Restrain Papists from being High or Petty Constables,…
Sec. 7 cont. The justices of the peace shall administer the oath of office to high and petty constables, in which they swear to serve the king in the office of constable, cause the peace to be well kept, arrest all papists bearing arms without licence, arrest all papists as commit any riot or meet on patron days to perform the superstitious devotions of the church of Rome, likewise all papists who unlawfully assemble or commit any other breach of the peace; use their best endeavours to apprehend all traitors, all popish archbishops, regular clergy, unregistered secular clergy etc. and all popish schoolmasters, and all harbourers of them; suppress all riots and apprehend all rioters, and if any such offender makes resistance, raise the hue and cry; endeavour that the watches of the parish be regularly kept, and that the statutes for punishing rogues and vagabonds be executed; have a watchful eye to any common house where unlawful game is used, as also to such as shall frequent such places; execute all warrants directed from the justices of the peace and all other things belonging to the office of constable; and truly account for public money collected pursuant to any warrant.
1.147
10 Geo I c.3 (1723):
An Act for continuing and amending… an Act for the better regulating the Parish Watches…
Sec. 5. No person keeping publick inns, ale-houses, or houses of entertainment, or papists, shall be qualified to act as constables, but shall at their turn find some fit person who is Protestant to serve in their stead, or pay a sum not more than 5 pounds to enable the parishioners to fit such fit person.
1.15


#9

7 Geo II c.5 (1733):
An Act for the Amendment of the Law in relation to Popish Solicitors; …
Sec. 5. Any popish solicitor found to have acted as a solicitor shall be punished as for contempt of court by fine of not more than 50 pounds nor less than 25 pounds, or imprisonment not exceeding 6 months
1.204
7 Geo II c.5 (1733):
An Act for the Amendment of the Law in relation to Popish Solicitors; …
Sec. 6. And for the more easy conviction of such disqualified solicitor, every person shall be deemed a solicitor who, not being qualified, draws up pleadings or abbreviates evidence for use in any suit, or takes on the management of any suit in the Four Courts in which he is not a party or concerned in the interest.
1.205

7 Geo II c.5 (1733):
An Act for the Amendment of the Law in relation to Popish Solicitors; …
Sec. 12-13. Any barrister, attorney, six-clerk, or solicitor ( such solicitors as were comprehended within the articles of Limerick excepted) who marries a popish wife, or permits his children to be educated in the popish religion shall be deemed a papist and disabled from practice, unless within one year he shall procure the conversion of his wife to the protestant religion. Provided such disability shall cease after the death of such popish wife.
1.208
7 Geo II c.5 (1733):
An Act for the Amendment of the Law in relation to Popish Solicitors; …
Sec. 17-18. No one may practise as a solicitor in the lower courts who is not qualified hereunder in the Four Courts in Dublin, except that such persons may practise in any suit or prosecution for a crime punishable by death.
1.3
7 Geo II c.6 (1733):
An Act to prevent Persons converted from the Popish to the Protestant Religion, … from acting as Justices of the Peace.
Sec. 1. No convert from the popish to the protestant religion shall be capable of acting as a justice of the peace if his wife is papist, or if he causes his children under the age of 16 years to be educated in the popish religion.
And if such a person does act as a justice of the peace, such person shall suffer one year’s imprisonment, and forfeit one hundred pounds, half to his Majesty, and half to the informer, and henceforth such person shall be forever incapable of being an executor, administrator, or guardian.
law.umn.edu/irishlaw/offices.html


#10

What makes you think that “Bible Christians” will identify themselves with any of these groups? You’re on most solid ground with Cromwell. But we are not just talking about Protestantism in general here–many fundamentalists would say that of course Protestants have been corrupt and oppressive because they were insufficiently purified from the errors of Catholicism, including the concept of a state church. It is worthwhile in that case to point out that in fact many forms of Protestantism (particularly Lutheranism and Anglicanism) marked a far more enthusiastic acceptance of the state church than was present among Catholics. But this won’t really do much along the lines the OP is hoping for.

Perhaps I shouldn’t be so pessimistic. I know that for me the discovery of how vicious Protestants had been was a major blow, because I was brought up to think that the Reformers were basically “good guys,” and when I encountered fundamentalists who essentially wrote off the Reformation it helped convince me that the whole mentality of “those people weren’t real Christians” was a mistake. But a dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalist is less likely to react that way.

Edwin


#11

Most fundamentalists (so-called “bible christians”) trace back both their origin and theology directly from these groups.

Very few (and these are usually unitarian) do not derive their theology from Luther-Calvin or both. Usually their church is a breakaway.

Pentecostals come from Baptists, presbyterians etc

Baptists, Prebyterians come from Church of Scotland or Church of England

Church of Scotland comes from Calvin direct

Church of England is based on Luther and Calvin.

If they’re claiming that Catholics are responsible for their forebears but they aren’t, that’s illogical.

If they’re claiming the True Church started with their particular sect - that’s easily exploded

If they’re claiming some “trail of blood” background of “true, hidden” Christians. Ask for proof this is any more than a fantasy.


#12

Some do, some don’t. By and large the more extreme ones don’t. Even if they glorify the Reformation as a break with Catholicism, they will still say that the Reformers had a lot of Catholic “baggage,” and generally consider their support for a state church (which went together with a willingness to persecute) part of that baggage.

Very few (and these are usually unitarian) do not derive their theology from Luther-Calvin or both. Usually their church is a breakaway.

Actually Unitarians are generally renegade Calvinists. I’m not talking about historical reality, but about fundamentalist self-understanding. Sure their theology derives from the Reformation (with a lot of major modifications), but many of them won’t admit it.

If they’re claiming that Catholics are responsible for their forebears but they aren’t, that’s illogical.

Well not necessarily. I, for instance, was taught growing up that all churches got something wrong, and that the Holy Spirit was always working to lead Christians into more truth and away from the corruptions of human tradition that kept creeping into every church. That view does exempt one from responsibility for one’s forebears to a great extent–one can simply say that there were a lot of things they didn’t see clearly. Catholics don’t get to say that (well, obviously they can say it to some extent, but not in a way that involves rejecting outright the doctrinal teaching of the past or just washing one’s hands of responsibility for the mistakes of the past). That is what I find appealing and admirable about Catholicism, and what I find reprehensible about the form of Christianity I was brought up in. It lacks responsibility and humility. It demands a constant reinvention of the wheel as the price of following the Holy Spirit. But it’s not inconsistent–just wrong.

If they’re claiming some “trail of blood” background of “true, hidden” Christians. Ask for proof this is any more than a fantasy.

I think you’re losing sight of the OP’s issue. The “trail of blood” is a fantasy, and it’s worthwhile trying to prove this to fundamentalists (though very difficult given their conspiratorial view of history). But obviously refuting the “trail of blood” involves proving to them that their roots lie in Catholicism, not just in the Reformation. My point is that most fundamentalists do not consider themselves responsible for what the Reformers did any more than they are responsible for what the medieval Church did. They consider the Reformation a great improvement, but insofar as it still involved things they disagreed with they can wash their hands of it as easily as of pre-Reformation Catholicism.

In other words, the persecutions engaged in by the Reformers (as I said, you may be on sounder footing with Cromwell, but not necessarily) were not engaged in by “Bible Christians,” even though “Bible Christians” (if they don’t buy the “Trail of Blood” in its radical form) see the Reformers as their forebears.

Edwin


#13

Bring up the Salem Witch Trials and the KKK. The KKK through most of its existence has gone arm-in-arm with bible-belt Christianity, even including recruiting in their churches and having pastors hold important positions in the organization.


#14

In the States and especially across the south wasn’t the power of the KKK largely held by the bible christians that you speak of. That would be a good group of christians acting in a non-christian manner, claiming God given rights to do so. Sick isn’t it.

In the early 1900’s my local Catholic Newspaper used to publish the names of the prominent protestant families in the Klan so the unsuspecting Catholic popluation would know who to watch out for. Catholics feared for their lives in those times because of their God given faith. That is still in recent memory for some.


#15

There is a good article on Wikipedia called: Anti-Catholicism. In the USA, anti-Catholicism was rampant and to a certain extent, still is. That’s what we get for sticking up for the truth, though.


#16

Do not get so caught up in an argument that you fall prey to the sin of pride and act uncharitably.

We are all burdened by history, but burdened far more by our own sins.

Do not get so caught up in a discussion of other people’s sins, particularly of the dead, that you lose sight of your own.

It’s probably best at those moments to simply smile, say, “I love you, my brother/sister in Christ—may God bless you” and leave it alone.

Sometimes we forget that our best argument is living as Christ would have us live.


#17

“Do not be conquered by evil, but conquer evil with good.” Romans 12:21

Remember, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ, Himself. (Matthew 16:17-19.) When we have the truth on our side(1 Timothy 3:15), there is no need to resort to mudslinging. In a charitable manner, we can Scripturally and historically correct the errors of those who oppose us; but we should leave mudslinging to those who don’t have anything virtuous or true to say about themselves.

As Catholics, we are called to “Never let evil talk pass from your lips; say only the good things men need to hear, things that will really help them.” (Ephesians 4:29) “Get rid of all bitterness, all passion and anger, harsh words, slander, and malice of every kind. In place of these be kind to one another, compassionate, and mutually forgiving, just as God has forgiven you in Christ.” (Ephesians 4:31-32)


#18

1. Does swapping accusations of evil-doing help the swappers to grow in Christ ? Satan accuses us day & night before the throne of God (Rev.12) - let’s not help him by imitating what he rejoices to do.

  1. We are absolutely forbidden, by Christ Himself, & by His Apostles, to return evil for evil - unless we deny ourselves the pleasure of doing so, we shall be unable to kick the habit.

  2. The sins of Christians do not make Christ into satan, true - but they do dishonour Him.

  3. If someone is not open to further discussion, there is no good in trying to continue talking. Prayer will do far more good than argument.

Being Christian is very counter-intuitive :slight_smile: :o


#19

Let us not forget the persecution of the american Indians either. It was more political but it remains that it was justified by churches. There were some critics at the time in protestantism but the voice was barely heard.

As far as persecutions, the catholic church still has to apologize for some of them. St. Bartholomew massacre anyone? Why is a pope apologizing for insulting the Koran but not for killing 16,000 protestants in one day. Catholics have to defend themselves because the authority of the infallible church has not changed in that time according to their belief. Protestants are free from such defence of their actions because there are so many different kinds of us… Unfortunately, the unity over protestant orthodoxy fractured in the 19th century.

Now for reformers vs catholics are concerned. What happened to the 2 million hugonauts? Who are they? They don’t exist anymore. What about the lutheran wars? It decimated 1/2 of Germany’s population. What about the hundred year war with hussites? They gave up because it turned into a war of attrition. It is understandable if people like John Knox were just as vicious against catholics. Catholic Spain was about to rain down cannon fire on England with its armada. It was also common practice to consider all protestants as bastards and kidnapped their children to raise them in monestaries as Catholic in France. It was a dark time that requires answers. This was spiritually motivated. It was not just spiritually condoned.

Now, I am not saying protestants were sinless. Far from it. It is just that history shows that evils of Catholicism far outweighed what was inflicted by the protestants in that time. This may be because protestants had less oppertunity and were out of power. Indwelling sin is still a nasty thing in a believer. Yet, I see that the list is rather small in comparison for Protestant attrocities in this time. Primarily the sacking, theft, and outlaw of all things catholic is not the same as not mass murder or mass kidnapping.


#20

Let us not forget the persecution of the american Indians either. It was more political but it remains that it was justified by churches. There were some critics at the time in protestantism but the voice was barely heard.

As far as persecutions, the catholic church still has to apologize for some of them. St. Bartholomew massacre anyone? Why is a pope apologizing for insulting the Koran but not for killing 16,000 protestants in one day. Catholics have to defend themselves because the authority of the infallible church has not changed in that time according to their belief. Protestants are free from such defence of their actions because there are so many different kinds of us… Unfortunately, the unity over protestant orthodoxy fractured in the 19th century.

Now for reformers vs catholics are concerned. What happened to the 2 million hugonauts? Who are they? They don’t exist anymore. What about the lutheran wars? It decimated 1/2 of Germany’s population. What about the hundred year war with hussites? They gave up because it turned into a war of attrition. It is understandable why people like John Knox were just as vicious against catholics. Catholic Spain was about to rain down cannon fire on England with its armada if it were not for an act of God. It was also common practice to consider all protestants as bastards and kidnapped their children to raise them in monestaries as Catholic in France. It was a dark time that requires answers. This was spiritually motivated. It was not just spiritually condoned.

Now, I am not saying protestants were sinless. Far from it, the were all too willing to enter into politics. It is just that history shows that evils of Catholicism far outweighed what was inflicted by the protestants in that time. This may be because protestants had less oppertunity and were out of power. Indwelling sin is still a nasty thing in a believer. Yet, I see that the list is rather small in comparison for Protestant attrocities in this time. The sacking, theft, and outlaw of all things catholic is not the same as not mass murder or mass kidnapping.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.