"Odd" Darkfriends (possible spoilers)

[FarShainMael]

I think that the white cloaks are based on the Catholic church. They were VERY corrupt at one point.

I think both the whitecloaks and certain aspects of the white tower reflect the catholic church. and the church has always been corrupt if you ask me

 

The Catholic Church has never been corrupt.

 

Some of its members however (including a more than a few popes) now that's a different matter. Bear in mind that the CC is a hospital for sick souls. 'I come to call sinners, not the just, to repentance.'

 

[Durinax]

I think that the white cloaks are based on the Catholic church. They were VERY corrupt at one point.

I think both the whitecloaks and certain aspects of the white tower reflect the catholic church. and the church has always been corrupt if you ask me

 

The Catholic Church has never been corrupt.

 

Some of its members however (including a more than a few popes) now that's a different matter. Bear in mind that the CC is a hospital for sick souls. 'I come to call sinners, not the just, to repentance.'

 

typically when members of the church, high or low are corrupt the whole thing gets labelled corrupt, like the children of the light, there where noble ones.

but I would also like to point out that the church has condones many terrible acts which goes against what they teach. and I remember an instance when they where short on cash they wandered about telling people to put money in a box to pay for future sins

[Taryntula]

The Whitecloaks are based on the Inquisition, which was a movement within the Catholic church to stomp out what they saw as "heresy." The most famous being the Spanish Inquisition and it's spread to England under Queen Mary (aka Bloody Mary). It was not based on the Catholic Church as a whole...the Whitecloaks are a militant group, and until the Inquisition the Catholic Church did not institute militant means to repress heretics.

 

Also, the Catholic Church was rife with corruption during the Medieval period...that's why there was a Reformation in the Catholic Church around the time of Martin Luther and his 95 theses. You don't have a reformation if everything is peachy-keen. People were told they had to pay money to the church to absolve their sins (which, Biblically, only God through the blood of Christ can do), and the selling of "holy relics" to the congregation as talismans and absolution. They kept the Bible in Latin and wouldn't print it in the people's tongue so that they had control of what the congregation thought (but using the excuse that Latin was a "holy" language). I do agree that not everyone in the CC was corrupt...otherwise Martin Luther wouldn't have nailed his 95 theses to the door, but as a whole they were promoting practices that were totally unbiblical and only for the purpose of gaining money and power for the church. This isn't an "I hate Catholics" speach, I have much respect for my Catholic brothers and sisters, but you cant' erase history...as shameful as it is sometimes.

[mb]

About the 95 theses, I take Martin Luther was not the one to nail them to the door; someone else did.

From a book I read, I take Martin Luther sent 3 copies of the theses.  I do not have time now to post it but would later.

 

[scion9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Legend

 

Martin Luther was no err..Saint?  For lack of a better term.  Many of his views (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_their_lies) could certainly be deemed to be 'Unbiblical' and the Bible is only the last word on theology among Protestants any way.  Sola Scriptura doesn't come along into the Christian world until after the Crusades into the Holy Land (and is oddly reminiscent of the Islamic reverence for the Koran and the whole 'Mother of Books' doctrine.)  The Bible as the soul source of Christian authority, a core tenet of Lutheranism and most Protestant sects doesn't actually come from either Christian tradition or the Bible itself. 

 

The idea that the Catholic Church then or now is uniquely corrupt above and beyond all other organizations, and that even their theology is proof of their iniquity is certainly a relic of the Reformation and to an extent the French Revolution.  It's not at all inconsistent with very early Christian beliefs that theological and Christian authority derives from Priests and Church heirarchy and <em>not</em> the Bible.  For that matter the Protestants weren't any more friendly in their purges of non-Protestants than Catholics were of non-Catholics.  In many cases, such as England, they were actually much, much worse.

 

The medieval theology of the Catholic Church, while in some places could be said to be logically inconsistent (such as being able to 'prove' the existence of God through unaided reason, which is obviously impossible) isn't any more 'unChristian' than Calvinism, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, et al.

 

Also, Christian crusading military orders obviously date from the 1st Crusade which was launched in 1095.  The first Inquisitions were assembled in the mid 12th century to persecute heretical groups in southern France; so clearly the Catholic Church persued military means well before the Inquisition.  Not to mention Christianity became the Imperial Cult of Rome under Constantine I, and the Chi Rho being added to Roman vexilla, it could be said that the early Church certainly had military might at it's command well before the 1st Crusade even.

[mb]

From the book I mentioned::

Luther did not shape his opposition to indulgences all at once. He seems to have wavered, trying to reconcile the pope's claims with his own developing theology as Tetzel moved across the German lands in the spring and summer of 1517, hawking his wares. But when Tetzel set up shop in Juterborg and Wittenbergers went out to buy indulgences, Luther was faced with a pastoral issue. He felt obligated to intervene when his people were led astry. He did what ecclesiastical etiquette of the time required when one was offended with an abuse in church practice. He wrote a humble letter to his archbishop, Albrecht of Brandenburg. Luther enclosed ninety-five theses or propositions for debate for the pious consideration of the man who was splitting the take of the indulgence traffic.

Several paragraphs later:

Certainly the theses were quickly translated and circulated and Luther suddenly was propelled into fame. But in 1961 a German Catholic scholar, Erwin Iserloh, raised a question: Were the theses posted? In the current mood of Catholic ecumenicity, Iserloh was sympathetic to Luther. But he considered these facts. Nowhere in his table talk in later years did Luther speak of posting the Ninety-five Theses on the church door. In none of his own works reviewing the beginning of the controversy does he mention any public posting. He recalled that he preached to his people about grace and remission of sins against the shallow proclamations of the indulgence sellers, and he seems to have discussed the matter in private with associates and to have sent copies of the theses to learned friends. But none of this resembles a public act of hammering the theses onto a church door and calling for a disputation.

 

[Taryntula]

Just to be clear, scion9, I do not believe Martin Luther was a "saint." I believe he was a catalyst for change.