The New Age game plan is here set forth in Alice Bailey's THE RAYS AND THE INITIATIONS which may be read on line at this link:
http://tinyurl.com/37wmgcp
"There are certain areas of evil in the world today through which these forces of darkness can reach humanity. What they are and where they are I do not intend to say. I would point out, however, that Palestine should no longer be called the Holy Land; its sacred places are only the passing relics of three dead and gone religions. The spirit has gone out of the old faiths and the true spiritual light is transferring itself into a new form which will manifest on earth eventually as the new world religion. To this form all that is true and right and good in the old forms will contribute, for the forces of right will withdraw that good, and incorporate it in the new form. Judaism is old, obsolete and separative and has no true message for the spiritually-minded which cannot be better given by the newer faiths; the Moslem faith has served its purpose and all true Moslems await the coming of the Imam Mahdi who will lead them to light and to spiritual victory; the Christian faith also has served its purpose; its Founder seeks to bring a new Gospel and a new message that will enlighten all men everywhere. Therefore, Jerusalem stands for nothing of importance today, except for that which has passed away and should pass away. The "Holy Land" is no longer holy, but is desecrated by selfish interests, and by a basically separative and conquering nation.
The task ahead of humanity is to close the door upon this worst and yet secondary evil and shut it in its own place. There is enough for humanity to do in transmuting planetary evil without undertaking to battle with that which the Masters Themselves can only keep at bay, but [755] cannot conquer. The handling of this type of evil and its dissipation, and therefore the release of our planet from its danger, is the destined task of Those Who work and live in "the center where the Will of God is known," at Shamballa; it is not the task of the Hierarchy or of humanity. Remember this, but remember also that what man has loosed he can aid to imprison; this he can do by fostering right human relations, by spreading the news of the approach of the spiritual Hierarchy, and by preparing for the reappearance of the Christ. Forget not also, the Christ is a Member of the Great Council at Shamballa and brings the highest spiritual energy with Him. Humanity can also cease treading the path to the "door where evil dwells" and can remove itself and seek the Path which leads to light and to the Door of Initiation."
I for one hope to avoid playing into this New Age game plan of pitting all monotheists violently against each other so that they Aryan, blue-eyed pagans can be the Phoenix to arise from our ashes. Eventually it will happen. It is prophesied. But I have no desire to help it along. Jesus said, IT IS INEVITABLE BUT THAT EVIL COME, BUT WOE TO HIM THROUGH WHOM IT COMES."
I deeply respect OMOTS and his opinions, but I believe this time he has not seen this aspect of the New Age picture and how close he and others who are like minded are coming to acting out that portion of THE ARMAGEDDON SCRIPT -- pitting "Old Ager" against "Old Ager." I further suspect the agent saboteur (whom I strongly suspect to be Rick Abanes acting on behalf of Rick Warren) has to have deep connections with what he purports to battle here inasmuch as John Esposito is closely connected to the very people Rick Warren works so closely with at the World Economic Forum as well as the ALLIANCE OF CIVILIZATIONS.
Constance
675 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 675 Newer› Newest»""...“There may be evidence out there to the contrary, but so far, I have not seen really convincing evidence that "Allah" is not God."-Constance Cumbey
Really?? You have GOT to be kidding. Either that or you are a disinformation agent.
To Anon. 10:55:
You clearly do not understand what indulgences are!
If you are interested in learning the Truth, here is a good place to start:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Myths_About_Indulgences.asp
God bless,
Lisa
Frankly, 5.54pm, if you spoke to me like that on my blog then you'd get axed. Even if you were right.
You have been distorting Constance's words and splitting hairs for quite some time here.
Moslems do believe in the God of Abraham whom many Christians believe to be God the Father. Whether or not Constance has correctly interpreted Moslems' theology does not make her Islamic or compromised as you have argued here. You have improperly quoted her which has been pointed out by many. You refuse to account for Constance's statements where she clearly says Moselms are in error.
Regarding her "editing statements on acceptable worship", nice try. Blogspot administrators can only remove comments, not edit them. This includes our own. Any change requires a delete and repost which would have placed the comment in chronological order.
Regarding the anti-Semitic network, while some of the programming may be questionable, this doesn't make all the programming there anti-Semitic. Anyone can start a Blogtalk radio show including racists and anti-Semites. Should competing voices be silenced because you don't like one of the other programs?
You clearly have an axe to grind and your posts have been incredibly nasty towards the woman. Give it a break.
""...“There may be evidence out there to the contrary, but so far, I have not seen really convincing evidence that "Allah" is not God."
-Constance Cumbey
Constance, I think you have gone far past what I would allow on my own blog site from one of your posters. There is a way to block IP addresses which I would encourage you to do.
""...“There may be evidence out there to the contrary, but so far, I have not seen really convincing evidence that "Allah" is not God."-Constance Cumbey
Lisa,
This is Anon to whom you replied re indulgences (but ducked my question of 10.47am about the mass murder of the Waldensians - whom you accused of being peaceful! - by Catholic Inquisitors and their agents).
Sin, repentance and forgiveness is between the sinner, God, and any person wronged by the sin. It is nobody else's business, and that includes the church (Catholic or protestant), although churchmen *may* mediate if they are acceptable to both human parties (see Luke 12:14 for the acceptability criterion).
The URL to which you directed me manages not to say that Tetzel was preaching the release of *others* from purgatory if people on earth gave money to the church. It refers to 'abuses' stamped out at Trent, but did Rome ever give anybody their money back at that time? And if the money was for the poor, why did the Catholic church insist that it be distributed through itself - why did the local priest not just say to rich man 'A', "poor man "B" is short this week, give it to him"?
As for time in purgatory supposedly being reduced
by doing what the church says... OK this is called dispensation rather than indulgences but it is still a terrible abuse. No time in purgatory if you died in battle on the first Crusade! Reduced time in purgatory if you went on it and came back safely! Guaranteed personally by the Pope! To me this is a reductio ad absurdum argument against the claim, but I'd be interested to know if you believe it.
Lisa,
The typical Roman Catholic view of the Catholic church in the late Middle Ages and Renaissance era is that it contained some corruption but when all is said and done it *was* the church, and that is that. I question this. Look closely at mediaeval Europe and you will find small groups of Christians who wished to meet peaceably outside Roman authority to worship Jesus Christ in their own way and pray to him in their own words. These included the Waldensians in northern Italy and the Lollards in England. Following ecclesiastical trials, they were persecuted and burned as heretics. The New Testament says that the church will be persecuted by the world for its faith (2 Tim 3:12; see also Jesus’ words in John 15:18-20), it will be peaceful, it will be a small minority (Matt 22:14), it will not be rigidly hierarchical. So, by the criteria of the scriptures accepted by all churches including Rome, these small groups such as the Lollards and the Waldensians *were* the church, whereas Catholicism, the mainstream religion of the people of Europe, had mutated to become 'the world'. In deciding who was the church we must use scripture's own criteria, not Rome’s. Rome accepts those scriptures as canonical, after all.
Today things are better, and I know many Catholics who know and love the Lord Jesus Christ. I also know that many protestants go to church and don’t love Him. 'The church' is simply the collective of those who do. But Catholics must acknowledge their own history.
Rudi,
Thanks for pointing this out, it does change the dynamic a little. It clearly changes what Constance has said to she believes that they worship the same God, but at some point fell into error. I have other opinions which I have discussed with her and posted on here. The fact is I believe they did start out worshiping the same God (your Bible tells you this) but at some point were taken in by pagan gods. Pre Mohammed there was clearly a mixing of beliefs and they live with them to this day.
Constance clearly stated she had not seen evidence that supported they were separate deities. I posted some which she responded to positively, so clearly she is not beyond reproach. Nor is she capable of being 100% correct all the time. No matter how hard one tries to twist it, her statement was that Muslim theology was not a suitable replacement. Her following it with a reference to Romans 2 was stating she was in no position to judge them on their error. The fact is none of us are, we can refute the theology all we want, but we have no place judging someone else for it.
Like I said, I don't completely agree with her position, but I don't completely agree with the other either. Because the facts are the Ishmaelites did start out worshiping the same God, there was a point of confusion and mixing with pagan beliefs, and we all agree that what came out the other side was a faith full of errors. What we are disagreeing on is really about the intent of the Muslims and whether or not they are still directing their worship toward the Father, even if in erroneous ways.
Lisa,
For the 1st 1,000 years there was only one church. There still is only one Catholic church. They are over 30,000+ Protestant churches, that can't even agree with each other on doctrine, who are you to teach Catholics about it.
The Catholic rule of faith is Scripture and Apostolic Tradition.
If you can find evidence for the fact that the early church subscribed to Sola Scriptura, then you have a right to say that these other groups were poor Christians being persecuted. If not it was heretics trying to undermine the church established by Christ.
I don't advocate the use of force or violence against anybody and the Catholic church has apologized for these things.
The early Protestant reformers were not into free speech or freedom of religion either.
Luther fought against Catholic corruptions, only to encounter the same things in his churches.
Protestants should acknowledge their own history, instead of pointing fingers at Catholics. Pathetic really.
Philip Jenkins, Distinguished Professor of History and Religious Studies at Pennsylvania State University and a self-professed Episcopalian, remarked on the Inquisition in his book, The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice (2003). Below are a couple of pertinent quotes:
"There never was such a thing as a Church-wide inquisition, a terrifying monolith comparable to the NKVD or the Gestapo. It is more accurate to think of inquisitions that operated extensively in some areas in a highly decentralized way, although they notionally acted under papal authority. Inquisitions were important at certain times and places but never existed in other areas."
"The main problem about speaking of 'the Inquisition' is that it suggests that religious repression of this sort was a Catholic prerogative. In fact, before the Enlightenment, virtually all religious traditions on occasion acted similarly when they had the power to do so..This indictment of religious savagery and intolerance applies to.all the Protestant nations, even relatively liberal ones such as England and the Netherlands..Equally blameworthy would be Muslims, Hindus, and even Buddhists. After all, in the seventeenth century, when Catholic inquisitions were at their height, the Buddhist/Shinto nation of Japan was engaged in a ferocious attempt to stamp out the deviant faith of Christianity through torture and massacre. In just forty years, these Japanese religious persecutions killed far more victims than the Spanish Inquisition would in all the centuries of its existence."
Lisa,
Sorry about that. My response was intended for anon @7:36 p.m. and not for you.
Anon @7:36 p.m.
I asked John a question earlier and I would ask you the same again. Why should we trust YOUR interpretations of scripture? You reject the need for a priesthood and visible church. There are Protestants who do not.
While all the bickering continues here the Scientology advertises on National Geographic! Did nt they claim to be a church? Howcome a church advertises on NatGeo? Oh and it is a very appealing ad-just makes you to want to JUMP in!
God will be the judge of every Catholic and Protestant and Believer`s heart! So DropIt!
melinda
Susanna,
Am trying to understand the links between Freemasonry and the occult better better. You wrote: "It is also important to understand that when Luciferians wax philosophical, they tend to wax Manichaean." Could you elaborate on this?
Thanks!
This is for the lack of information here:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39844
http://tinyurl.com/2ccxnk8
http://bigpeace.com/ipt/2010/11/12/some-moderate-imam-friend-of-professors-and-hollywood-wants-nukes-for-muslims-to-terrorize-their-enemies/
http://tinyurl.com/234trrh
This is for Rich Peterson, who should go to work for the Obama administration:
"The initiatives would mark a turning point in Internet policy. Recent administrations typically steered away from Internet regulations out of concern for stifling innovation. But the increasingly central role of personal information in the Internet economy helped spark government action, according to people familiar with the situation."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703848204575608970171176014.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLETopStories
http://tinyurl.com/2bp4jb5
Constance, hurry and free your conscience and delete!
At least what you people are saying makes me think!
To: Anon@9.15pm (and @9.31pm, if different)
From: Anon@7.36pm
You ask why you should trust my interpretation of scripture. I'm not asking you to. I'm asking you to dispute it with me and be prepared to have your mind changed as to what God is saying. That is what I do in Bible study with Christians of any denomination. 'Interpretation' is a red herring, as most of scripture is easy to understand; the hard thing is to obey it.
I figured out that your response was for me not Lisa!
"For the 1st 1,000 years there was only one church."
You are thinking of 'church' in terms of denominations defined by hierarchies. I don't (although I'd like a reference for that claim of 30,000 protestant denominations). The New Testament church consisted of a congregation in each town, run by an internal council of episkopoi/presbyteroi, with no hierarchy above it. Jesus took personal responsibility for oversight of the 7 congregations of Asia Minor in Rev 2&3 and never criticised their independence or ordered a diocesan merger.
Christianity came to Britain during the Roman occupation when the early church had this decentralised structure. It flourished in the north and west of the British Isles as the 'Celtic church,' independent of Rome. When, three centuries later, the more centralised hierarchy that had developed in Rome sent missionaries, they were astonished to find this church - which accepted Roman authority at the Synod of Whitby (to my regret). So how many churches do you say there were in those three centuries?
"If you can find evidence for the fact that the early church subscribed to Sola Scriptura, then you have a right to say that these other groups were poor Christians being persecuted. If not it was heretics trying to undermine the church established by Christ."
The Lollards in England and the Waldensians in northern Italy believed in Jesus Christ and His scriptures and were peaceful. For that they were mortally persecuted by Rome, which wanted to retain its monopoly. How heretical is it to commit mass murder against peaceful people who profess the Lord Jesus Christ?
To call them heretics does not advance this dialogue because you are using Rome's criteria, which I do not accept (ie, the apostolic succession of bishops; for me a family tree of faith is enough such that every Christian has picked up the faith from a Christian, from a Christian... from Christ.) We both accept the scriptures, so please argue from them. To do so is not to accept Sola Scriptura but simply to proceed from common ground.
"The early Protestant reformers were not into free speech or freedom of religion either."
It took time to wash totalitarian thinking out of the mindset of the Reformed churches, so ingrained had it become. But the anabaptists were into freedom of conscience very quickly.
"Protestants should acknowledge their own history, instead of pointing fingers at Catholics."
You see only Catholic and protestant, but here in England I distinguish the Established church, which historically did not hesitate to use force, and the Free congregations who had nothing worldly to gain from professing their faith outside the Establishment and were peaceful. That's my church!
Phillip Jenkins wrote a fine book "The lost history of Christianity" about how the faith went east of the borders of the Roman Empire, but the resulting (Trinitarian) Christians were damned by Rome as heretics for their views on the relation between Christ's humanity and His divinity (about which scripture is silent). It is true that the Inquisition's coverage was patchy. That is not because it was not a centralised KGB, though (it was) but because the rulers of some lands did not want to let it in and cause havoc.
As for persecution of Christians (of any hue) by Shintoists, Buddhists, Hindus or whoever: persecution is the price of faith in Christ, although I call it a privilege to be embraced for His sake.
It's not the same thing Slumdog. The Anon poster who accuses Constance of being anti-Semitic and Islamic has repeatedly posted the same thing over the past 600 comments. The comments have been extremely nasty at times. If the user takes such issue with Constance they should feel free to start their own blog and not continually rehash the same distorted arguments on this one. It's getting old.
Deletion of repeat comments is quite a different thing than regulation of the internet. You're really stretched out here.
Anon@9.31pm:
I do not reject the need for a priesthood. I reject the need for a laity. All Christians are priests according to St Peter (1 Pe 2:9), why don't you take it up with him?
Pope(s)
Indulgences
Cardinal(s)
Penance
Mother of God
The Holy See
_statuary in the congregation
_the rosary
_patron saints of this or that
and on and on...
None of these things are in the
Bible, so it stands to reason
that people who worship this
denomination, as opposed
to just worshipping God, would
reject the Bible Only viewpoint.
The Roman Empire did the
actual crucifying of Jesus.
The Roman Empire eventually
collapsed and disappeared but
as it was collapsing
it handed it's worldly power,
what was left of it, to the
Roman Church.
So, why would a Christian from
say, the United States, insist
on belonging to a denomination
based in Rome, Italy ?
I don't get it.
Jesus said: "My kingdom is
not of this world, if it were
my disciples would fight..."
The Roman Catholic Church
is one of the richest entities
on earth, but Jesus had
nowhere to lay his head.
No one carried Jesus
anywhere, except for
a certain donkey.
Jesus walked.
Jesus also said; "_One will
come after me saying I
am Christ and shall deceive
many."
On judgement day, no one
is going to be saved based on
which denomination they
belonged to. Not Roman
Catholic and not Protestant
of any sort.
It will be a matter of
who has "oil" (The Holy Spirit)
in their soul.
All the writings of all the
Popes and all the buildings
and all the statues and all the
crimson robes and fish head
hats and all the works of man
will burn in a fervent heat.
Only the pure gold of
Gods' Word will remain.
Paul:
Thanks for reminding us again how you and your pals have it right and how Catholics (who you falsely claim worship a demonination) have it wrong.
What an absolute jerk you are.
Luca
Luca,
I applied everything to
my own denomination
which I applied to Roman
Catholicism.
Paul:
Your entire post is a rant against Catholicism. No surprise there.
I have seen the way you go after Catholicism at this blog despite the attempts by a few class acts here, both Catholic and Protestant, to build common ground.
You are a first class jerk.
Luca
Luca,
Building common ground;
how nice and ecumenical.
At least you've come out
of hiding.
You're very loyal. That's good.
Don't waste your loyalty
on man made institutions,
is all I'm saying.
Paul:
You just can't resist taking another swipe at Catholicism under the guise of fighting the New Age movement, can you? Have you learned anything at all from reading this blog down through the years?
By common ground I mean mutual respect, which is clearly a foreign concept to you despite all your Bible-reading. Maybe you should go back and study some of Susanna's information about false ecumenism vs. true ecumenism.
Luca
Luca,
Please read Matthew 5:22 from the Sermon on the mount urgently.
A brother in Christ
To Anon@4.57am
The degrees of freemasonry, from no.1 to no.33 in the Scottish rite, are all based on a masonic legend concerning the building of King Solomon's Temple, then the second Temple. This legend takes up the few verses that are in the Bible about these events and weaves an extended falsehood around them. It is spiritual allegory, for the candidate is actually the Temple and it is masonic demons that get enthroned there, degree by degree. The candidate also takes vows that curse his descendants.
The main degree of freemmasonry is the third. Before taking it you cannot call yourself a freemason, afterwards you can. (Higher degrees are optional.) The candidate plays Hiram Abif, master builder from Tyre, who is said to know the secret name of God, and is murdered by others seeking the name. (God has revealed himself to us fully, and he states his name YAHUWEH often in scripture.) The candidate, who is expected to know the 'liturgy', receives blows to the head and falls into a coffin or onto a winding-sheet, playing dead until he is raised (resurrected) at the third attempt. Associated with all of this is a 'tracing board' depicting a skull and crossbones.
Occult or what?
Hi Luca
Here is another Jerk.
It is not about Catholic Bashing or taking swipes etc. As far As i can see, Paul is simply stating that God's Word is greater than the fallible word of man. Our trust should be in what GOD says, not what a man says. We can find all answers in the Bible for ourselves.
In the Bible it reads "as high as the heavens are above the Earth so are MY THOUGHTS above your thoughts and MY WAYS above your ways.
How can you trust in mere men like the Pope who believes that there are Aliens on other planets who are closer to God than us.
That makes a mockery of Genesis 1 and 2 and shows how dark his thinking is. Is he really inspired by the Holy Spirit?
Quite honestly, if you want to tackle New Age, look closer to home. We have a Pope who believes in Aliens, wants to join in fellowship with muslims and rejects Israel. The real purpose of New Age is to work with satan in destroying His true believers. So, anyone is considered brethren apart from those who the Bible desribe as God's true people (born-again believers and Jews)
Anon@5:57 a.m.
There were 5 centres of Christianity. Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.
You should know that there are 23 Eastern churches in union with Rome.
The Roman Empire broke up into Eastern and Western where the West continued with Western rites and the East with Eastern rites.
There is no point in pitting them against Rome. Since they were all Catholic. Roman Catholics are not the only Catholics.
They were not Protestant and did not subscribe to Sola Scripture.
You brought up the Celtic Church and the Eastern Christians, a good knowledge of their history will tell you they were not Protestants and did not hold to Sola Scriptura.
Even the Anglican church accepts that prior to their break, they were all Catholic and not Sola Scriptura Protestants.
John Henry Newman said "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."
In other words it's Sola Scriptura that is a 16th century invention that did not exist.
Anon@ another Jerk,
Please do not bear false witness. Catholics accept that the Bible is the word of God. We do not place it above the Pope. We just don't subscribe to the bible alone. A recent invention BTW. We hold to scripture and apostolic tradition.
None of you have been able to find evidence for Sola Scriptura in the early church.
If you can then we will gladly give up all our heresies.
To Anon A Real Jerk (Ignoramus):
The Pope never said that he "believes in aliens". Yes, the Vatican astronomer (who - it may come as a surprise to you - isn't the Pope) commented on them and this is what he said (the untwisted version!):
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- If aliens exist, they may be a different life form that does not need Christ's redemption, the Vatican's chief astronomer said.
Jesuit Father Jose Funes, director of the Vatican Observatory, said Christians should consider alien life as an "extraterrestrial brother" and a part of God's creation.
Father Funes said it was difficult to exclude the possibility that other intelligent life exists in the universe, and he noted that one field of astronomy is now actively seeking "biomarkers" in spectrum analysis of other stars and planets.
These potential forms of life could include those that have no need of oxygen or hydrogen, he said. Just as God created multiple forms of life on earth, he said, there may be diverse forms throughout the universe.
"This is not in contrast with the faith, because we cannot place limits on the creative freedom of God," he said.
________________________
I suppose "Anon A Real Jerk" is more qualified to put limits on God. We should ask him from now on.
Jesus said: "I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life..." Those who wish to seek Jesus will search for the TRUTH, not the distortions that support their own egos!
Matthew 5:22:
Note: Also we should not place limits on the depth of meaning within Sacred Scripture. We are not to read it superficially...
[22-26] Reconciliation with an offended brother is urged in the admonition of Matthew 5:23-24 and the parable of Matthew 5:25-26 (Luke 12:58-59). The severity of the judge in the parable is a warning of the fate of unrepentant sinners in the coming judgment by God.
[22] Anger is the motive behind murder, as the insulting epithets are steps that may lead to it. They, as well as the deed, are all forbidden. Raqa: an Aramaic word reqa' or reqa probably meaning "imbecile," "blockhead," a term of abuse. The ascending order of punishment, judgment (by a local council?), trial before the Sanhedrin, condemnation to Gehenna, points to a higher degree of seriousness in each of the offenses. Sanhedrin: the highest judicial body of Judaism. Gehenna: in Hebrew ge-hinnom, "Valley of Hinnom," or ge ben-hinnom, "Valley of the son of Hinnom," southwest of Jerusalem, the center of an idolatrous cult during the monarchy in which children were offered in sacrifice (see 2 Kings 23:10; Jeremiah 7:31). In Joshua 18:16 (Septuagint, Codex Vaticanus) the Hebrew is transliterated into Greek as gaienna, which appears in the New Testament as geenna. The concept of punishment of sinners by fire either after death or after the final judgment is found in Jewish apocalyptic literature (e.g., Enoch 90:26) but the name geenna is first given to the place of punishment in the New Testament.
"The Lollards in England and the Waldensians in northern Italy believed in Jesus Christ and His scriptures and were peaceful. For that they were mortally persecuted by Rome, which wanted to retain its monopoly. How heretical is it to commit mass murder against peaceful people who profess the Lord Jesus Christ?"
How heretical is it for Protestants reformers to call for the punishment and killing of heretics?
The only response you could come up with was that they learnt it from the catholics. Pathetic really.
Ciao a tutti:
Roman Catholics don't believe that the Roman Catholic Church is a "man made institution."
Yes, I know you think it is Paul, but repeating this fifty times does not make it true.
Same goes for all of you here who think your form of Christianity is superior to that of Roman Catholic Christianity.
Luca
To: Anon@2.21pm
From: Anon@5.57am, to whom you were replying
I'm afraid that a good deal of what you say is irrelevant, because you didn't read what I wrote very carefully. I wrote:
"Phillip Jenkins wrote a fine book "The lost history of Christianity" about how the faith went east of the borders of the Roman Empire, but the resulting (Trinitarian) Christians were damned by Rome as heretics for their views on the relation between Christ's humanity and His divinity."
You responded by supposing I was referring to the Christians in the eastern, Greek-speaking half of the Roman Empire where (as you correctly state) four of the five ancient patriarchates were located. I actually wrote about "how the faith went east of the borders of the Roman Empire", which unambiguously means east what became the Eastern Orthodox church's patch, east of the koine-Greek-speaking lands. Iraq has a history of Christianity running back to ancient times, for instance, and the faith reached India. These Christians were totally Trinitarian and they believed that Jesus Christ was both God and man. They had a different take on HOW He was both God and man, for which they were damned at Councils as heretics, which I profoundly regret. Scripture takes as Christian a man who believes that Jesus Christ is the divine son of the Creator and that he died on the cross and was resurrected. It is not necessary to take a stand for or against Sola Scriptura to assert that these people fulfilled the scriptural requirements to be caled Christians. That should have been enough for those 'philosophically correct' but loveless Councils to welcome them as brothers. Jenkins' book is all about these people - do read it.
Whether the Celtic Christians were 'protestant' is a matter of definition. Let's not get into "O yes they were - O no they weren't" before agreeing what is meant by Protestant. I am well aware that they flourished a millennium before Luther was born.
JH Newman? He is entitled to his opinion, but he used the words 'Catholic' and 'Christian' synonymously after his shift from Canterbury to Rome. That is an innocent mistake in a 19th century Italian peasant, but Newman's usage can only have been deliberate and I regret it. He is going to find plenty of 19th century Anglicans with him in heaven. Then there was his authorship of Tract 90 which encouraged High Anglican ordinands to lie about the meaning of the 39 articles of the Church of England. I am neither Anglican nor Roman Catholic but I don't think much of these antics.
The severity of the judge in the parable is a warning of the fate of unrepentant sinners in the coming judgment by God.
______________________________
Interesting how some Protestants start waxing Catholic once they don't like the behavior of another.
Anon@2.45pm:
Thanks for the theology lesson; what I meant was that
RACA = Jerk
and I profoundly hope that the Anon who called another Anon a jerk will be chastened by Matt 5:22. I want to meet you in heaven!
Anon@2.49pm: Are you suggesting that it is heresy for protestants to advocate killing Catholics as heretics, but not heresy for Catholics to advocate killing protestants as heretics..?
For the record I am a protestant and I condemn BOTH advocacies. But please note that it was official Vatican policy, whereas many protestants did not advocate this. That's my brand of protestantism, and it was not on offer pre-1517, so my gratitude goes to those who made it available.
Anon@ 3:29 p.m.
It was not official Vatican policy. There was no official Vatican at this time. Protestant countries burnt people at the stake too.
Martin Luther, Calvin and their followers cited the Bible as their reason for wanting witches burned.
Tens of thousands of non-Anglicans were killed in England. It was brutal. In America, the Puritans (Protestants) also conducted an Inquisition where people were burned at the stake.
In Scotland in 1699, an 18 year old, Thomas Akin was hung (put to death) by the local authorities who were Presbyterians. The charge was blaspheme.
I think we must be very careful when we look at history, to understand the thinking and the context of incidents.
As for the councils pronouncing these people as heretics is because they were heretics. They agreed that Jesus was fully God and man, but essentially denied the distinction between the son and the father. This may not seem like a big deal, but ideas have consequences.
The only reason why Rome had the final say in these matters is because they held to the primacy of Peter.
The Thomas Christians in India have since repudiated this and are now in full union with Rome.
Jenkins needs to catch up.
"whereas many protestants did not advocate this"
The point is if they used the Bible to justify their crimes, then they were using the Protestant rule of faith which is the Bible alone.
As for whether your brand of Protestantism was different from theirs, to a Catholic it really makes no difference, because you are ALL Protestant, with the same rule of faith.
Part 1
Peter is the most important figure in Roman Catholicism because the Vatican claims unbroken succession in Popes, with Peter as the first Pope.
Research proves this cannot be true, plus we demonstrate that Catholicism simply teaches ancient Paganism with Christian names.
The keys in the above picture are supposed to represent the "keys of the kingdom" that was given to Peter in Matthew 16:19. According to Roman Catholicism, these keys represent all authority in heaven and in Earth, and she (Catholicism), as the "rightful possessor" through the passing of those keys, has all authority.
Pope Gregory VII (the "only pope to canonize himself") drew up a Dictatus (list) of twenty- seven theses outlining his powers as "Peter’s vicar, Prince of the Apostles and Chief Shepherd".
Pope Gregory VII claimed the Pope had the following eight (8) powers:
1). The Pope can be judged by no one on earth.
2). The Roman church has never erred, nor can it err until the end of time.
3). The Pope alone can depose bishops.
4). He alone is entitled to imperial insignia.
5). He can dethrone emperors and kings and absolve their subjects from allegiance.
6). All princes are obliged to kiss his feet.
7). His legates, even when not priests, have precedence over all bishops.8). A rightly elected Pope is, without question, a saint, made so by the merits of Peter" (Vicars of Christ: the Dark Side of the Papacy, DeRosa, 58).
Nowhere does scripture reveal that these "keys of the kingdom" are "passed on" to anyone, or that the Apostle Peter had any such power over "emperors and kings".
Part 2
Nonetheless, according to Catholic tradition, Apostle Peter reigned as pope in Rome for 25 years (42 to 67 A.D.); from that point on, the keys were "passed" from one pope to another in what they claim is an unbroken line of "apostolic succession".
What is this apostolic succession? Is it an unbroken line from Peter to John Paul II? The truth is that the Roman church knows the list of popes is not genuine. It has been changed many times.
On Jan.18, 1947, a dispatch came from Vatican City which said:
"...the Vatican's new official directory has dropped six popes from its old list. It placed two others in doubt, as possible anti-popes and listed as a true pope one who had not been included until now... Information was changed on 74 popes.
The changes ranged from corrections in the dates of their pontificate to the assertion that one of them, Pope Dono II, who was listed as pontiff for three months in the year 973, never really existed..."
"In one book that was presented to Pope Pius XII, the third and fifth popes, Cleto a Roman, and Anacleto, an Athenian, were combined as one and the same person.
Felix II, who was listed as a saint and as a pope from 363 to 365 is removed from the list as an anti-pope...Christoforo, 903 to 904; Alexander V, who claimed to be pope from 409 to 410, and John XXIII, from 1410 to 1415, were also dropped from the list of popes, while the legitimacy of Gregory VI, 1044 to 1047, was placed in doubt...Boniface VI, who was not in the old list, is put down as the legitimate pontiff for a few days in April 896.
Possibility was admitted that Dioscoro was pope for 22 days in September and October 530, and that Leo VIII was pontiff from 963 to 965. Both were omitted from the list until now." (Secrets of Romanism, Zachello, 48-49)
Part 3
It is obvious with just a short study of papal history that there are serious gaps in the so-called "unbroken line". In 1409, a Council was convoked in Pisa, where they elected Alexander V to usurp the two popes, Gregory XII and Benedict XIII, (who were already reigning), on the grounds they were "heretics and schismatics".
Can you imagine how the people must have felt when they woke up to the news that there was now a third pope! Can you imagine their further consternation when they were told that the Roman Catholic Church needed this third pope because the two currently reigning were frauds?
This little bit of history alone should be enough to debunk the lie that the Roman Catholic Church is infallible and cannot err until the End of Time!
Part 4
A new version of the Apostles Creed was popular at that time [15th Century] "I believe in three holy Catholic churches". The Catholic people had endured absentee popes, no popes for two and three years (the cardinals could not agree), and popes who bought their way into the papacy.
Now, they had three "infallible" popes, all claiming supreme authority over the church, and all disagreeing with each other!
After only ten months in office, Alexander V died and John XXIII took his place. Peter DeRosa, in his book Vicars of Christ, page 94 says of Pope John XXIII:
"He was noted as a former pirate, pope-poisoner (poor Filargi), mass-murderer, mass-fornicator with a partiality for nuns, adulterer on a scale unknown outside fables, simoniac [one who sells ecclesiastical pardons and even his office] par excellence, blackmailer, pimp, master of dirty tricks. On his election to the papacy in Bologna, Cossa [John XXIII] was a deacon.
Ordained priest one day, he was crowned pope the next. This charlatan was recognized by most Catholics as their sovereign lord who held the church together by his rock-like faith. When another Pope John XXIII was elected in 1958, several Catholic cathedrals had hastily to remove the fifteenth-century John XXIII from their list of pontiffs.
Part 5
"Without any scriptural proof, Roman Catholicism has blatantly lied about the Apostle Peter’s whereabouts from 42 A.D. to 67 A.D., so as to lend some credence to their "apostolic succession".
They have placed Peter in Rome reigning as a pope when the Bible paints us a totally different picture. Lorraine Boettner, in his bookRoman Catholicism, pages 121-122, dates Peter’s journey using the Bible as his only source.
"Most Bible students agree that Paul's conversion occurred in the year 37 A.D. After that he went to Arabia (Gal.1:17), and after that he went up to Jerusalem where he remained with Peter for 15 days (Gal.1:18). That brings us to the year 40 A.D.
Fourteen years later he again went to Jerusalem (Gal.2:1), where he attended the Jerusalem council described in Acts 15, in which Peter also participated (vs.6).
This conference dealt primarily with the problems which arose in connection with the presentation of the Gospel in Jewish and Gentile communities.
Paul and Barnabas presented their case, and were authorized by the council to continue their ministry to the Gentiles (Acts 15:22-29); and this quite clearly was the occasion on which Paul was assigned to work primarily among the Gentiles while Peter was assigned to work primarily among the Jews (Gal.2:7- 8), since this same Jerusalem council is spoken of in the immediate context (Gal.2:1-10).
So this brings us to the year 54 A. D., and Peter still is in Syria, 12 years after the time that the Roman tradition says that he began his reign in Rome.
Sometime after the Jerusalem council Peter also came to Antioch, on which occasion it was necessary for Paul to reprimand him because of his conformity to Judaistic rituals (Gal.2:11- 21).
And the same Roman tradition which says that Peter reigned in Rome also says that he governed the church in Antioch for 7 years before going to Rome. Hence we reach the year 61 A.D., with Peter still in Syria."
Part 6
What about the other apostles? Did they acknowledge the supremacy of Peter? Did they think of Peter as "infallible concerning church doctrine"? Let us keep in mind the scripture that says we are "not to think of men above that which is written." (1Cor.4:6)
Therefore, if the title of pope is not found in the scriptures, we are giving titles to men above that which is written. In Acts 15, Barnabas, Peter and Paul gave reports at the council in Jerusalem but it was James who rendered the decision - NOT PETER! If Peter were the leader, he most definitely have rendered the final decision!
In Acts 8:14 Peter was sent by others to Samaria. Why didn't Peter do the sending if he was the pope? In Gal.2:8-10 Paul says "And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James [shouldn’t have Paul named Peter first since he is the supposed pope?] and Cephas [Peter] and John, who SEEMED TO BE PILLARS...." In 2:6 Paul said, "...those who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: GOD ACCEPTETH NO MAN’S PERSON)...."
It is obvious that Paul did not care what they "seemed to be", and clearly says God doesn’t either!
In these next verses, Paul rebukes Peter, evidently not regarding his "position" in the church.
He even goes so far as to say that if an angel from heaven or any of them preach any other gospel than that which has been preached, they should be accursed.
But let’s carefully read Galatians 2:11-16:
"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I WITHSTOOD HIM TO THE FACE, BECAUSE HE WAS TO BE BLAMED. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, FEARING THEM which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation [condemnation, hypocrisy].
But when I saw that THEY WALKED NOT UPRIGHTLY ACCORDING TO THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: FOR BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW SHALL NO FLESH BE JUSTIFIED." (Gal.2:11-16)
It is evident in these verses that Peter erred concerning doctrine which nullifies any argument Rome uses to justify her false doctrine of the infallibility of popes.
Part 6
What about the other apostles? Did they acknowledge the supremacy of Peter? Did they think of Peter as "infallible concerning church doctrine"? Let us keep in mind the scripture that says we are "not to think of men above that which is written." (1Cor.4:6)
Of course, several popes have been "heretics" by admission of other popes. Pope Adrian VI in 1523 said: "If by the Roman church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith.
He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman Pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII [1316-1334]" (Vicars of Christ, DeRosa, 204).
Not only are the scriptures clear concerning Peter’s fallibility, but it also clear that he was never considered a pope by anyone, including himself.
Peter does however call himself an "elder" and clearly states that Jesus alone is the "Chief Shepherd" (a title the popes take for themselves contrary to Peter’s words). (1Pet.5:1-4)
The only scripture Rome has to support her supposed "foundation of the papacy" is Matthew 16:13-20. Let’s take a closer look at these verses.
Part 7
"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, WHOM DO MEN SAY THAT I THE SON OF MAN AM? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
He saith unto them, But WHOM SAY YE THAT I AM? And Simon Peter answered and said, THOU ART THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven."
It is Catholic doctrine, that at this time, our Lord Jesus Christ, by changing Simon’s name to Peter, was making him the first pope and head of the Roman Catholic church as well as establishing apostolic succession.
Catholic popes would be given these keys of Peter to reign as "Pontifex Maximus" in Rome, a title held by the Caesars of Rome as well.
Of course, this is a far stretch of the imagination. Peter, in Greek, is "petros" (masculine - a piece of a rock, a stone, a pebble); but the "rock" in Matthew 16:18 is "petra" (feminine-mass rock).
Thus, in modern English, Jesus said, "And I tell you, you are Peter, a stone, and upon this massive rock I will build My church and the gates of Hell shall not stand against it."
Peter just confessed that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God. It was upon this truthful confession that Jesus planned to build his church. I Cor.10:4 tells us that Christ is that "rock" (petra, massive rock).
I Cor.3:11 says: "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."
Part 8
Catholic apologists, in an attempt to deceive the people, say that Jesus was speaking Aramaic and Matthew was written in Aramaic.
They say this because in the Aramaic language, there is only one word for stone or rock, the word "cephas". Therefore, Jesus would have said "Thou art Cephas, and upon Cephas I will build my church".
They feel this better supports their case. However, there is not one shred of proof that Matthew was written in Aramaic. We do have proof it was written in Greek, and that the author did indeed use two different Greek words that changed the gender from "Peter" (masculine stone) to "rock" (feminine, massive), denoting a change in subject as well.
While it is true that "Cephas" can mean "rock or stone", God settled the argument once and for all when He gives us Greek and Aramaic together in John 1:42:
"And he brought him to Jesus.
And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called CEPHAS [Aramaic], WHICH IS BY INTERPRETATION, A STONE [petros, small stone]." (John.1:42)
Jesus, in His All Knowledge, knew the time would come when men would lie about Peter and twist the meaning in this most important Scripture. Therefore, Jesus gave us the bold, clear translation Himself.
It may jolt most Catholics to read that the "great fathers" of the "church" saw no connection between Mt.16:18 and apostolic succession.
Not one of them applies "Thou art Peter" to anyone other than Peter. For Catholic Fathers Cyprian, Origen, Cyril, Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine etc., it was Peter's faith in the Lordthat is called the Rock.
"All the Councils from Nicea in the fourth century to Constance in the fifteenth agree that Christ himself is the only foundation of the church, that is, the Rock on which the church rests. Perhaps this is why not one of the Fathers speaks of a transference of power from Peter to those who succeed him; not one speaks, as church documents do today, of an 'inheritance'.
Part 9
There is no hint of an abiding Petrine office" (Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side Of The Papacy, Peter De Rosa, 24).
Papal power was gradually developed by deceit and forgeries. The Donation of Constantine, a proven forgery, was used by the papacy to establish its base in Rome. The pseudo Isidorian Decretals (of French origin) consisted of 115 documents, purportedly written by early bishops of Rome, beginning with Clement (88-97) along with the pseudo-Clementine letters and homilies (invented by a heretic in the second century...professed to be from the hand of Clemens Romanus, who writes to James after the death of Peter, "...appointing the writer his successor....") were instrumental in convincing the people they were the true successors of Peter.
Tertullian repeated the story that Clement was ordained Bishop of Rome by St. Peter. In the Secrets of Romanism, by former priest Zachello, page 46, we read:
"The bishop of Manchester is of the opinion that the only early persuasion of St. Peter's Roman episcopate was due to the acceptance in the third and following centuries of the Clementine fiction as genuine history."
The truth is that there is only ONE ROCK (1Cor.10:4), the HEAD of the true church, Jesus Christ Himself, (Eph.1:22-23, Col.1:18) and Rome with all her lies cannot change that truth!
What about the keys? What did our Lord mean when he told Peter he would give him the keys? First let us consider that a key is used to open a door. We know that on the day of Pentecost, Peter was given an open door to preach the gospel to the Jews.
We also know that it was Peter who first preached the gospel to the Gentiles. It was common in their day, as it is in our own day, to say that God "...had opened the door of faith...." (Acts 14:27) or "...a great door and effectual is opened unto me...." (1Cor.16:9) And again, "a door was opened unto me of the Lord" (2Cor.2:12)
We also know in Revelation 3:7 that Jesus has the "key of David" and "openeth and no man shutteth and shutteth and no man openeth". It is God who opens doors and makes the way for us to preach the gospel. Peter was given an opportunity to preach to the Jews and the Gentiles. In Luke 11:52, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees of his day saying:
"Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered."Peter, on the day of Pentecost, was given the privilege of confessing before Israel that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the living God, the same confession he made in Matthew 16 by the Spirit of God.
Somehow, the meaning of the keys has been distorted to take on the pagan meaning instead of the scriptural one.
Part 10
There is no hint of an abiding Petrine office" (Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side Of The Papacy, Peter De Rosa, 24).
Papal power was gradually developed by deceit and forgeries. The Donation of Constantine, a proven forgery, was used by the papacy to establish its base in Rome. The pseudo Isidorian Decretals (of French origin) consisted of 115 documents, purportedly written by early bishops of Rome, beginning with Clement (88-97) along with the pseudo-Clementine letters and homilies (invented by a heretic in the second century...professed to be from the hand of Clemens Romanus, who writes to James after the death of Peter, "...appointing the writer his successor....") were instrumental in convincing the people they were the true successors of Peter.
Tertullian repeated the story that Clement was ordained Bishop of Rome by St. Peter. In the Secrets of Romanism, by former priest Zachello, page 46, we read:
"The bishop of Manchester is of the opinion that the only early persuasion of St. Peter's Roman episcopate was due to the acceptance in the third and following centuries of the Clementine fiction as genuine history."
The truth is that there is only ONE ROCK (1Cor.10:4), the HEAD of the true church, Jesus Christ Himself, (Eph.1:22-23, Col.1:18) and Rome with all her lies cannot change that truth!
What about the keys? What did our Lord mean when he told Peter he would give him the keys? First let us consider that a key is used to open a door. We know that on the day of Pentecost, Peter was given an open door to preach the gospel to the Jews.
We also know that it was Peter who first preached the gospel to the Gentiles. It was common in their day, as it is in our own day, to say that God "...had opened the door of faith...." (Acts 14:27) or "...a great door and effectual is opened unto me...." (1Cor.16:9) And again, "a door was opened unto me of the Lord" (2Cor.2:12)
We also know in Revelation 3:7 that Jesus has the "key of David" and "openeth and no man shutteth and shutteth and no man openeth". It is God who opens doors and makes the way for us to preach the gospel. Peter was given an opportunity to preach to the Jews and the Gentiles. In Luke 11:52, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees of his day saying:
"Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered."Peter, on the day of Pentecost, was given the privilege of confessing before Israel that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the living God, the same confession he made in Matthew 16 by the Spirit of God.
Somehow, the meaning of the keys has been distorted to take on the pagan meaning instead of the scriptural one.
There was a Peter in Rome, but it was not the apostle Peter. There were keys that stood for all authority in heaven and in earth, but they were the pagan keys of Janus and Cybele.
Cut and paste from Cutting Edge Ministries?
Are you serious?
Part 11
Roman Catholicism has adapted the pagan symbols in an attempt to convert the pagans of their times to a religion with which they could easily identify.
"The very apostolic designation, Peter, is from the Mysteries. The hierophant or supreme pontiff bore the Chaldean titlepeter, or interpreter. The names Phtah, Peth’r, the residence of Balaam, Patara, and Patras, the names of oracles-cities, pateres or pateras and, perhaps, Buddha, all come from the same root ... No apostle Peter was ever at Rome; but the Pope, seizing the scepter of the Pontifex Maximus, the keys of Janus and Kubelé, and adorning his Christian head with the cap of the Magna Mater, copied from that of the tiara of Brahmâtma, the Supreme Pontiff of the Initiates of old India, became the successor of the Pagan high priest, the real Peter-Roma, or Petroma (the tiara of the Pope is also a perfect copy of that of the Dalai-Lama of Thibet)" (Isis Unveiled, Blavatsky, p. 30).
Anon@4.38pm
O yes it was official Catholic church policy! Innocent III started the Inquisition for exactly that reason.
"As for the councils pronouncing these people as heretics is because they were heretics. They agreed that Jesus was fully God and man, but essentially denied the distinction between the son and the father. This may not seem like a big deal, but ideas have consequences."
That is a grotesque parody of their position. They knew very well that Jesus spoke of "my father in heaven" while He was on the earth. The point is that the Trinity and Christology burst our usual categories, and men of malevolence can therefore contradict ANY statement made by anyone about these things. Anybody who confesses Jesus as divine and man and the son of the creator who died and was resurrected is my brother. Don't you think that he should be yours too?
Anon@5.24pm, you write "As for whether your brand of Protestantism was different from theirs, to a Catholic it really makes no difference, because you are ALL Protestant, with the same rule of faith."
Untrue. Anglicans hold to the 39 articles of the Church of England, but I am in a Free congregation in England and I do not subscribe to (all of) those articles.
You can lump us all together if you like (even though my Free brothers were persecuted by the CoE) but it is essentially an end to meaningful dialogue between us, which is a pity. I don't ask you to agree with me but I do ask you to hear me.
Anon@6:02 p.m.
Instead of copy and paste , things you probably wouldn't write yourself.
Try a little more serious and credible historian.
Mark Noll
Francis Beckwith
N.T. Wright
Carl Trueman
Thomas Howard
Beckwith is a former Evangelical who became Catholic, but the rest are still Evangelical.
It would teach you a thing or two about what real inquiry is all about.
Savvy
Anon@5.24pm,
What do you call the indigenous Chinese house church movement? They are not Catholic but they have no lineage to the Reformers either, and they think of Catholic/protestant/Orthodox as divisions between European churches, and see themselves simply as Christian. What do you say that they are?
He didn't say all Protestants share the same theology. What he said was that they all share the same Rule of Faith (Sola Scriptura).
The doctrines of those who follow Sola Scriptura are diverse, one might even say "all over the place." One book but with 30,000+ denominations (including those who call themselves "non-denominational" hold doctrinal beliefs).
Anon@5.24pm,
What do you call the indigenous Chinese house church movement? They are not Catholic but they have no lineage to the Reformers either, and they think of Catholic/protestant/Orthodox as divisions between European churches, and see themselves simply as Christian. What do you say that they are?
____________________________
I say they are Protestant because they follow Sola Scriptura. What their precise doctrines are, I do not know.
Anon@6.41pm,
What are the 39 articles of the CoE if not a rule of faith? YOU say that all protestants have the same rule of faith, please do us the courtesy of at least listening to what we say about ourselves.
Anon@6.41pm,
Let's have a good reference to that 30,000+ figure please?
Anon@6.42pm,
Is it not discourteous to them to call them protestants when they say they are not? They affirm the Nicene creed same as you, don't you think they deserve the respect of being listened to?
Anonymous 5:59 P.M.
Anonymous 5:39 et al is busted!!! I just discovered the Cutting Edge cut and paste too. Such a scholar!!! LOL
Anonymous 5:39 et al can cut and past TEN feet of Jack Chick/Hislop-style theology fiction....and he can do all the exegetical summersaults he wants in order to try to "demonstrate" that his rant is "Biblical," but the fact remains that the Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura and unlike Anonymous 5:39 et al, we don't need ten feet of bandwidth to state that one simple fact.
One simple sentence will do! :-)
Anon@ 6:31 p.m.
This is why I brought up the fact that there are over 30,000+ Protestant churches. You may have your differences, but for a Catholic, you all have Sola Scriptura in common. The same rule of faith.
This separates you from Catholic/Orthodox churches.
This does not mean that we cannot find common ground, but I don't think it's wise to pretend that these differences do not exist.
"Anybody who confesses Jesus as divine and man and the son of the creator who died and was resurrected is my brother. Don't you think that he should be yours too?"
Yes, he should be, but , heresy leads to more heresy and schism to more schism.
The early church was dealing with several different heresies.
If it was not for this uniformity of teaching in the church, Christianity would not have survived even the first century.
I understand your disillusionment with the hierarchy of churches. Yes, they can go bad.
Protestants have to deal with what C.S. Lewis called the "poison of subjectivism".
The Catholic Church has to make sure that people follow objective teachings on faith and morals.
If they don't then they do have God to answer to.
Anon@4.38pm
You wrote, regarding the Reformation: "Tens of thousands of non-Anglicans were killed in England."
This Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_martyrs_of_the_English_Reformation
lists by name all of the Catholics who died for their faith in the English Reformation and there are less than 400 of them. If you are talking about the Civil War, that had as many secular causes as religious. If you are talking about Nonconformists persecuted by Anglicans, I am a nonconformist and deplore the continuation of Catholic bad habits in the Church of England. In fact I am only able to have this discussion with you without being at risk of my life becaue the political power of your church has been broken.
What is your source for that figure to tens of thousands?
"In America, the Puritans (Protestants) also conducted an Inquisition where people were burned at the stake."
Four Quakers, so far as I am aware. That is a tiny number (though too many) compared to what Rome's Inquisition got up by way of murder, to but I would be interested to learn more.
Anon@7.13pm
Catholics are bandying around that 30,000+ protestant denomination figure but never justifying it. Can you? Will you cease and desist if you cannot?
Anon@ 6:53 p.m.
The 39 articles of the C of E are based on their interpretations of the Bible. That's where they get it from. Thus pointing to Sola Scriptura once again.
The only people in the C of E that do not subscribe to Sola Scriptura are the Anglo-Catholics who are coming home to the Catholic church, because the C of E no longer wants them, on any side. The Evangelicals or the Liberals, who are both Bible only Anglicans.
Anon@7.13pm,
You wrote: "You may have your differences, but for a Catholic, you all have Sola Scriptura in common. The same rule of faith. This separates you from Catholic/Orthodox churches. This does not mean that we cannot find common ground, but I don't think it's wise to pretend that these differences do not exist."
Sure! Common ground is.... the scriptures! We all have the same New Testament, thank God. Let's build on that together.
The passing reference to "Hislop" was presumably to the book "The Two Babylons" by the Victorian Scots minister Alexander Hislop, which sought to establish that the Roman Catholic church was based on Babylonian pagan worship.
I am one of the protestants who have been contending with Catholics on this blog recently, and I wish to say that Hislop is talking rubbish. Hislop was definitively debunked by Ralph Woodrow (another protestant, in fact) in a short book called "The Babylon Connection?"
Anon @ 4:38 p.m.
Historians estimate the Inquisition killed around 6,000 people over a period of 500 years.
The wiki lists the number of people officially accepted as martyrs by the Catholic Church, mostly priests. There were lay Catholics, 90% of them whose lands were confiscated and many killed too.
The punishment for treason was hanged, quartered into pieces and drawn.
The civil war killed both Catholics and puritans too.
Anon@7.40pm:
This Catholic site says that only a few hundred Catholics, whether priest or laymen, died in the Engish Reformation.
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/martyr02.htm
Will whoever quoted that 10,000 figure please say where it came from and exactly to what it refers?
Anon@7.13pm
Catholics are bandying around that 30,000+ protestant denomination figure but never justifying it. Can you? Will you cease and desist if you cannot?
__________________________________
The figure 30,000 may not be entirely accurate (I have not researched the matter in depth) but its accuracy is a bit of a red herring. As far as I am concerned, you can take away two zeroes and that would still be too many. So, for the sake of argument, let's agree that there are between 300 and 30,000 Protestant denominations.
Quite frankly, when you consider that there is only one Bible, one Jesus, and one Holy Spirit, 300 denominations is too many.
According to World Christian Encyclopedia, there are "over 33,000 denominations in 238 countries," having increased in number from 8,196 in 1970. Every year there is a net increase of around 270 to 300 denominations.[14]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism
Anon @ 7:49 p.m.
I got the figures form the catholic bridge, another Catholic site.
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/inquisition.htm
It says tens of thousands of non-Anglicans were killed not just Catholics.
What is more important? To defend the Catholic Church as the only root to salvation, defend all other denominations or stand up to preach JESUS as the ONLY way to salvation. No church, sect, cult, religion, denomination can save us.
It is JESUS alone who saves us. We don't need church to receive Jesus as our personal Saviour. The way into His immediate presence is now available to all through His blood that was once and for alltime poured out for us to forgive us eternally.
All we need to do is to change our thinking, believe mentally that Jesus is who He said He was (The Son of God, the Word of God made flesh, ie fully man and fully God, born by the Holy Spirit within a virgin, not created but always existed as ONE with God, died for our sins, risen physically from the dead, coming back again
After accepting these things intellectually, you need to receive these things into your heart emotionally, for it says that "even the demons believe but are not saved". You need to be born-again by allowing Jesus into your heart (after confessing to God direct that you are a sinner who needs salvation). You will then be changed into a new person inside to follow Jesus.
Look Church etc is an extra and is designed to help in the discipleship process, but it DOES NOT save you. Church is designed for fellowship, but it DOES NOT save you.
We need to be aware of lying deceptions like NA but it will not take true born-again believers out of God's Kingdom because they cannot be spiritually unborn once they have been born into His kingdom.
We are not talking about a NA Christ who is created in us once we become divine. That teaching is error but we are talking about the Jesus who died for our sins living in us from the moment we believe in Him.
Those who embrace NA show that they NEVER truly believed, repented in the first place.
We are supposed to focus our attention on Jesus and His commandments. If we do this then NOTHING will separate us from God.
Jesus said "if you love me, obey my commandments" "to those who believed in Him, Jesus said if you follow my teachings you will know the truth and the Truth will set you free". Jesus is the Way, the TRUTH and the Life. His TRUTH and He (as the Truth) will set us free from things like NA. Our job is to focus on JESUS only.
By the way (Constance) the love of the truth is surely referring to the words of Jesus? Truth is subjective to every single individual. Your truth is different from mine and may be opposed but we both love it. The plumbline for truth HAS to be what Jesus calls truth.
To my Catholic brothers in Christ from one of the protestants who has been contending here.
Thank you for the references to those figures. More about them in a moment. First, though, you also stated that the (Catholic) Inquisition killed 6000 people over 500 years, I beleve that this figure refers to people who underwent individual trials. What matters, however, is how many people were killed simply for being heretical in Rome's opinion. That figure should take in the military campaigns sent to eliminate the Albigensians and the Waldensians. Already the figure is many tens of thousands...
Anon@8.09pm, you give the online source of the quote "Tens of thousands of non-Anglicans were killed in England. It was brutal. In America, the Puritans (Protestants) also conducted an Inquisition where people were burned at the stake." This website does not itself state where the figures come from, but it is documented that some hundreds of Catholics were put to death in the English Reformation, and I am not aware of thousands of nonconformists facing the same fate. (The penalties for leading services outside the Church of England, against the 1559 Act of Uniformity, were fines or imprisonment but not death. The penalty for attending them won't be worse.) I believe that the "tens of thousands" must refer to the English Civil War, as the numbers match. But the Civil War had secular motivation at least as much as it did religious - it was a struggle for political power beteeen parliament and crown. So this figure is misleading in the context in which you quote it. As for (North) America, I am aware of just four people executed as heretics. That is four too many but does not begin to compare. If you know otherwise I am ready to be educated.
Anon@8.03pm, have you looked into that alleged figure of 33,000 denominations? The frontpage of the online version of the World Christian Encyclopedia refers to 9000 denominations (I can't get further in without subscribing) and speaks of
•Anglicans
•Catholics
•Independents
•Marginals
•Orthodox
•Protestants
•Charismatics
•Neocharismatics
•Pentecostals
Obviously, we have a classification issue here. It is not clear without looking more closely whether the Encyclopedia subdivides Catholicism, for instance. (Latin Mass? Charismatic or not? etc.) So we need more info on the meaning of that 9000 figure, let alone 33,000. How does the encyclopedia define a denomination? Unless you can give that info, please stop quoting this figure as authoritative. You referred me to the Wikipedia article on 'Protestantism' but the associated list of denominations at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Protestant_churches
is only a few hundred.
You state that the number of denominations has increased from 8196 to 33000 in the last 40 years. I am not aware of protestants falling out with each other at a calamitous rate and I wonder if this simply represents the growth of Free churches as Christianity spreads. You are measuring protestantism by your own model of a formal hierarchy, and assuming that denominations come into being only via a falling-out, but much protestantism is simply not like that.
Anon @ 9:13 p.m.
6,000 is the number that were killed in the Inquisition. Even serious historians do not claim it was more than that.
The Protestant movements you refer to may be free churches or not affiliated with any church, but they are all based on Sola Scriptura the Protestant rule of faith.
Anon@7.19pm
Did I dispute that figure of 6000? What I said was that it did not cover the total of people killed for heresy by the mediaeval Catholic church, because the Weldensians and Albigensians were not even given trials by the Inquisition - they were exterminated en masse.
I am not ashamed of Sola Scriptura.
Anon @ 7:27 p.m.
The number does cover these people as well as documented by credible historians. I would like to see where your documentation comes from.
In the Medieval Inquisition, Bernard Gui 930 people out of which 42 were executed (4.5%). Another famous Inquisitor was Jacques Fournier who tried 114 cases of which 5 were executed (4.3%). Using numbers that are known, scholars have been able to surmise that approximately 2,000 people died in the Medieval Inquisition. (1231-1400 AD)
According to public news reports the book's editor, Prof. Agostino Borromeo, stated that about 125,000 persons were investigated by the Spanish Inquisition, of which 1.8% were executed (2,250 people). Most of these deaths occurred in the first decade and a half of the Inquisition's 350 year history.
In Portugal of the 13,000 tried in the 16th and early 17th century 5.7% were said to have been condemned to death. News articles did not report if Portugal's higher percentage included those sentenced to death in effigy (i.e. an image burnt instead of the actual person).
For example, historian Gustav Henningsen reported that statistical tabulations of 50,000 recorded cases tried by nineteen Spanish tribunals between 1540-1700 found 775 people (1.7%) were actually executed while another 700 (1.4%) were sentenced to death in effigy ("El 'banco de datos' del Santo Oficio: Las relaciones de causas de la Inquisición española, 1550-1700", BRAH, 174, 1977).
Jewish historian Steven Katz remarked on the Medieval Inquisition that "in its entirety, the thirteenth and fourteenth century Inquisition put very few people to death and sent few people to prison; 90 percent of its sentences were canonical penances" (The Holocaust in Historical Context, 1994).
During the high point of the Spanish Inquisition from 1478-1530 AD, scholars found that approximately 1,500-2,000 people were found guilty. From that point forward, there are exact records available of all "guilty" sentences which amounted to 775 executions. In the full 200 years of the Spanish Inquisition, less than 1% of the population had any contact with it, people outside of the major cities didn't even know about it.
If we add the figures, we find that the entire Inquisition of 500 years, caused about 6,000 deaths.
Anon@7.39pm
You're contradicting yourself. You say that the figure of 6000 is the figure killed by the Inquisition, then you say it includes the Waldenses and Albigensians - but they were not tried by the Inquisition! They were exterminated by military campaigns.
It can't include them, because in the Albigensian Crusade 20,000 people were put to the sword in Beziers alone. See ref. [20] of the Wikipedia entry for "Albigensian Crusade" for an account by a contemporary which gives this figure.
Anon@8:06 p.m.
The military campaigns were a result of the excess of Simone de Monfort and the French Monarchy, whom even the Pope protested.
"Pope Innocent III was justified in saying that the Albigenses were "worse than the Saracens"; and still he counselled moderation and disapproved of the selfish policy adopted by Simon of Montfort."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01267e.htm
We had Monarch's back in the day we have President's who go to war today. Bush a born again Christian called the Iraq war a Crusade.
Anon@8.48pm
Here is from Wikipedia on the Cathars:
In January 1208 the papal legate, Pierre de Castelnau was sent to meet the ruler of the area, Count Raymond VI of Toulouse. Known for excommunicating noblemen who protected the Cathars, Castelnau excommunicated Raymond as an abettor of heresy following an allegedly fierce argument during which Raymond supposedly threatened Castelnau with violence. Shortly thereafter, Castelnau was murdered as he returned to Rome... As soon as he heard of the murder, the Pope ordered the legates to preach a crusade against the Cathars and wrote a letter to Phillip Augustus, King of France, appealing for his intervention...
To call for a crusade, and then to complain that it is too brutal (an assertion for which New Advent gives no reference) is hypocrisy.
Why is it that no-one considers what is the most important thing and get caught up on peripherals?
What is more important? To defend the Catholic Church as the only root to salvation, defend all other denominations or STAND UP TO PREACH JESUS as the ONLY way to salvation.
No church, sect, cult, religion, denomination can save us.
It is only JESUS alone who saves us. We don't need church or denominations etc to receive Jesus as our personal Saviour. It may help point us to Jesus but it doesn't save us!
The way into His immediate presence is now available to all through His blood that was once and for alltime poured out for us to forgive us eternally.
All we need to do is repent (change our thinking and behavior),ie believe mentally that Jesus is who He said He was (The Son of God, the Word of God made flesh, ie fully man and fully God, born by the Holy Spirit within a virgin, not created but always existed as ONE with God, died for our sins, risen physically from the dead, coming back again.
After accepting these things intellectually, you need to receive these things into your heart emotionally, for it says that "even the demons believe but are not saved". You need to be born-again by allowing Jesus into your heart (after confessing to God direct that you are a sinner who needs salvation).
You will then be transformed by having the nature of Jesus inside you, changed by the Holy Spirit to follow Jesus.
LOOK Church etc is an extra and is designed to help in the discipleship process, but it DOES NOT save you. Church is designed for fellowship, but it DOES NOT save you.
................................
Okay it is true that we need to be aware of lying deceptions like NA but it will not take true born-again believers out of God's Kingdom because they cannot be spiritually unborn once they have been born into His kingdom.
Receiving Christ is not the same as the NA Christ who apparently is created in us during a process of the "god within us" becoming realised and actualized bringing us to divine state.
That NA teaching is error. We are talking about the Jesus who died for our sins living in us from the moment we believe in Him.
Those who embrace NA show that they NEVER truly believed or repented in the first place.
We are supposed to focus our attention on Jesus and His commandments. If we do this then NOTHING will separate us from God.
Jesus said "if you love me, obey my commandments" "to those who believed in Him, Jesus said if you follow my teachings you will know the truth and the Truth will set you free". Jesus is the Way, the TRUTH and the Life. His TRUTH and He (as the Truth) will set us free from things like NA. Our job is to focus on JESUS only.
CONSTANCE I have a question (not yet answered). You say that all we need is a love for the truth. What truth? Truth is absolute. There can only be one truth. Any truth that contradicts THE TRUTH is false. We should not love the false but the TRUTH. Jesus IS THE TRUTH. Your truth, my truth and others truth are all in dispute. We may love what we believe in, but loving our subjective truth is not enough. NA teachers love THEIR truth also.
The plumbline for real truth HAS to measure up with what Jesus taught because HE IS THE TRUTH.
Anon@4:45 a.m.
You are judging the past with the laws of today. Nobody was punished for just believing a heresy, but for teaching it and leading others astray.
The Church was very worried that people who were influenced by these heresies were going to spend eternity in hell. Common people of the middle ages had no intellectual defense with which they could make a reasonable judgment about the Truth. They were almost as vulnerable to the heresies that were sweeping through communities as a person standing in front of a gun is today. Except a lot more than their lives was at stake, their eternal lives were in jeopardy.
The Church felt it was their job to protect the souls of the innocent. In hindsight, the Church understands that it would have done better by not using force, which is why Pope John Paul II made his apology in 2000.
Anon@4:45 a.m.
You are judging the past with the laws of today. Nobody was punished for just believing a heresy, but for teaching it and leading others astray.
The Church was very worried that people who were influenced by these heresies were going to spend eternity in hell. Common people of the middle ages had no intellectual defense with which they could make a reasonable judgment about the Truth. They were almost as vulnerable to the heresies that were sweeping through communities as a person standing in front of a gun is today. Except a lot more than their lives was at stake, their eternal lives were in jeopardy.
The Church felt it was their job to protect the souls of the innocent. In hindsight, the Church understands that it would have done better by not using force, which is why Pope John Paul II made his apology in 2000.
"the Pope ordered the legates to preach a crusade against the Cathars and wrote a letter to Phillip Augustus, King of France, appealing for his intervention."
The Cathars were killing Christians in Southern France. A papal delegate was sent to assess the situation and was killed. The Pope consulted the King about it and it was the King who launched a crusade to destroy the Cathars military might in Southern France.
Anon@1.05pm,
"You are judging the past with the laws of today."
No, I am judging the past by the laws of the gospel, which Rome also professed to believe.
"Nobody was punished for just believing a heresy, but for teaching it and leading others astray."
I have read detailed accounts of the inquisition of several named Lollards and the main charges against them were: reading the scriptures in English, denying transubstantiation, rejecting prayers offered before images, and speaking against pilgrimages. (Perhaps they taught these 'heresies' to their children.) And to whom did the 20,000 masssacred at Beziers in the Albigensian Crusade whipped up by Innocent III teach heresy?
I am glad of John Paul II's apology. What was its wording, please? Did he order it to be read from pulpits, as I would hope?
Anon@4.45am
Anon@1.14pm,
"The Cathars were killing Christians in Southern France."
According to the prominent contemporary Catholic Bernard of Clairvaux (collected sermons, no. 65) the Cathars *were* (also) Christians.
Could I ask you to debate the claim that they were killing Catholics with your fellow Catholic Lisa who, in this blog discussion, actually accused them of excessive pacifism?
I am basing my information on Wikipedia's "Albigensian crusade" article, which anybody, Catholic or post-Albigensian, is free to edit; this freedom generally gives rise to an undisputed text fairly rapidly. The article states: "In Languedoc, political control was divided among many local lords and town councils. Before the crusade, there was little fighting in the area and a fairly sophisticated polity." What is your source that Catholics were being killed, please?
"A papal delegate was sent to assess the situation and was killed. The Pope consulted the King about it and it was the King who launched a crusade to destroy the Cathars military might in Southern France."
The word "consulted" is misleading. According to Wikipedia, Pope Innocent *appealed* to the king to deal with heretics in his own realm. Mreover, you are silent about the fact that the inaptly named Innocent sent legates to preach crusade against the Cathars.
I am willing to be corrected if Wikipedia is factually wrong, but please provide verifiable references as to where.
Anon @1:44p.m,
No, I am judging the past by the laws of the gospel, which Rome also professed to believe.
In that case you should bring up Luther and Calvin who also professed to believe in the Gospels, so did the American Protestants who supported slavery.
"I have read detailed accounts of the inquisition of several named Lollards and the main charges against them were: reading the scriptures in English, denying transubstantiation, rejecting prayers offered before images, and speaking against pilgrimages. (Perhaps they taught these 'heresies' to their children.)
By Catholic standards these things were heresy. The definition of a heretic is a Catholic who refuses to be corrected. These people were not a separate group, but belonged to the same church.
"And to whom did the 20,000 masssacred at Beziers in the Albigensian Crusade whipped up by Innocent III teach heresy?""
To Catholics, whom they were leading astray.
"I am glad of John Paul II's apology. What was its wording, please? Did he order it to be read from pulpits, as I would hope?"
The following is a letter he wrote recounting his sorrow:
The institution of the Inquisition has been abolished...the children of the Church cannot but return with a spirit of repentance to "the acquiescence given, especially in certain centuries, to intolerance and even the use of violence in the service of the truth" (4)
"Lord, God of all men and women, in certain periods of history. Christians have at times given in to [forms of] intolerance and have not been faithful to the great commandment of love, sullying in this way the face of the Church, your Spouse. Have mercy on your sinful children and accept our resolve to seek and promote truth in the gentleness of charity, in the firm knowledge that truth can prevail only in virtue of truth itself. We ask this through Christ Our Lord"
(Prayer for Forgiveness, Day of Pardon, 12 March, II; ORE, 22 March 2000, p.).
You should know that Catholics have the sacrament of reconciliation and confess their sins at every single Mass.
Anon@2.38pm
Where any Christian departs from the gospel I condemn it, and that includes certain assertions of Luther and slave-owning protestants, but you are attempting to change the subject...
"By Catholic standards these things [reading the scriptures in English, denying transubstantiation, rejecting prayers offered before images, and speaking against pilgrimages] were heresy. The definition of a heretic is a Catholic who refuses to be corrected. These people were not a separate group, but belonged to the same church."
That is factually incorrect. The Cathars did not regard themselves as Catholics. Don't you think that people should be taken at their own word over what their faith is?
Moreover, it doesn't say much for the Catholic standards of which you speak that people were viewed as heretics for reading the scriptures in a language that they could understand. (The usual reply to this is that the translation was heretical, but when did mediaeval Rome make any attempt to provide vernacular Bibles?)
I asked:
"to whom did the 20,000 masssacred at Beziers in the Albigensian Crusade whipped up by Innocent III teach heresy?"
You replied:
"To Catholics, whom they were leading astray."
Those 20,000 included women and children.
Thank you for John Paul II's letter.
"According to the prominent contemporary Catholic Bernard of Clairvaux (collected sermons, no. 65) the Cathars *were* (also) Christians."
The Cathars were not Christians. They were Gnostics. Susanna brought this up too.
"Could I ask you to debate the claim that they were killing Catholics with your fellow Catholic Lisa who, in this blog discussion, actually accused them of excessive pacifism?"
I can't speak for Lisa. She would have come on and tell us what she meant.
"I am willing to be corrected if Wikipedia is factually wrong, but please provide verifiable references as to where."
Wiki is not a credible source. I would rather trust historians who have done their homework.
"The Catharist system was a simultaneous attack on the Catholic Church and the then existing State. The Church was directly assailed in its doctrine and hierarchy. The denial of the value of oaths, and the suppression, at least in theory, of the right to punish, undermined the basis of the Christian State. But the worst danger was that the triumph of the heretical principles meant the extinction of the human race. This annihilation was the direct consequence of the Catharist doctrine, that all intercourse between the sexes ought to be avoided and that suicide or the Endura, under certain circumstances, is not only lawful but commendable.
The assertion of some writers, like Charles Molinier, that Catholic and Catharist teaching respecting marriage are identical, is an erroneous interpretation of Catholic doctrine and practice. Among Catholics, the priest is forbidden to marry, but the faithful can merit eternal happiness in the married state. For the Cathari, no salvation was possible without previous renunciation of marriage.
Mr. H.C. Lea, who cannot be suspected of partiality towards the Catholic Church, writes: "However much we may deprecate the means used for its (Catharism) suppression and commiserate those who suffered for conscience' sake, we cannot but admit that the cause of orthodoxy was in this case the cause of progress and civilization. Had Catharism become dominant, or even had it been allowed to exist on equal terms, its influence could not have failed to prove disastrous." (See Lea, Inquisition, I, 106.)
"That is factually incorrect. The Cathars did not regard themselves as Catholics. Don't you think that people should be taken at their own word over what their faith is?"
Yes, they were Gnostics, not Protestants either. The fact is they were leading Catholics astray, since they were the only Christians around at this time.
"The usual reply to this is that the translation was heretical, but when did mediaeval Rome make any attempt to provide vernacular Bibles?"
The Catholic Douay-Rheims version of the whole Bible in English was translated from the Latin Vulgate. It was completed in 1610, one year before the King James Version was published. The New Testament had been published in 1582 and was one of the sources used by the KJV translators. The Old Testament was completed in 1610.
The Latin Vulgate was always available to anyone who wanted to read it without restriction.
After the invention of the press, prior to Luther's Bible being published in German, there had been over 20 versions of the whole Bible translated into the various German dialects (High and Low) by Catholics. Similarly, there were several vernacular versions of the Bible published in other languages both before and after the Reformation.
"Those 20,000 included women and children."
Yes, the Pope protested this, because the intention was to break the Cathars political control not kill innocent people.
This is a historical website on the Cathars. Even they document their Gnostic teachings.
"The Cathars believed that matter was evil, and that Man (Humanity) was an alien sojourner in an essentially evil world. Therefore, the main aim of Man was to free his spirit, which was in its nature good, and restore it with God. They had strict rules for fasting, and were strict vegetarians.
They did not believe in a Last Judgement, believing instead that this material world would end only when the last of the angelic souls had been released from it. They believed in reincarnation, and that souls could take many lifetimes to reach perfection before their final release.
The Cathars could also not accept the orthodox beliefs regarding the Eucharist, and other sacraments of the church, as this implied that Christ would have actually lived on this earth in the flesh, been crucified, and resurrected from this evil, material world - something that they felt a divine, good Being like Christ could never do in the first place, as God (i.e. Christ, in the orthodox Christian view) would never exist in this material world, only in Heaven. So, they rejected a fundamental tenet of the orthodox church: the Incarnation."
http://www.ancientquest.com/embark/cathars.html
There's a former Episcopalian minister Philip Lee who had documented the Protestant rejection of the sacraments as a result of adopting Gnostic theories. His book "Against the Protestant Gnostics" documents this.
ttp://www.amazon.com/Against-Protestant-Gnostics-Philip-Lee/dp/0195084365
Anon@2.59pm,
"The Cathars were not Christians. They were Gnostics. Susanna brought this up too."
Take it up with Bernard of Clairvaux, as rigorous a Catholic as you could find, who said otherwise in his 65th sermon - and (unlike you) was there at the time and interacted with them. Most of our sources about them are from the people who exterminated them, but it is a tenet of judicial enquiry that people should be allowed to speak for themselves. So they believed in gods of both good and evil? So do we - but they (like us) *worshipped* the one who was good, and they never stated that the two were *equal* and opposite. Where they went wrong was in supposing that the good god made the things spiritual and the bad god made the things material. (That is not, as a matter of fact, gnostic - they still believed that they were saved by whom they believed in, Jesus Christ the son of the good god, rather than saved by what they believed in, ie gnosis.) But is that any more heretical than the view that Christians should butcher people in the name of the Prince of Peace for their beliefs? The strongest sanction in the New Testament is 1 Corinthians 5:5. (I believe is the pronunciation of a curse rather than expulsion - but it is *not* a physical chastisement.) Christ is the examplar for Christians; why then did He not go around rooting out heretics and demanding that Mosaic law be applied to them?
"Wiki is not a credible source. I would rather trust historians who have done their homework."
Fair enough. In that case please provide verifiable references which demonstrate that "the Cathars were killing Catholics (Anon@1.14pm)" and which specifically refute these claims:
* The Cathars were pacifists
* In Languedoc, political control was divided among many local lords and town councils. Before the crusade, there was little fighting in the area and a fairly sophisticated polity.
* In January 1208 the papal legate, Pierre de Castelnau was sent to meet the ruler of the area, Count Raymond VI of Toulouse. Known for excommunicating noblemen who protected the Cathars, Castelnau excommunicated Raymond as an abettor of heresy following an allegedly fierce argument during which Raymond supposedly threatened Castelnau with violence. Shortly thereafter, Castelnau was murdered as he returned to Rome, allegedly by a knight in the service of Count Raymond. As soon as he heard of the murder, the Pope ordered the legates to preach a crusade against the Cathars - offering the land of the heretics to any who would fight - and wrote a letter to Phillip Augustus, King of France, appealing for his intervention.
Anon@3.07pm,
I asked:
"when did mediaeval Rome make any attempt to provide vernacular Bibles?"
You replied:
"The Catholic Douay-Rheims version of the whole Bible in English was translated from the Latin Vulgate. It was completed in 1610, one year before the King James Version was published. The New Testament had been published in 1582 and was one of the sources used by the KJV translators. The Old Testament was completed in 1610."
I'm glad of it, but these were *responses* to the increasing availability of vernacular Bibles provided by protestants. Rome thought it had better provide its own - something it never did spontaneously.
"The Latin Vulgate was always available to anyone who wanted to read it without restriction."
I welcome that too, but the vast majority of people could not read Latin.
"After the invention of the press, prior to Luther's Bible being published in German, there had been over 20 versions of the whole Bible translated into the various German dialects (High and Low) by Catholics. Similarly, there were several vernacular versions of the Bible published in other languages both before and after the Reformation."
Pre-Reformation, *all* scholars capable of translating the Bible into the vernacular were Catholics. The question is whether those translations were authorised. To my knowledge they never were - Wycliffe and Tyndale's English translations were condemned. The reason given was that they were misleading translations, but in that case why did Rome never promote an authorised translation until after the Reformation had succeeded, in Tyndale's words, in putting the scriptures into the hands of every ploughboy? Could it be that Rome was aware that people would start questioning its religious practices in the light of the scriptures?
I wrote:
"Those 20,000 [massacred in Beziers] included women and children."
You replied:
"Yes, the Pope protested this, because the intention was to break the Cathars political control not kill innocent people."
The Pope called a Crusade against the Cathars in which he offered out their land. Do you seriously believe, in view of Crusaders' behaviour, that he expected women and children to be spared (presumably, in the absence of their men, to starve to death)?
Even St. Benard, never denied that they were Gnostics. The last I checked Christians do not believe that there are two Gods.
"But is that any more heretical than the view that Christians should butcher people in the name of the Prince of Peace for their beliefs? "
I never said it was alright. The point you don't get is that these were death penalties sanctioned by the state too. A heretic was considered to also be an enemy of the state, because of the political uprisings heresies often created.
Do you support the death penalty today? The Catholic church does not.
"I welcome that too, but the vast majority of people could not read Latin."
All educated people could read Latin. In fact Luther chose not to use Latin, because no educated person would have taken him seriously.
"Could it be that Rome was aware that people would start questioning its religious practices in the light of the scriptures?"
First of all nobody actually had an actual Bible in hand before the invention of the printing press, they relied on oral teaching. And, I already mentioned that there were Bibles available in the vernacular by Rome, a 100 years before the Reformation.
The Catholic Church compiled the Bible and decided what books should go into it.
Here are the words of Professor Peter Flint, the non-Catholic scholar who translated the only English version of the Dead Sea Scrolls which won first prize from the Washington Biblical Archeology association:
"Without the Catholic Church you have no Bible, just a bunch of books and letters. With the Church you have the Bible!"
"Christ is the examplar for Christians; why then did He not go around rooting out heretics and demanding that Mosaic law be applied to them?"
It took the church a while to come to the understand that the death penalty violated a natural law, just as Evangelicals came to an evolved understanding of slavery.
"The Pope called a Crusade against the Cathars in which he offered out their land. Do you seriously believe, in view of Crusaders' behaviour, that he expected women and children to be spared (presumably, in the absence of their men, to starve to death)?"
I cannot answer this question, because I don't know. What I do know is that this would not have been possible without co-operation from the civil authorities as well. The church passed the verdict, the state carried out the sentence.
Under the Law, an offence against the faith was considered to be an offence against the state.
Even Protestant countries had these laws.
Anon@4.27pm,
"Even St. Benard, never denied that they were Gnostics. The last I checked Christians do not believe that there are two Gods."
This is a matter of definition. Satan is described as the god of this world, and in the Old Testament there is plentiful mention of pagan gods. There is only one Creator - and thankfully He is good. The evil god is not the creator and is therefore less powerful. This is the Judaeo-Christian system. Do remember that we need words for gods (generic) and for OUR god (Jehovah, father of Jesus Christ). I'm sure we agree about all that. The point is to have all this in mind when reading not just what the Cathars believed, but who they worshipped - Jesus Christ. Their error lay elsewhere, in the matter/spirit issue.
"The point you don't get is that these were death penalties sanctioned by the state too. A heretic was considered to also be an enemy of the state, because of the political uprisings heresies often created."
I do get it, I just disagree with it. Mediaeval Europe was not a nation or set of peoples with whom God had made a covenant, and was not authorised to execute heretics unlike ancient Israel. You can - and should - punish people who break certain moral laws, as all legal systems do, but there should be freedom of conscience.
"Do you support the death penalty today? The Catholic church does not."
That's strange, because it used to, and it claims that its formal teaching is inerrant. Was it wrong before it changed, or wrong after?
Martin Luther said:
"There are others who teach in opposition to some recognized article of faith which is manifestly grounded on Scripture . .Heretics of this sort must not be tolerated, but punished as open blasphemers . . . If anyone wishes to preach or to teach, let him make known the call or the command which impels him to do so, or else let him keep silence. If he will not keep quiet, then let the civil authorities command the scoundrel to his rightful master
- namely, Master Hans [i.e., the hangman]. (Janssen, X, 222; EA, Bd. 39, 250-258; Commentary on 82nd Psalm, 1530; cf. Durant, 423, Grisar, VI, 26-27)
Anon@4.30pm,
"It took the church a while to come to the understand that the death penalty violated a natural law, just as Evangelicals came to an evolved understanding of slavery."
Do you think that God was wrong to command the death penalty in the Law of Moses for certain offences?
"The point is to have all this in mind when reading not just what the Cathars believed, but who they worshipped - Jesus Christ. Their error lay elsewhere, in the matter/spirit issue."
The Gnostics claimed to be Christians yes, and claimed to follow the Gnostic Christ, whom we do not believe is the same Jesus of the Gospels.
The matter/spirit issue is significant because they denied that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, but that he was only divine.
"I do get it, I just disagree with it. Mediaeval Europe was not a nation or set of peoples with whom God had made a covenant, and was not authorised to execute heretics unlike ancient Israel. You can - and should - punish people who break certain moral laws, as all legal systems do, but there should be freedom of conscience."
The legal system back in the day did not think like today's one. Try to understand. The New Testament does not have explicit laws on what needed to be done in such situations, as it does not on several bio-ethical issues of today too. Which is why Catholics argue that scripture alone is not sufficient.
"That's strange, because it used to, and it claims that its formal teaching is inerrant. Was it wrong before it changed, or wrong after?"
There was no separation of state and church. In both Catholic and Protestant countries.
A lot of things such as freedom of conscience, the natural law etc, can be found in the writings of the early church fathers. These were present at least in the embryo stage. It's an organic development, where they can be development of a given teaching, but there cannot be a new one.
"Do you think that God was wrong to command the death penalty in the Law of Moses for certain offences?"
No. I don't think it was wrong, but you're the one who keeps arguing that we are not under the mosaic law anymore.
Anon@5.01pm,
Please demonstrate to me from Cathar sources that their Christ was not ours - then I'll believe you.
"The legal system back in the day did not think like today's one. Try to understand. The New Testament does not have explicit laws on what needed to be done in such situations, as it does not on several bio-ethical issues of today too. Which is why Catholics argue that scripture alone is not sufficient."
Please don't think that I don't understand merely because I don't agree. The New Testament told how to run a church, and I agree that it did not tell how to run a nation. However I dispute that scripture is not up to dealing with the issue. Look at the Old Testament and you see exactly how God ran a nation. That was a covenant nation, which gentile nations aren't, but it is fairly easily adapted - adopt the moral laws and penalties unchanged, and leave the religious ones to the individual conscience. I am up for constructive discussion about all of this - it's a subject I love chewing with Christians both Catholic and protestant.
Anon@5.04pm: Please see preceding paragraph.
Re: death penalty
God made an unconditional command to all mankind after the Flood that capital punishment should be enacted for murder, in a covenant with Noah (Genesis 9:6, which is clearly a command not a prophecy).) This covenant has never been superseded, unlike that with Moses. Too many Christians lump the Old Testament covenants together unthinkingly. In the New Testament, St Paul approves of the use of the sword in judicial systems (Romans 13:4). He didn't mean for knighting people!
Anon@5.01pm
I wrote:
"That's strange, because it [the Roman Catholic church] used to [approve of the death penalty], and it claims that its formal teaching is inerrant. Was it wrong before it changed, or wrong after?"
You replied:
"There was no separation of state and church. In both Catholic and Protestant countries."
That's a reply, but it certainly isn't an answer.
"Please demonstrate to me from Cathar sources that their Christ was not ours - then I'll believe you."
This is from a Cathar site.
" The very idea of a physical body in heaven was ridiculous. Further, it was not plausible that the Good God would send anyone from his realm into the evil material world of the Bad God. Jesus must therefore have been a sort of phantom, looking like a man but in fact immaterial. "
http://www.cathar.info/120102_implications.htm
"Look at the Old Testament and you see exactly how God ran a nation. That was a covenant nation, which gentile nations aren't, but it is fairly easily adapted - adopt the moral laws and penalties unchanged, and leave the religious ones to the individual conscience."
Yes, but these laws were easier to implement because they only covered one nation. Christianity landed up in a pagan land, where a lot of pagan laws were still in place,
"During 900-1000 AD the Germanic tribes ran Europe and it was a very dark and violent period.
Germanic law displaced the Roman law of several centuries earlier. Christianity was trying to convert the Germanic tribes and they had no help from the authorities. The Germanic law was actually quite a bit more barbaric than the ancient Roman law. Germanic law basically said, "If you have a beef with a person, or group of people, fight it out and God will choose the winner."
Roman law was reintroduced in Europe during the Middle Ages when Germanic law failed and the Germanic tribes were conquered. In Roman law, anyone who opposed the beliefs of the emperor was an enemy of the state."
"God made an unconditional command to all mankind after the Flood that capital punishment should be enacted for murder, in a covenant with Noah (Genesis 9:6, which is clearly a command not a prophecy).) This covenant has never been superseded, unlike that with Moses. Too many Christians lump the Old Testament covenants together unthinkingly. In the New Testament, St Paul approves of the use of the sword in judicial systems (Romans 13:4). He didn't mean for knighting people!"
Jesus is the fulfillment of the law.
The three traditional purposes recognized by the Church have been:
1. Defense of society against the criminal.
2. Rehabilitation of the criminal (including spiritual rehabilitation).
3. Retribution, which is the reparation of the disorder caused by the criminal's transgression.
"That's a reply, but it certainly isn't an answer."
I referred to the church fathers for this one.
Anon@5.30pm,
Plenty of heresy on that Cathar website, for sure, in particular about Jesus. However I want it from mediaeval Cathar sources. Plenty of people have romantically imposed their own ideas on their own history and got it wrong. I'm grateful for the link, though. (And, of course, killing them for it is unconscionable, but I know you accept that.)
"Yes, but these laws were easier to implement because they only covered one nation. Christianity landed up in a pagan land, where a lot of pagan laws were still in place"
Agreed. Christians who have any influence on the laws of a land - and that might be no influence, or a lot - should work to get the moral components of the law in harmony with the moral components of Mosaic law; and should allow religous freedom of conscience.
Anon@5.38pm,
Forgive my stupidity, but I don't understand your answer or how the Fathers relate to my question. My question is this: Was the Roman Catholic church (which claims to be at all times inerrant in its official teaching) wrong when it advocated the death penalty for certain offences, or wrong when it changed its mind and now opposes capital punishment?
"Plenty of heresy on that Cathar website, for sure, in particular about Jesus. However I want it from mediaeval Cathar sources. Plenty of people have romantically imposed their own ideas on their own history and got it wrong. I'm grateful for the link, though. (And, of course, killing them for it is unconscionable, but I know you accept that.)"
Most Cathar scholars and medieavial scholars agree they were Gnostics. I personally thing Protestants don't want to accept his because they may have to accept the fact that a lot of their teachings on issues come from the Gnostics.
"Agreed. Christians who have any influence on the laws of a land - and that might be no influence, or a lot - should work to get the moral components of the law in harmony with the moral components of Mosaic law; and should allow religous freedom of conscience."
There are plenty of Christians who worked towards these things, Robert Bellarmine, Thomas Aquinas, Martinian, the Medieval Scholastics etc.
"Forgive my stupidity, but I don't understand your answer or how the Fathers relate to my question. My question is this: Was the Roman Catholic church (which claims to be at all times inerrant in its official teaching) wrong when it advocated the death penalty for certain offences, or wrong when it changed its mind and now opposes capital punishment?"
First, it is important to remember that traditional Catholic teaching never claimed that the state must impose the death penalty. In this, the Catholic view differs from, for example, the view of Immanuel Kant. Kant held that it was a strict duty, a duty that must be discharged, to execute those guilty of capital crimes.
By contrast, St. Thomas held that the government has the responsibility to protect the common good by means of just punishments, but he does not specify that one particular crime (e.g. murder) must always and in every case be punished in one particular way (capital punishment).
You can refer back to the Middle Ages, but you should know that a lot of those laws were state laws.
Wiccan Historian Jenny Dobbins for instance says:
Here are a few quotes:
"When the Church was at the height of its power (11th-14th centuries) very few witches died. Persecutions did not reach epidemic levels until after the Reformation, when the Catholic Church had lost its position as Europe's indisputable moral authority. Moreover most of the killing was done by secular courts. Church courts tried many witches but they usually imposed non-lethal penalties. A witch might be excommunicated, given penance, or imprisoned, but she was rarely killed. The Inquisition almost invariably pardoned any witch who confessed and repented...
When the trials peaked in the 16th and 17th century, the Inquisition was only operating in two countries: Spain and Italy, and both had extremely low death tolls...
We Neopagans now face a crisis. As new data appeared, historians altered their theories to account for it. We have not. Therefore an enormous gap has opened between the academic and the "average" Pagan view of witchcraft. We continue to use of out-dated and poor writers, like Margaret Murray, Montague Summers, Gerald Gardner, and Jules Michelet. We avoid the somewhat dull academic texts that present solid research, preferring sensational writers who play to our emotions ...
We owe it to ourselves to study the Great Hunt more honestly, in more detail, and using the best data available. Dualistic fairy tales of noble witches and evil witch hunters have great emotional appeal, but they blind us to what happened. (8)
Jenny's academic integrity would not let her skew her findings because of her pagan beliefs.
Anon@5.50pm,
I wrote:
"Christians who have any influence on the laws of a land - and that might be no influence, or a lot - should work to get the moral components of the law in harmony with the moral components of Mosaic law; and should allow religous freedom of conscience."
You replied:
"There are plenty of Christians who worked towards these things, Robert Bellarmine, Thomas Aquinas, Martinian, the Medieval Scholastics"
If so then I'm glad, but your accuracy is questionable because the biggest hitter among those, Thomas Aquinas did *not* believe in freedom of conscience. He arged that heretics should be executed (Summa Theologiae II-II, Q.11, art.3).
"If so then I'm glad, but your accuracy is questionable because the biggest hitter among those, Thomas Aquinas did *not* believe in freedom of conscience. He arged that heretics should be executed (Summa Theologiae II-II, Q.11, art.3)."
Thomas Aquinas held the view that a heretic who disturbed the order of a country, as in the case of causing a political uprising , then they should be handed over to the state authorities to be dealt with on their terms.
Heresy was considered a crime by the state, because it often led to political unrest.
A lot of political movements have been deemed heretic by the church too.
Religion was not just a matter of personal choice at the time. It involved a person's whole identity.
Anon@6.23pm,
I wrote:
"Thomas Aquinas did *not* believe in freedom of conscience. He arged that heretics should be executed (Summa Theologiae II-II, Q.11, art.3)."
You replied:
"Thomas Aquinas held the view that a heretic who disturbed the order of a country, as in the case of causing a political uprising , then they should be handed over to the state authorities to be dealt with on their terms."
Thomas wrote, in English translation (from Summa Theologiae II-II, Q.11, art.3), "With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death."
One would never infer that these were his views from your very general summary!
Since Rome is now against the death penalty for anything, you presumably believe that Thomas was wrong?
Since Rome is now against the death penalty for anything, you presumably believe that Thomas was wrong?
The church is not against the death penalty for anything, but says it should be the last option after all other options do not work.
Thomas was not infallible. He was human like everybody else. The natural law is something that we are learning about more and more as time passes on.
I told you before that the church is an organic development. The early church fathers wrote about this issue too.
You should know that the Protestants who argued for freedom of conscience also used the writings of the Fathers to do this.
Anon@6.47pm,
Good for the Fathers, they got it right from the same source as me - the gospel. Christ coerced nobody into believing anything.
Anon@6:50 p.m.
"Good for the Fathers, they got it right from the same source as me - the gospel. Christ coerced nobody into believing anything."
Yes, but the fathers also decided what books should be in the Bible and did not subscribe to Sola Scriptura. The New Testament church existed before the New testament.
Anon@6.27pm, you wrote "The church is not against the death penalty for anything, but says it should be the last option after all other options do not work." I invite Anon@4.27pm, also a Catholic, to dispute this with you since at 4.27pm therr appeared the statement "Do you support the death penalty today? The Catholic church does not."
As a protestant I used to think that, while it might difficult to find out what "the protestant" view of something was, it was at least easy to determine the Catholic view. I'm starting to wonder!
Ok, OK, Anon6.56pm, the Fathers got it from the same source as me - Jesus Christ. Are we singing from the same hymn sheet on that?
"As a protestant I used to think that, while it might difficult to find out what "the protestant" view of something was, it was at least easy to determine the Catholic view. I'm starting to wonder"
That was an error on my part that I apologize for. This is what the Catechism says about the death penalty.
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."
In other words it should only be the last resort, only when it is absolutely necessary.
"Anon6.56pm, the Fathers got it from the same source as me - Jesus Christ. Are we singing from the same hymn sheet on that?"
Yes, we are. However, how does that square in with Protestant beliefs that people who do not accept Jesus are going to hell, for this.
How do you reconcile freedom of conscience with justification by faith alone?
Anon@7.05pm,
"how does that square in with Protestant beliefs that people who do not accept Jesus are going to hell, for this."
Please explain what "that" and "this" refer to and I'll gladly answer. I don't yet understand your question.
"How do you reconcile freedom of conscience with justification by faith alone?"
Where do you think they clash? This is not a delaying tactic - I don't see any clash whereas you apparently do.
Anon@7.02pm
Why do you believe that the penalties for certain moral offences (ie, between persons, not between a person and God) should differ from those in Mosaic Law?
Anon@7:05
I think this would differ from Protestant to Protestant. Those who believe in pre-destination or salvation of the elect would have to reject the existence of free will.
"Why do you believe that the penalties for certain moral offences (ie, between persons, not between a person and God) should differ from those in Mosaic Law?"
The Mosaic law ordered punishments that by today's standards would seem cruel and inhumane.
How would it be different from Muslim countries that stone people for adultery?
Anon@7.39pm,
I sked:
"Why do you believe that the penalties for certain moral offences (ie, between persons, not between a person and God) should differ from those in Mosaic Law?"
You replied:
"Mosaic law ordered punishments that by today's standards would seem cruel and inhumane."
But it should be scripture that sets our standards, should it not?
PS Suggesting that something is wrong because Muslims do it is not a valid way to argue.
Anon@7:44 p.m.
"But it should be scripture that sets our standards, should it not?"
What about separation of church and state then? We can certainly work towards doing the right thing, but we cannot impose something just because the scriptures say so. Unless we can rationally prove them. This would refute Sola Scriptura since, we would need another source to prove our theories.
Even Jewish courts today consult oral tradition and not just the Torah.
Still awaiting an answer to this as follows:
Why is it that no-one considers what is the most important thing and get caught up on peripherals?
What is more important? To defend the Catholic Church as the only root to salvation, defend all other denominations or STAND UP TO PREACH JESUS as the ONLY way to salvation.
No church, sect, cult, religion, denomination can save us.
It is only JESUS alone who saves us. We don't need church or denominations etc to receive Jesus as our personal Saviour. It may help point us to Jesus but it doesn't save us!
The way into His immediate presence is now available to all through His blood that was once and for alltime poured out for us to forgive us eternally.
All we need to do is repent (change our thinking and behavior),ie believe mentally that Jesus is who He said He was (The Son of God, the Word of God made flesh, ie fully man and fully God, born by the Holy Spirit within a virgin, not created but always existed as ONE with God, died for our sins, risen physically from the dead, coming back again.
After accepting these things intellectually, you need to receive these things into your heart emotionally, for it says that "even the demons believe but are not saved". You need to be born-again by allowing Jesus into your heart (after confessing to God direct that you are a sinner who needs salvation).
You will then be transformed by having the nature of Jesus inside you, changed by the Holy Spirit to follow Jesus.
LOOK Church etc is an extra and is designed to help in the discipleship process, but it DOES NOT save you. Church is designed for fellowship, but it DOES NOT save you.
................................
Okay it is true that we need to be aware of lying deceptions like NA but it will not take true born-again believers out of God's Kingdom because they cannot be spiritually unborn once they have been born into His kingdom.
Receiving Christ is not the same as the NA Christ who apparently is created in us during a process of the "god within us" becoming realised and actualized bringing us to divine state.
That NA teaching is error. We are talking about the Jesus who died for our sins living in us from the moment we believe in Him.
Those who embrace NA show that they NEVER truly believed or repented in the first place.
We are supposed to focus our attention on Jesus and His commandments. If we do this then NOTHING will separate us from God.
Jesus said "if you love me, obey my commandments" "to those who believed in Him, Jesus said if you follow my teachings you will know the truth and the Truth will set you free". Jesus is the Way, the TRUTH and the Life. His TRUTH and He (as the Truth) will set us free from things like NA. Our job is to focus on JESUS only.
CONSTANCE I have a question (not yet answered). You say that all we need is a love for the truth. What truth? Truth is absolute. There can only be one truth. Any truth that contradicts THE TRUTH is false. We should not love the false but the TRUTH. Jesus IS THE TRUTH. Your truth, my truth and others truth are all in dispute. We may love what we believe in, but loving our subjective truth is not enough. NA teachers love THEIR truth also.
The plumbline for real truth HAS to measure up with what Jesus taught because HE IS THE TRUTH.
Calvin BTW, did use the Bible to establish state laws punishing those who violated them.
"At Geneva, as for a time in Scotland," says J. A. Froude, "moral sins were treated as crimes to be punished by the magistrate." The Bible was a code of law, administered by the clergy.
Still awaiting an answer to this as follows:
Why is it that no-one considers what is the most important thing and get caught up on peripherals?
What is more important? To defend the Catholic Church as the only root to salvation, defend all other denominations or STAND UP TO PREACH JESUS as the ONLY way to salvation.
No church, sect, cult, religion, denomination can save us.
It is only JESUS alone who saves us. We don't need church or denominations etc to receive Jesus as our personal Saviour. It may help point us to Jesus but it doesn't save us!
The way into His immediate presence is now available to all through His blood that was once and for alltime poured out for us to forgive us eternally.
All we need to do is repent (change our thinking and behavior),ie believe mentally that Jesus is who He said He was (The Son of God, the Word of God made flesh, ie fully man and fully God, born by the Holy Spirit within a virgin, not created but always existed as ONE with God, died for our sins, risen physically from the dead, coming back again.
After accepting these things intellectually, you need to receive these things into your heart emotionally, for it says that "even the demons believe but are not saved". You need to be born-again by allowing Jesus into your heart (after confessing to God direct that you are a sinner who needs salvation).
You will then be transformed by having the nature of Jesus inside you, changed by the Holy Spirit to follow Jesus.
LOOK Church etc is an extra and is designed to help in the discipleship process, but it DOES NOT save you. Church is designed for fellowship, but it DOES NOT save you.
Okay it is true that we need to be aware of lying deceptions like NA but it will not take true born-again believers out of God's Kingdom because they cannot be spiritually unborn once they have been born into His kingdom.
Receiving Christ is not the same as the NA Christ who apparently is created in us during a process of the "god within us" becoming realised and actualized bringing us to divine state.
That NA teaching is error. We are talking about the Jesus who died for our sins living in us from the moment we believe in Him.
Those who embrace NA show that they NEVER truly believed or repented in the first place.
We are supposed to focus our attention on Jesus and His commandments. If we do this then NOTHING will separate us from God.
Jesus said "if you love me, obey my commandments" "to those who believed in Him, Jesus said if you follow my teachings you will know the truth and the Truth will set you free". Jesus is the Way, the TRUTH and the Life. His TRUTH and He (as the Truth) will set us free from things like NA. Our job is to focus on JESUS only.
CONSTANCE I have a question (not yet answered). You say that all we need is a love for the truth. What truth? Truth is absolute. There can only be one truth. Any truth that contradicts THE TRUTH is false. We should not love the false but the TRUTH. Jesus IS THE TRUTH. Your truth, my truth and others truth are all in dispute. We may love what we believe in, but loving our subjective truth is not enough. NA teachers love THEIR truth also.
The plumbline for real truth HAS to measure up with what Jesus taught because HE IS THE TRUTH.
Anon@4.38pm, you were asked the question:
"The Pope called a Crusade against the Cathars in which he offered out their land. Do you seriously believe, in view of Crusaders' behaviour, that he expected women and children to be spared (presumably, in the absence of their men, to starve to death)?"
To which you replied:
"I cannot answer this question, because I don't know. What I do know is that this would not have been possible without co-operation from the civil authorities..."
You have to be very highly educated indeed to find such a question difficult.
Anon@5.50pm, in response to my question:
"Plenty of heresy on that Cathar website, for sure, in particular about Jesus. However I want it from mediaeval Cathar sources. Plenty of people have romantically imposed their own ideas on their own history and got it wrong. I'm grateful for the link, though."
You replied:
"Most Cathar scholars and medieavial scholars agree they were Gnostics. I personally thing Protestants don't want to accept his because they may have to accept the fact that a lot of their teachings on issues come from the Gnostics."
All I am asking for is academic historians' standard of proof. Much history scholarship of the last 100 years has involved getting rid of conjecture written as fact by historians of previous eras who did not go back to original documents. I welcome all genuine scholarship.
If you wish to suggest what protestant doctrines are gnostic, I'll gladly discuss with you. If you confess the Nicene creed then you are my brother in Christ.
Anonymous 8:07 A.M.
I wholeheartedly agree that if we are going to engage in a legitimate debate we need to abide by academic standards and not just shoot from the hip without sourcing our claims.
Here are a few links containing interesting information about the Cathari/Albiigensians.
ESCLARMONDE OF FOIX
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Esclarmonde_of_Foix
CATHAR CASTLES
Chateau de Bezu (Castel de Albedun)
http://www.castlesandmanorhouses.
com/catharcastles/bezu.php?key=
bezu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathar_castles
CHATEAU DE PIEUSSE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3
%A2teau_de_Pieusse
"Protestants refer to specific Protestant groupings of churches that share in common foundational doctrines and the name of their groups as "denominations". They are differently named parts of the whole "church"; Protestants reject the Roman Catholic doctrine that it is the one true church. Some Protestant denominations are less accepting of other denominations, and the basic orthodoxy of some is questioned by most of the others. Individual denominations also have formed over very subtle theological differences. Other denominations are simply regional or ethnic expressions of the same beliefs. Because the five solas are the main tenets of the Protestant faith, Non-denominational groups and organizations are also considered Protestant.
Various ecumenical movements have attempted cooperation or reorganization of the various divided Protestant denominations, according to various models of union, but divisions continue to outpace unions, as there is no overarching authority to which any of the churches owe allegiance, which can authoritatively define the faith. Most denominations share common beliefs in the major aspects of the Christian faith, while differing in many secondary doctrines, although what is major and what is secondary is a matter of idiosyncratic belief. According to World Christian Encyclopedia, there are "over 33,000 denominations in 238 countries," having increased in number from 8,196 in 1970. Every year there is a net increase of around 270 to 300 denominations.[16]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Protestantism
Anon@8:01
The rules of just war do not permit such a thing happen, i,e, women and children starve.
It's true they are not always applied the way they should.
We all agree that the use of force was not good in this case.
"All I am asking for is academic historians' standard of proof. Much history scholarship of the last 100 years has involved getting rid of conjecture written as fact by historians of previous eras who did not go back to original documents. I welcome all genuine scholarship."
I am not a historian but you can check these books.
Wakefield, Walter L., and Austin Evans, eds. and trans. Heresies of the High Middle Ages. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969. [Translates many important documents.]
Cathares en Languedoc. Cahiers de Fanjeaux 3. Toulouse: Privat, 1968.
Lambert, Malcolm. Medieval Heresy. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.
Le Roy Ladurie, Emmanuel. Montaillou: Catholics and Cathars in a French Village, 1294–1324, trans. Barbara Bray. London: Scolar, 1978.
Loos, Milan. Dualist Heresy in the Middle Ages, trans. Iris Lewitova. Prague: Akademia, 1974.
Moore, R.I. The Origins of European Dissent. New York: St. Martin, 1977.
Wakefield, Walter L. Heresy, Crusade and Inquisition in Southern France, 1100–1250. London: Allen and Unwin, 1974.
"If you wish to suggest what protestant doctrines are gnostic, I'll gladly discuss with you.
The Cartesian dualism in Protestant thought that sees body and spirit as distinct and separate, or I would say spirit/matter dualism.
This is found in Luther's two kingdom theory, in the excessive Puritan ideals of Calvin, that banned art, dancing, theatres and instrumental music.
The rejection of the sacraments because being saved is a spiritual matter, hence no need for physical structures like a priesthood, the sacraments.
The philosophy tends to view the world of matter with suspicion or inferior to the world of sprit.
Catholicism would argue that God became man and dwelt amongst us, thus making matter holy.
I will also add that the Iconclasm controversy arose in the Byzantine East in the 8th century, due to the influence of Islam.
Churches began to conceal or destroy their icons, because they were offensive to Islam, where God could not be represented in any form. It was even more detestable to accept the fact that God came in the form of a human being.
This led various saints to write in favour of icons and explain how they were deeply connected to the incarnation.
Dear Anon@9.15am and Anon@2.54pm
At 8.07am I asked for references which proved your assertion that the mediaeval Cathars were heretics by the standards of the scriptures. We agreed that this would involve finding mediaeval Cathar sources, not reading what people said about them centuries later or what their contemporary enemies said about them. You have pointed to a number of references (which I too could have turned up), but not stated whether these references verify your claim. You made the claim, so the onus is on you...
Anon@2.20pm,
The definition of "denomination" is problematic. I replied to someone else above as follows:
Have you looked into that alleged figure of 33,000 denominations? The frontpage of the online version of the World Christian Encyclopedia refers to 9000 denominations (I can't get further in without subscribing) and speaks of
•Anglicans
•Catholics
•Independents
•Marginals
•Orthodox
•Protestants
•Charismatics
•Neocharismatics
•Pentecostals
Obviously, we have a classification issue here. It is not clear without looking more closely whether the Encyclopedia subdivides Catholicism, for instance. (Latin Mass? Charismatic or not? etc.) So we need more info on the meaning of that 9000 figure, let alone 33,000. How does the encyclopedia define a denomination? Unless you can give that info, please stop quoting this figure as authoritative. The Wikipedia article on 'Protestantism' links to a Wikipedia list of protestant denominations at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Protestant_churches
which gives only a few hundred.
It has been assserted that the number of denominations has increased from 8196 to 33000 in the last 40 years. I am not aware of protestants falling out with each other at a calamitous rate and I wonder if this simply represents the growth of Free churches as Christianity spreads. You are measuring protestantism by your own model of a formal hierarchy, and assuming that denominations come into being only via a falling-out, but much protestantism is simply not like that.
Anon@6:19 p.m.
There are several gnostic websites that affirm the Cathar beliefs.
"Gnostic groups of various kinds flourished in France throughout history, the best known and most numerous being the Cathar Church in the Middle Ages. French crusaders also came into contact with Gnostic groups in the Middle East and brought their teachings back to the French homeland, where these teachings were cultivated by generations of French devotees of the Gnosis in secret. "
http://www.gnosis.org/gnscript.html
"Montsegur had been home to a community of men, women and children known as the “Cathars”, the term itself deriving from the Greek word Katheroi meaning “Pure Ones”.
According to legend, one of the secret purposes of Montsegur was to protect the most sacred treasure, the Holy Grail. The safekeeping of the Grail was allegedly part of the function of the Cathars."
http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/review/rev/item733.html
"The Cathar initiation ceremony seems to be derived from the Manichaean ritual. Both distinguished between the Gnosis (knowledge) of the Initiate and the Pistis (belief) of the ordinary believer."
http://www.tarot.com/about-tarot/library/boneill/CT_Origins
"The Cathar were a group of people who lived primarily in Southern France, the Midi and Haute Pyrenees and Languedoc during the 11th century to the 14th century. Some believe that these people originated from Israel, having been followers of the Master Yeshua (Jesus). Regardless, they were deeply devoted to the ancient and original Gnostic teachings of this teacher, Yeshua, and also his partner and twin flame Mary Magdalene"
http://www.cathar22.com/page23.html
"Catharism descended from the original Gnostics. They rejected the outward forms of the Church, and believed in an extreme form of dualism."
http://www.experiencefestival.com/cathar_-_origins
Dear Anon@2.54pm
You state where you believe that matter/spirit dualism has infected protestantism. I agree with some of your examples, disagree with others, and would like to point out some places where it has also infected Catholicism. May we unite as Nicene Creed-affirming Christians against this common enemy?
"This [matter/spirit dualism] is found in Luther's two kingdom theory, in the excessive Puritan ideals of Calvin, that banned art, dancing, theatres and instrumental music."
I agree with your charge against this aspect of Puritanism. Regarding Luther's two-kingdom theory the charge is too simplistic. It is a fact that God reigns in heaven, but Satan is the lord of *this* world and I do not believe that this ceased at the crucifixion, for 1 John 5:18-19, written in the church era, says that the whole world is in the grip of evil, and Paul refers to ‘this present evil age’ (Galatians 1:4). The Christian is an invader of Satan's realm, and must expect to engage in spiritual battle by standing up for moral righteousness and by preaching Jesus Christ. The question arises of what laws Christians who find themselves in positions of political influence should work for. I suggest the moral laws from Mosaic Law, and freedom of conscience over matters of faith. Luther (and especially Calvin) reached a somewhat different conclusion, mediaeval Rome reached a different one again. It is a matter for legitimate discussion. It is not really to do with material/spirit issues.
"The rejection of the sacraments because being saved is a spiritual matter, hence no need for physical structures like a priesthood, the sacraments."
Protestants accept the sacraments of baptism and Communion. We do not deny the need for priests - we believe that ALL Christians are priests. St Peter himself says so (1 Pe 2:9). It is *ordination* that some protestants have reservations about.
"The philosophy tends to view the world of matter with suspicion or inferior to the world of sprit. Catholicism would argue that God became man and dwelt amongst us, thus making matter holy."
William Temple, one of the better Archbishops of Canterbury, wrote that Christianity was the most material religion around, because of the Incarnation of Our Lord. I thank God that he saw us through World War 2, rather than his successor who was a dedicated freemason. (That really *is* gnosticism in the church.)
The protestant work ethic is a healthy matter/spirit unification that scarcely extended to Catholic lands. Conversely, the neo-platonist Augustine of Hippo argued that marital sex was an evil unless it was for procreation, a view which Catholicism took up, to the great detriment of European sexuality. (Genesis 2:24, "a man will leave his father and mother and bond to his wife, and they become one flesh," makes it plain that marital sex is also for bonding. Why else should the human female remain sexually receptive, unlike mammals with whom she has a great deal of physiology in common, when infertile - beyond menopause or at the wrong stage of the oestrus cycle or when pregnant or lactating.)
As I said, let Trinitarian Christians unite against the common enemies of gnosticism and dualism.
Anon@6.31pm,
Could I ask you to read backwards up this thread to see the debate about what the Cathars really believed? Do the websites you list give references to mediaeval Cathar documents that show they were heretical by the standard of the scriptures? Catholic and protestant have agreed, by the present stage of the debate on this thread, that that is what is needed in order to establish their heresy definitively.
Anon@7:02 p.m.
" It is a fact that God reigns in heaven, but Satan is the lord of *this* world and I do not believe that this ceased at the crucifixion, for 1 John 5:18-19, written in the church era, says that the whole world is in the grip of evil, and Paul refers to ‘this present evil age’ (Galatians 1:4)."
Yes, Satan has been given certain powers over this world, but he did not create this world. God did. Satan distorts what God created. It's the distortion that we must reject.
"I suggest the moral laws from Mosaic Law, and freedom of conscience over matters of faith."
Who is going to implement this system and how will it be interpreted? I do not buy the argument that the Bible is self-interpreting.
That being said Catholicism is faith+morals. Justification by faith alone is a Protestant concept.
"It is *ordination* that some protestants have reservations about."
The NT clearly describes the church with Bishops, Deacons and Priests. This is clear from reading the Bible. A lot of Protestant translations of the Bible have replaced priests with elders.
The Catholic view is more in in line with the church fathers who clearly saw a church with Apostolic succession.
"Conversely, the neo-platonist Augustine of Hippo argued that marital sex was an evil unless it was for procreation, a view which Catholicism took up, to the great detriment of European sexuality."
Augustine was a Gnostic before his conversion. Catholicism never took up this view. It's always been a heresy. Marriage is a sacrament in our church and is holy. Most Protestants see marriage as a contract.
Yes, martial sex does have to be both unitive and procreative.
The Catholic church rejects gay sex because it separates these two aspects of sex.
"As I said, let Trinitarian Christians unite against the common enemies of gnosticism and dualism."
Amen!
Anon@7:12 p.m.
"Do the websites you list give references to mediaeval Cathar documents that show they were heretical by the standard of the scriptures?"
There are quotes from Mediaeval eye-witnesses and the centre for Cathar studies.
"Manichaeans appeared in Aquitaine, leading the people astray. They denied baptism, the cross, and all sound doctrine. They did not eat meat, as though they were monks, and pretended to be celibate, but among themselves they enjoyed every indulgence. They were messengers of Antichrist, and caused many to wander from the faith."
Adhémar of Chabannes
(c. 1018)
"They think that the devil went to heaven with his angels, fought a battle against the Archangel Michael and the angels of the good god, and carried off a third of his subjects. Then he imprisoned them in human bodies and in animals, changing them from one body to another until they should all be led back to heaven. Hence they call all these subjects of God as they see them, 'the People of God', 'Souls', 'Sheep of Israel', and many other such names."
"They claim that the Son of God did not really assume human nature from the Blessed Virgin, who was an angel, but only the appearance of it. They say that he did not truly eat or drink, suffer or die, and was not buried or resurrected: all of this was only in appearance, for we read in Luke, 'being [as it was supposed] the son of Joseph'. They interpret all Christ's miracles in the same way.
They say that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and all the ancient fathers and also John the Baptist were enemies of God and servants of the devil. The devil is the author of the whole of the Old Testament, except for the books of Job, the Psalms, Solomon, Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and twelve of the prophets, some of which they way were written in Heaven - that is, before the fall of Jerusalem, which they think was Heaven.
"They teach that this world will never come to an end, that the Last Judgment has already been made, and will not be made again, and that hell, eternal fire and eternal punishment are in this world and nowhere else."
Raineir Sacchoni
(1250)
"The Cathars believed in reincarnation and repudiated the tenet of eternal damnation for sinners. A soul was obliged to live many lifetimes in a human body until it achieved salvation. If earthly bodies were evil, as the Cathars taught, then God could not become incarnate in a man. Therefore, according to the Cathars, the Christian Christ was not God, only an emissary of God; he became a man in appearance only. To the Cathars, the sacraments that the Catholic church claimed to confer divine grace through material elements such as water, bread and wine were inherently blasphemous. Marriage was also condemned, as it led to the production of children and so entrapped more spiritual souls in evil, material bodies."
"Searching For A Cathar Feminism,
1100-1300"
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_cataros_04.htm
Anon@7.45pm,
Please, Read My Lips (and the Cathar thread running upwards)! Im not saying that the Cathars *weren't* heretics, but I want to see it from Cathar documents of the time, not from people who were given financial incentive to wipe them out as heretics. (Innocent III said that he would see to it that their land would be parcelled out to those who led a crusade against them.) All of the sources you quote refer to the Cathars as "They" rather than "We" and are therefore Catholic sources. The more thoughtful Catholics on this thread accept that this is merely the criterion that would be required by academic historians.
PS Arch-Catholic Bernard of Clairvaux stated (in his collected sermons, no.65) that satisfied himself that the ‘heretics’ in their part of France were Christians who lived moral lives.
To: Anon@7.31pm
From: Anon@7.02pm, to whom you were replying
I wrote:
"I suggest the moral laws from Mosaic Law, and freedom of conscience over matters of faith."
You replied:
"Who is going to implement this system and how will it be interpreted? I do not buy the argument that the Bible is self-interpreting."
Whether the Bible is self-interpreting is not the issue here. (We might have a good chat about it sometime.) I was not considering who would run this system - what I said in full was: "The question arises of what laws Christians who find themselves in positions of political influence should work for. I suggest the moral laws from Mosaic Law, and freedom of conscience over matters of faith. Luther (and especially Calvin) reached a somewhat different conclusion, mediaeval Rome reached a different one again. It is a matter for legitimate discussion."
I wrote:
"It is *ordination* that some protestants have reservations about."
You replied:
"The NT clearly describes the church with Bishops, Deacons and Priests. This is clear from reading the Bible. A lot of Protestant translations of the Bible have replaced priests with elders."
Greek hieros - priest
Greek presbyteros - elder
greek episkopos - overseers (the word translated as 'bishop', although it no longer means what it did in the NT as explained below)
Believers in each town would congregate for teaching, worship and prayer. They were led by a council of male presbyteroi (elders) or episkopoi (overseers, the scriptural meaning of ‘bishop’), raised from among themselves and generally married men with family (1 Timothy 3). These Greek words respectively denote maturity and function within the congregation, and refer to the same people (as at Acts 20:17 & 20:28; Titus 1:5 & 1:7; 1 Peter 5:1 & 5:2). Plurals in James 5:14 and Acts 14:23 & 20:17 imply there were several in a congregation. They were backed up by diakonoi (‘deacons’ – servants). A congregation’s founder (an apostolos – a ‘church planter’ in today’s language) might retain authority, but once a congregation was reasonably mature his role was to start congregations elsewhere, and he would soon anyway have passed away to glory. Every Christian is a priest (1 Peter 2:9; Rev 1:6), someone who represents God. Not one New Testament letter is to ‘the priest’ of a congregation – a baffling omission if a distinct priesthood existed.
Anon@8:00 p.m.
I do not have medieval Cathar documents, just the evidence from various academic sources who have studied this issue.
This is what St. Bernard of Clairvaux, actually wrote.
"The Churches are without congregations, congregations are without priests, priests are without proper reverence, and, finally, Christians are without Christ.
(Sancti Bernardi epistolae 241 from Migne, Patrologia latina, CLXXXII, 434-36; Cited by Walter Wakefield & Austin Evans, Heresies of The High Middle Ages (Columbia, 1991) p 93)
"Bernards's secretary, Geoffrey of Auxerre, writing in the same year repeats Bernard's comments and goes on:
"The life of Christ was barred to the children of Christians so long as the grace of baptism was denied to them. Prayers and offerings for the dead were ridiculed as were the invocation of saints, pilgrimages by the faithful, the building of temples, holidays on holy days, the anointing with the chrism; and in a word, all the institutions of the [Catholic] Church were scorned. "
(Sancti Bernardi vita et res gestae libris septem comprehensae; Liber tertius auctore Gaufrido monacho, v 16, 17 in Patrologia latina, CLXXXV, 312-13; Cited by Walter Wakefield & Austin Evans, Heresies of The High Middle Ages (Columbia, 1991) p 93)
The people of the Languedoc had abandoned the Roman Catholic Church en mass for unnamed heresies:
..." if you question the heretic about his faith, nothing is more Christian; if about his daily converse, nothing more blameless; and what he says he proves by his actions ... As regards his life and conduct, he cheats no one, pushes ahead of no one, does violence to no one. Moreover, his cheeks are pale with fasting; he does not eat the bread of idleness; he labours with his hands and thus makes his living ... Women are leaving their husbands, men are putting aside their wives, and they all flock to those heretics! Clerics and priests, the youthful and the adult among them, are leaving their congregations and churches and are often found in the company of weavers of both sexes."
(from Bernard's sermon 65 on the Caticle of Canticles (or Song of Songs, or Song of Solomon): Sancti Bernardi Sermones super Cantica canticorum, Semon 65 from Sancti Bernardi Opera, Cited by Walter Wakefield & Austin Evans, Heresies of The High Middle Ages (Columbia, 1991) p 130)
"The only remaining scriptures from the Cathars include The Gospel of the Secret Supper and The Book of the Two Principles. The Gospel of the Secret Supper is not originally a Cathar text, but one that was inherited from the Bogomils in the 12th century. According to The Gnostic Bible, edited by William Barnstone and Marvin Meyer, The Gospel of the Secret Supper “is a gospel of the invisible father, his son the angel Christ, and John of the canonical gospels, who questions the lord (Jesus Christ) and the invisible father at a Last Supper (Passover Meal).” The Book of the Two Principles was a prime manuscript of moral doctrine to the Cathar faith which proposed a god incapable of evil and cites a unique doctrine of belief in that the God of the Old Testament, the biblical god, is not the God they worship, but rather, a demon impersonating as a god.
It was this and other radical concepts of the Cathars which made them unusually threatening to the Catholic Church of the time."
Read more at Suite101: The Cathars: The Largest and Most Popular Catholic Heresy of the Middle Ages http://www.suite101.com/content/the-cathars-a60387#ixzz15VKKRAbV
(Innocent III said that he would see to it that their land would be parcelled out to those who led a crusade against them.)
Pope Innocent only resorted to force after the Cathars started killed the Papal delegate. An army was send only to hunt them. It was Simon of Montfont who defied the Pope's orders.
"Innocent was also a zealous protector of the true Faith and a strenuous opponent of heresy. His chief activity was turned against the Albigenses who had become so numerous and aggressive that they were no longer satisfied with being adherents of heretical doctrines but even endeavoured to spread their heresy by force. They were especially numerous in a few cities of Northern and in Southern France. During the first year of his pontificate Innocent sent the two Cistercian monks Rainer and Guido to the Albigenses in France to preach to them the true Faith and dispute with them on controverted topics of religion. The two Cistercian missionaries were soon followed by Diego, Bishop of Osma, then by St. Dominic and the two papal legates. Peter of Castelnau and Raoul. When, however, these peaceful missionaries were ridiculed and despised by the Albigenses, and the papal legate Castelnau was assassinated in 1208, Innocent resorted to force.
He ordered the bishops of Southern France to put under interdict the participants in the murder and all the towns that gave shelter to them. He was especially incensed against Count Raymond of Toulouse who had previously been excommunicated by the murdered legate and whom, for good reasons, the pope suspected as the instigator of the murder. The count protested his innocence and submitted to the pope, probably out of cowardice, but the pope placed no further trust in him. He called upon France to raise an army for the suppression of the Albigenses. Under the leadership of Simon of Montfort a cruel campaign ensued against the Albigenses which, despite the protest of Innocent, soon turned into a war of conquest (see ALBIGENSES). "
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08013a.htm
Anon@ 8:16 p.m.
Acts 20:28 reads.
[28] Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.[29]
Titus 1:5
[5] For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:
James 5:14
[14] Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.
Acts 14:22
[22] And when they had ordained to them priests in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed. [23]
This indicates that there is a priesthood of believers , but also an ordained priesthood.
In the writings of the early church we find this.
Ignatius of Antioch
"You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8:1 [A.D. 110]).
Irenaeus
It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion
(ibid 4:26:2).
The early church had apostolic succession and not church planting.
"The question arises of what laws Christians who find themselves in positions of political influence should work for. I suggest the moral laws from Mosaic Law, and freedom of conscience over matters of faith."
i agree with this, but if such a situation were to arise in the West today. One sect leading away another sects members etc. State officials regardless of their religion, would say that churches should sort it out themselves. I doubt they would get involved, unless there was a murder involved as in the case of the Papal delegate.
Now I don't support the use of force again, or say we should go out on a war, but it's pointless trying to see this situation through a contemporary lens, when medieval Europe had Monarch's and not elected officials. This was true in both Catholic and Protestant countries.
To Anon@7.31pm
PS You say that Catholics regard marriage as a sacrament, protestants as a contract. I think we both agree that it *includes* a contract. The question is: what else? Protestants regard it as a *covenant*, which I would define for this purpose as a contract in the context of a living relationship. We say this because throughout the Old Testament God uses words that portray himself and Israel in a marital relationship (to which Israel is not very faithful).
I hope you would agree with that too. As for marriage being a sacrament - most protestants would deny that, but if you can define accurately what you mean by saying that marriage *specifically* is a sacrament then I will tell you whether this protestant agrees.
Anon@11.00pm,
For clarification, I am not saying that Christian politicians should argue for the moral components of Mosaic Law using arguments from revelation. They should use "natural law" arguments" since they have to convince secular people. There is a huge role for Aquinas in this process (and I write these words as a protestant!)
Anon@9.34pm,
Thank you for the fuller quotes from Bernard of Clairvaux. Where he criticises the Cathars in these words it is for going against Rome's traditions rather than the scriptures. As Catholic and protestant, you and I are not therefore going to agree as to whether they are proven as heretics (which I am not denying, but asking for evidence in the mediaeval Cathars' own contemporary words, ie the standard of proof required in modern courts and by academic historians). I don't see that we can take this discussion much further, but I am grateful for Bernard's words.
Anon@9.51pm,
Thank you very much for finding that statement that we have only one authentic mediaeval Cathar document. On that basis I conclude that we cannot say with certainty that they were heretics against the scriptures. Mediaeval Catholicism had an incentive to damn them because Pope Innocent III offerd their land to those who murdered them. Modern statements that they were heretics derive from ancient Catholic ones. As a protestant I am interested only in whether they go against the scriptures rather than against Catholic sacred traditions - here we run into a larger debate.
We might have to conclude that we simply don't know.
Where I disagree with the website you cite is over whether the Cathars were Catholics. This claim is made by Catholics, presumably in an attempt to justify the capital dscipline that was exerted against them. But they themselves obviously did not regard themselves as such. I believe that you should take people at their own word.
Anon@10.01pm,
I wrote:
"Innocent III said that he would see to it that their land would be parcelled out to those who led a crusade against them."
You replied:
"Pope Innocent only resorted to force after the Cathars started killed the Papal delegate. An army was send only to hunt them. It was Simon of Montfont who defied the Pope's orders."
The Papal delagate was killed by an unknown person after excommunicating the local Catholic ruler who was not prepared to use force against the Cathars in his lands. Most probably the killer was one of the knights subordinate to that ruler. It is not accurate to say that the Cathars killed him. You haven't disputed that Pope Innocent offered the Cathar's lands to those would drive them off those lands. Along with that offer, Innocent directed his legates to preach Crusade against the Cathars, and asked the king of France to become involved. Do you think he had a gentle chat in mind?
I'd be glad of the evidence that the Cathars "even endeavoured to spread their heresy by force." They were noted for their pacifism - and even criticised for it by one Catholic on this thread.
Anon@10.34pm,
What Bible translation are you using?
* Greek hieros - priest (as in Rev 1:6 and 1 Peter 2:9, "You are a chosen people, a royal priesthood")
* Greek presbyteros - elder
* Greek episkopos - overseer (the word translated as 'bishop', although today there are many congregations under one episkopos whereas in the NT there was a council of episkopoi within each congregation - shown below)
Let's look again at the verses you quote, going back to the original Greek which is undisputed in these passages:
Acts 20:28: Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you episkopoi, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
No problem there, although please note the change in meaning of 'episkopos' that I mentioned.
Titus 1:5: For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest appoint [katasteses] presbyteroi in every city, as I also appointed thee...
Your translation renders 'presbyteroi' as 'priest' which is not the case.
James 5:14: Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the presbyteroi of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.
The same mistranslation.
Acts 14:22-3: And when they had appointed presbyteroi in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.
The same mistranslation again. Why should the translators of your Bible have done this?
How then was the NT church constituted? Believers met together in each town. They were led by a council of male presbyteroi (elders) or episkopoi (overseers, the scriptural meaning of ‘bishop’), raised from among themselves and generally married men with family (1 Timothy 3). These Greek words respectively denote maturity and function within the congregation, and refer to the same people (as at Acts 20:17 & 20:28; Titus 1:5 & 1:7; 1 Peter 5:1 & 5:2). Plurals in James 5:14 and Acts 14:23 & 20:17 imply there were several in a congregation. They were backed up by diakonoi (‘deacons’ – servants). A congregation’s founder (an apostolos) might retain authority, but once a congregation was reasonably mature his role was to start congregations elsewhere, and he would soon anyway have passed away to glory. Every Christian is a priest (1 Peter 2:9), someone who represents God. Not one New Testament letter is to ‘the priest’ of a congregation – a baffling omission if a distinct priesthood existed.
It's the Douy-Rheims Catholic Bible.
Anon@10.34pm
You advocate apostolic succession, which applies to bishops, but that (episkopos) is the word which has changed in meaning from NT times. Why do you insist on a family tree of church leaders rather than a family tree simply of Christians, ie, X was evangelised by Y, who was evangelised by Z, who was evangelised by... .... who was evangelised 1970 years ago by Jesus Christ.
Anon@6:15 a.m.
How can you say it's a mistranslation? What Bible are you using. I am using the first English Bible ever. It could be said that it's your Bible that has the wrong translation.
Anon@11:14 a.m.
"which applies to bishops, but that (episkopos) is the word which has changed in meaning from NT times."
It hasn't changed in meaning in the Catholic church. If it has in yours then it's probably because you changed it.
I don't insist on anything, I was simply quoting the Bible.
Anon@3.51pm,
Today there are many congregations in the Roman Catholic church under a single episkopos. In the New Testament there were many episkopoi per congregation (see scripture refs in my post of 6.15am to which you responded). I call that a change, don't you? By what authority was it made?
"As a protestant I am interested only in whether they go against the scriptures rather than against Catholic sacred traditions - here we run into a larger debate."
I have given you several sources, including academic ones, most of them not Catholic, that tell us the Cathars were Gnostics, whose members were once Catholic.
Anon@3.49pm,
Check the meaning of those Greek words in classical Greek manuscripts. Check them in the Septuagint. Check the consistency of the fact that hieros is always translated as 'priest' in Catholic and protestant English NTs, episkopos is always translated as bishop or overseer in protestant Bibles, yet in the Douay-Reims Bible which you were quoting episkopos is translated as bishop in some places and priest in others. Sleight of hand.
It is not the first English Bible, incidentally. Wyclife's predated it by centuries. It is merely the first to be approved by Rome.
"Where I disagree with the website you cite is over whether the Cathars were Catholics. This claim is made by Catholics, presumably in an attempt to justify the capital dscipline that was exerted against them. But they themselves obviously did not regard themselves as such. I believe that you should take people at their own word."
There were plenty of Catholic priests and Bishops who defected to this sect, taking their congegations with them, thus getting the Catholic church involved. As noted by St. Bernard of Clairvaux.
Anon@3.58pm,
I have said repeatedly that I want the standard of demonstration required in law courts and by academic historians: mediaeval Cathar documents showing *in their own contemporary words* major incompatibilities with scriptural doctrine. Mediaeval Catholic accounts are tainted by incentive: the Pope said that he would see to it that the leaders of a Crusade vs the Cathars would get their land. Modern gnostic accounts are based on mediaeval Catholic ones. The more thoughtful Catholics with whom I am discussing this here agree with my demand for scholarly standards of verification - please read up the thread.
The Catholic Bernard of Clairvaux
said at the time that the Cathars were devout followers of Jesus Christ, and was able to criticise them only for refusing doctrines that Rome had added to scripture.
I'm not saying that they were not heretics by scriptural standards. I am saying that it is unproven.
Anon@4.02pm,
If Catholics defected to the Cathars then they were no longer Catholics, were they? Is it a capital crime to leave the Roman Catholic church?
"episkopos is always translated as bishop or overseer in protestant Bibles, yet in the Douay-Reims Bible which you were quoting episkopos is translated as bishop in some places and priest in others. Sleight of hand."
A Bishop is first a priest, before he becomes a Bishop.
A Bishop first has to be ordained a priest.
"It is not the first English Bible, incidentally. Wyclife's predated it by centuries. It is merely the first to be approved by Rome."
Are you kidding? The Vulgate predates the reformation and was translated in English before the Reformation.
This is what scholars have to say about the Septugint and the Greek Bible.
Art Sippo
"There is no single text corpus called The Septuagint (LXX). There are actually several families and the vast majority of them are Christian in origin well after the 1st Century. We know that they [Deuterocanonical books] were in virtually all of the Christian collections of the time. That is the point that counts. When Christians collected the OT in the first 3 centuries AD, they INVARIABLY used the LXX and included some if not all of the deuteros and sometimes included other works that we consider apocryphal. We know this because we have several codices (i.e., bound books) from the early Church which appear to have been created by Imperial edict right after the Council of Nicea in 325. We also have lists of books from the 2nd Century (e.g., the Muratorian Fragment) and the testimony of several Fathers to that effect starting with Justin Martyr in150 AD. The Fathers also extensively quoted from the Deuteros from the late 1st Century onwards. Until the mid 4th Century, no one seriously challenged the long OT Canon."
This is from a Protestant site.
Not a Typical Translation or "Version"
" It must be noted that the Douay-Rheims is NOT a typical translation where the translator rearranges the words and meanings, but a "slavish", i.e., an exact translation without liberties from the Latin into English. The reader thereby has an exact understanding of what the original Latin says, rather than interpretations and interpolations."
" In point of fact, well before the Protestant Reformation, there were no "original Hebrew and original Greek manuscripts" in existence, except in their claims --- neither have any original manuscripts been discovered to this day."
" Rev.Henry Graham (Where We Got the Bible) states regarding the bringing of the true unadulterated Scripture of the Rheims New Testament from the Apostles to St. Jerome, to you,today:
"...At a single leap we thus arrive at that great work, completed by the greatest scholar of his day, who had access to manuscripts and authorities that have now perished , and who, living sonear the days of the Apostles, and, as it were, close to the very fountain-head , was able to produce a copy of the inspired writings which, for correctness, can never be equaled."
http://www.ministers-best-friend.com/Douay-Rheims-Bible-From-the-Septuagint.html
"The Catholic Bernard of Clairvaux
said at the time that the Cathars were devout followers of Jesus Christ, and was able to criticise them only for refusing doctrines that Rome had added to scripture."
Bernard of Clairvaux never said they were followers of Christ, merely that they had some Christ-like qualities.
You can't say Rome added these to scripture, when the early church had all these things in place as seen through the writings of the early church fathers. They did not subscribe to Sola Scriptura a 16th century invention.
Anon@4:13 p.m.
It is not a capital crime to leave the Catholic church, but the church has no such official policy declaring when a Catholic stop beings a Catholic.
A person may repudiate their faith, at any time, but if the person wishes to return the person would still be considered Catholic.
The church was concerned that certain heresies could damn a person forever. The Cathars denied that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, we know from Scripture that this is the anti-Christ.
Anon@4.35pm,
Bernard ssaid that "if you question the heretic about his faith, nothing is more Christian". That is rather more than saying they had some Christ-like qualities, isn't it?
The quotes that a Catholic was kind enough to find me above from Bernard state that the Cathars had "congregations without priests". St Peter himself, however, under divine inspiration, wrote that all believers are priests (1 Pe 2:9). That's an example of what I mean.
Anon@4.39pm,
Your last sentence quoting from John's 1st letter is a great point, thank you! As I've consistently said I am willing to regard the Cathars as heretics against scripture if it can be proven from scripture and from their own contemporary words. However you are not there yet - they *did* believe that Jesus Christ was come in the flesh, they simply seemed to believe that flesh was bad.
Anon@4:44 p.m.
"The quotes that a Catholic was kind enough to find me above from Bernard state that the Cathars had "congregations without priests"."
This was addressed to Catholics, not to Cathars. St. Bernard was talking about the rampant apostasy among Catholics, indicating that they were also to blame.
"if you question the heretic about his faith, nothing is more Christian". That is rather more than saying they had some Christ-like qualities, isn't it?"
He said they claimed be be authentic Christians, just as Christian Gnostics claim to be. He never said they were.
"However you are not there yet - they *did* believe that Jesus Christ was come in the flesh, they simply seemed to believe that flesh was bad."
They believed that Jesus merely took on the appearance of being human, but was not human. They believed the flesh or matter was bad, because of the Gnostic teachings that matter is evil and the God who created matter and trapped souls in them was the God of the Old Testament.
They claimed Jesus was a different God.
Anon@4.29pm,
I am presuming that you are Anon@3.49pm, please forgive me if not.
I wrote:
"episkopos is always translated as bishop or overseer in protestant Bibles, yet in the Douay-Reims Bible which you were quoting episkopos is translated as bishop in some places and priest in others. Sleight of hand."
You replied:
A Bishop is first a priest, before he becomes a Bishop.
A Bishop first has to be ordained a priest."
According to St Peter *all* Christians are priests (by implication, therefore, without being ordained): "We are a chosen people, a royal priesthood" (1 Pe 2:9). So this cannot be the expxalation for the inconsistent translation of the word Episkopos in the Douay-Reims Bible.
I wrote:
"It is not the first English Bible, incidentally. Wyclife's predated it by centuries. It is merely the first to be approved by Rome."
You replied:
"Are you kidding? The Vulgate predates the reformation and was translated in English before the Reformation."
Yes, by Wycliffe, but unauthorised! What point are you making?
You wrote:
"In point of fact, well before the Protestant Reformation, there were no "original Hebrew and original Greek manuscripts" in existence, except in their claims --- neither have any original manuscripts been discovered to this day."
Indeed we do not have the original 'autograph' manuscripts written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul. However, there is an unbroken tradition of transmission of Hebrew manuscripts of the OT within Judaism, and of Greek manuscripts of the NT within what is now the Eastern Orthodox church. Almost no parts of the scriptures are in serious doubt in the original languages - including the meanings of 'hieros' and 'episkopos', the latter of which is mistranslated into English in some passages of the Douay-Reims Catholic Bible. Perhaps this is because Douay-Reims was translated through Latin, but the reason is irrelevant to the fact of the inaccuracy.
Anon@5.00pm,
Can you prove that from contemporary Cathar sources? Do that and you will certainly have convinced and educated me.
"I'd be glad of the evidence that the Cathars "even endeavoured to spread their heresy by force." They were noted for their pacifism - and even criticised for it by one Catholic on this thread."
But, if a religion told it's members it was okay to starve themselves to death, there was nothing wrong with suicide and that all reproduction was bad, it would bring the end of the human race, which is why the non-Catholic historian H.C. Lea writes:
"However much we may deprecate the means used for its (Catharism) suppression and commiserate those who suffered for conscience' sake, we cannot but admit that the cause of orthodoxy was in this case the cause of progress and civilization. Had Catharism become dominant, or even had it been allowed to exist on equal terms, its influence could not have failed to prove disastrous." (See Lea, Inquisition, I, 106.)
It should be noted that a number of Cathars also converted to Islam later on.
"According to St Peter *all* Christians are priests (by implication, therefore, without being ordained): "We are a chosen people, a royal priesthood" (1 Pe 2:9). So this cannot be the expxalation for the inconsistent translation of the word Episkopos in the Douay-Reims Bible."
Yes, but even the Bible agrees that there is a ministerial priesthood, apart from our general priesthood as believers, is the point I have been trying to make.
"Yes, by Wycliffe, but unauthorised! What point are you making?"
The Vulgate predates Wycliffe.
"However, there is an unbroken tradition of transmission of Hebrew manuscripts of the OT within Judaism, and of Greek manuscripts of the NT within what is now the Eastern Orthodox church."
The Eastern Orthodox Churches accept an ordained priesthood too.
The Orthodox see the presbytor as an ordained priest, and Episkopos as Bishop.
The same way Catholics do.
Anon@5.11pm,
I think you can safely take it that people will not cease having sex. Any sect that demands otherwise is going to die out without need to have a crusade raised against it by the Pope.
"Can you prove that from contemporary Cathar sources? Do that and you will certainly have convinced and educated me."
I have posted contemporary Cathar sources on this thread before. I was told they were not valid because what were needed were Medieval Cathar sources.
This is a contemporary site.
"The Cathars were dualists. That is, they believed in two universal principles, a good God and a bad God, much like the Javeh and Satan of mainstream Christianity. As dualists, they belonged to a tradition that was already ancient in the days of Jesus. (The revered Magi in the nativity story were Zoroastrians - Persian dualists). Dualism came, and still comes, in many flavours. Indeed the Cathar variety came in more than one flavour, but the principal one was this: The Good God was the god of all immaterial things (such as light and souls). The bad God was the god of all material things, including the world and everything in it. He had contrived to capture souls and imprison them in human bodies through the process of conception. As Cathars put it, we are all divine sparks, even angels, imprisoned in a tunic of flesh."
http://www.cathar.info/120101_beliefs.htm
For other sources please read this blog.
Anon@5:23 p.m.
I agree. But, these were not their only beliefs, as explained on the blog.
Please note that I don't support the use of force against anyone. So I agree that was wrong, but most of us are aware of the NA movement and how dangerous its propagation has been.
Alfred Rosenberg's Myth of the 20th century was an affirmation of Gnostic sects deemed heretical by the Catholic church. It was also a vicious attack on the Catholic church.
Even the anti-Christ knows who his enemies are.
Anon@5.21pm,
You wrote:
"Yes, but even the Bible agrees that there is a ministerial priesthood, apart from our general priesthood as believers, is the point I have been trying to make."
This is exactly what I am disputing. All Christians are in ministry, all Christians are priests - the operational meaning of 'priest' in NT Christianity refers to what priests did in the OT, ie represented God to people. That is precisely what Christians are meant to do to unbelievers.
To put my case once more:
In the NT church, believers met together in each town. They were led by a council of male presbyteroi (elders) or episkopoi (overseers, the scriptural meaning of ‘bishop’), raised from among themselves and generally married men with family (1 Timothy 3). These Greek words respectively denote maturity and function within the congregation, and refer to the same people (as at Acts 20:17 & 20:28; Titus 1:5 & 1:7; 1 Peter 5:1 & 5:2). Plurals in James 5:14 and Acts 14:23 & 20:17 imply there were several in a congregation. They were backed up by diakonoi (‘deacons’ – servants). A congregation’s founder (an apostolos) might retain authority, but once a congregation was reasonably mature his role was to start congregations elsewhere, and he would soon anyway have passed away to glory. Every Christian is a priest (1 Peter 2:9), someone who represents God. Not one New Testament letter is to ‘the priest’ of a congregation – a baffling omission if a distinct priesthood existed.
"The Vulgate predates Wycliffe."
Certainly it does, by more than 1000 years. Where did I ever say otherwise? If some loose words of mine led you to think I was claiming otherwise, however, then I apologise.
I wrote:
"there is an unbroken tradition of transmission of... Greek manuscripts of the NT within what is now the Eastern Orthodox church."
You replied:
"The Eastern Orthodox Churches accept an ordained priesthood too."
Even less excuse for them than for Latin Rome, as they had the scriptures in the original language!
"This is exactly what I am disputing. All Christians are in ministry, all Christians are priests - the operational meaning of 'priest' in NT Christianity refers to what priests did in the OT, ie represented God to people. That is precisely what Christians are meant to do to unbelievers."
Priests in the OT were an ordained priesthood, not just the family of believers.
What makes you think that God wanted to do away with the foundation he had already built and start from scratch. That would be like taking 1800 pages out of the Bible.
"Raised from among themselves and generally married men with family (1 Timothy 3)."
This interpretation leads to obvious absurdities. For one, if "the husband of one wife" really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic "keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way" would mean that he had to have children. Childless husbands (or even fathers of only one child, since Paul uses the plural) would not qualify.
In fact, following this style of interpretation to its final absurdity, since Paul speaks of bishops meeting these requirements (not of their having met them, or of candidates for bishop meeting them), it would even follow that an ordained bishop whose wife or children died would become unqualified for ministry! Clearly such excessive literalism must be rejected.
Clearly, the point of Paul’s requirement that a bishop be "the husband of one wife" is not that he must have one wife, but that he must have only one wife. Expressed conversely, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children (not that he must have children who are well behaved), and must not be married more than once (not that he must be married).
This is found in the eastern catholic and eastern orthodox churches where a married man is ordained to the priesthood, but if his wife dies he cannot re-marry.
"Even less excuse for them than for Latin Rome, as they had the scriptures in the original language"
The Greek Fathers even held to an ordained priesthood, as did one in the Old Testament. So it's Protestants who got rid of it and are now using the Bible to justify their break with the early church.
Anon@5.52pm,
All male descendants of Aaron (who was of the tribe of Levi) were priests. They were born into it, not ordained. Christians are reborn when they profess faith in Christ.
How tightly 1 Timothy 3 is to be read (eg, must an episkopos resign if his wife dies) is certainly a subject of legitimate discussion. But it is not compatible with a celibate priesthood or celibate bishophood, is it?
1 Tim 3:5 re episkopoi: "If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's?
Anon@5.57pm,
St Peter himself, writing not specifically to congregation leaders: Christians are "a chosen people, a royal PRIESTHOOD."
Do remember that the first church was Jewish and that the faith leapt a culture barrier into the Greek world, where pagan priests (and priestesses) lived set-apart lives. That crept into the church very early, but it is not in the New Testament, which is the rule of faith of the primitive church.
"All male descendants of Aaron (who was of the tribe of Levi) were priests. They were born into it, not ordained. Christians are reborn when they profess faith in Christ."
The Levites were a pre-firgurement for the Ordained priesthood of the new covenant.
So the LORD said to Moses, "Gather for me seventy of the elders of Israel ... bring them to the tent of meeting, and have them take their place there with you. I will come down and talk with you there; and I will take some of the spirit that is on you and put it on them; and they shall bear the burden of the people along with you so that you will not bear it all by yourself....and he gathered seventy elders of the people, and placed them all around the tent. Then the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke to him, and took some of the spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy elders; and when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied." (Num 11:16 -25)
Catholics believe these were a foreshadowing of Christ's ministry. In the New Testament:
After this the Lord appointed seventy others and sent them on ahead of him in pairs to every town and place where he himself intended to go. (Lk 10:1)
Melchizedek is the only priest of the Old Testament who was not a Levite. He sets the stage for Christ as High Priest.
"Melchizedek brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. He blessed him and ...Abram gave him one-tenth of everything."(Gen 14:18-19)
At the last supper Jesus served bread and wine (the first Mass) just as Melchizedek had done with Abraham (Gen 14:18). He said to the disciples "this is the New Covenant in my blood" (Lk 22:20), signifying, among other things, God's transfer of Priestly duties from the Levites to Jesus who was the "true priest with the others [disciples] being only his ministers" (Aquinas, Hebr. 8.4). That night Jesus washed their feet and taught them to be servants in their new ministry. He said "I have set you an example, that you should do as I have done to you" (Jn 13:15).
Catholics believe that night, he conferred the ministry of the new priesthood upon them. He did not do so because the job was too much for him, (as it was when God ordained the Levites to help Moses). Jesus invites them to share this priesthood because of the overabundance of his Graces.
"How tightly 1 Timothy 3 is to be read (eg, must an episkopos resign if his wife dies) is certainly a subject of legitimate discussion. But it is not compatible with a celibate priesthood or celibate bishophood, is it?"
It talks about the duties of a married priest or bishop, but does not say that they Have to be married. Paul was single. There are several verses in the Bible exalting the virtues of celibacy too.
Scripture verses valuing celibacy:
Matthew 19:10-12
...his disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." But he said to them, "Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can."
1 Cor 7:6-9
...This I say by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.
1 Cor 7:24-35
...In whatever condition you were called, brothers and sisters, there remain with God. Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. I think that, in view of the impending crisis, it is well for you to remain as you are. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife... Yet those who marry will experience distress in this life, and I would spare you that. I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none, but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, so that they may be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to put any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and unhindered devotion to the Lord.
1 Cor 7:38-40
...So then, he who marries his fiancée does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better. A wife is bound as long as her husband lives. But if the husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, only in the Lord. But in my judgment she is more blessed if she remains as she is.
The early church fathers also preferred a celibate priesthood.
The Church Fathers of the first four centuries consistently spoke against the married priesthood. (Eusibius, Augustine, Tertullian, Origen, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Jerome etc..) St. Epiphanius speaks of the accepted ecclesiastical rule of the priesthood (kanona tes ierosynes) as something established by the Apostles. (Haer., xlviii, 9) "Holy Church", he says, "respects the dignity of the priesthood to such a point that she [the Church] does not admit to the diaconate, the priesthood, or the episcopate, nor even to the subdiaconate, anyone still living in marriage and begetting children." (Haer., lix, 4).
The East and West have co-existed with both married and celibate priests, showing that God has ordained both.
St Peter himself, writing not specifically to congregation leaders: Christians are "a chosen people, a royal PRIESTHOOD."
Yes, we agree with this. We just say that there is also an ordained priesthood.
Sola Scriptura was not the rule of faith for the early church. You have to prove this.
I have already shown from scripture how the ordained priesthood existed. You called it a mistranslation, so it's up to you to come up with early church documents that prove your point.
Even if the overseer or elder in NT time, is now a term seen as Bishop. The New Jerusalem Bible, approved by the Vatican, which has directly been translated from Greek and Hebrew has this to say:
NJB - Elders: After the model of the 70 elders appointed by Moses, local Jewish communities were governed by a committee of elders (presbuteroi).
This structure was taken over by Christian communities. Elders were carefully selected and their office was seen to depend on the holy Spirit. The president (episkopos) was probably chosen from among them. (Exodus 18:13; Acts 11:30; Acts 14:23; Acts 20:28; Titus 1:5-9).
Anon@6:42 p.m.
You said:
"You are measuring protestantism by your own model of a formal hierarchy, and assuming that denominations come into being only via a falling-out, but much protestantism is simply not like that."
How do so many denominations or groups fit in with
"one body, one faith, and one baptism" spoken of so passionately by St. Paul?
How do they answer Jesus' pray for unity among Christians?
Denominations come and go, but the church of Christ still stands.
Regarding the history of the Albigensians beliefs and practices,
Baptist historian, James E. McGoldrick, who would have no reason to defend the Catholic Church, refuted the assumption that because the history of the Albigensians was written by their opponents, it was biased and therefore untrustworthy.
Moreover, McGoldrick contended that the Inquisitors were "quite honest" in their evaluations," and their charges of heresy " “show a restraint that increases the likelihood of their legitimacy”
“However, enough primary material produced by both the sectarians themselves and by their enemies has survived, so that an informed judgment about their beliefs is still possible. Spokesmen . . . have tended to dismiss documents produced by opponents of the sects as hopelessly prejudiced and therefore unreliable. As we intend to show, this contention is not always valid, for we possess documents of Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox origin that have been cross-checked for accuracy. When two or more hostile sources who have had no evident contact with one another related the same account, there is a very high degree of probability that the account is substantially correct.”
See: McGoldrick, James E., Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Crusade in Baptist History, Scarecrow Press, Inc., Maryland, 1994, pp 2-3and p 60.
Wasn't it the Biblical rule that if two or more witnesses told the same story, then it was reasonable to believe that the story was true?
Anon@3.40am,
Thank you for the McGoldrick reference. I hope to find his book is in my university library. He says that there is enough Cathar/Albigensian material in existence to cross-check the Catholic accusations made against them. However, a scholarly Catholic website which someone else
quoted on this thread stated that we have only two of their documents and one was in fact a Bogomil document that was in their possession - revealing, but not decisive:
http://www.suite101.com/content/the-cathars-a60387#ixzz15VKKRAbV
Here is from an Amazon review of McGoldrick:
"In his chapter on the Albigenses, he admits the bias of his Roman Catholic sources and then proceeds as though it is of no consequence. Reading Catholic accussations of Albigenses that label them "dualists" is like taking HUAC reports as evidence that Civil Rights groups were Communists... Also in the chapter on Anabaptists, Mcgoldrick claims that the anabaptists did not believe in the primacy of scripture, and then provides a quote in which an anabaptist challenges a "scribe" to a debate saying he will recant if proven wrong by scripture."
Nevertheless I shall try to find McGoldrick. I am willing to believe that the Cathars were heretical, but not without a smoking gun.
Post a Comment