Added to the Church

Oh no! A good and honest priest receives Christ and exposes the evils of the RCC! (whatever that is)

In case you really don't know, the Chiniquy book is just another in a long line of anti-Catholic slanders. You can buy it from Jack Chick, if that tells you anything.

CHINIQUY DEBUNKED

MORE CHINIQUY

So, are you interested in truth or slander? </font>[/QUOTE]Truth is truth no matter who prints it. The original is an autobiography. Lincoln was his lawyer. Would you place Abe Lincoln along with Jack Chick?

I grew up in the RCC. My mother went to Catholic school as a child. I went to Catechism for several years.

Yes Chick Publications does reprint it. But that book was printed long before Chick was ever born. I have a copy that predates him a lot. I read that book from cover to cover and found nothing misrepresented. The book is loaded with all kinds of documentation that is also public record for you to look up. Several others I know have read it and have said the same thing. If you are afraid of finding out the truth then don't read it. Chiniquy studied the RCC documents and let them speak.

In reading it there is loads of documentation that you can look up for yourself that are public record.

I have read the book and would be happy to hear your personal critique of it. What are the parts you find to be wrong?

 

Oh no! A good and honest priest receives Christ and exposes the evils of the RCC! (whatever that is)

In case you really don't know, the Chiniquy book is just another in a long line of anti-Catholic slanders. You can buy it from Jack Chick, if that tells you anything.

CHINIQUY DEBUNKED

MORE CHINIQUY

So, are you interested in truth or slander? </font>[/QUOTE]From the way yoiu write I would assume you have read the book. Or have you just read what someone else wrote about the book.

What I read about what was written was very poor. Several of the things I read as criticism about Chiniquy would not agree with my personal experince in the RCC. It would coincide with Chiniquy. The critic uses present tense reasoning to criticize something of the past culture. Hermeneutics dictates that when you interpet something in past tense that it must be ingterpreted in light of its historical context. Therefore the critic on the basis of his own ignorance demonstrates such poor methodology. He is acting much like someone who is trying to win a point at the ignorance of others. He is not even making an honest attempt to do careful work.

Again I ask you to point out personally where Chiniquy is wrong historically. Could you give me examples from your personal copy? I wil be happy to look up the same page number and continue this dialog. I have some friends who have read the book and grew up in the RCCas well and all of us come to the same conclusion about RCC doctrine.

Jesus called Peter the first pope "Satan." Does that make your first pope from the Devil? Context is everything.

 

"Jesus called Peter the first pope "Satan." Does that make your first pope from the Devil? Context is everything. "

Put this silly arguement 6 feet under and bury it. Peter was not the head of the Church when Jesus called him Satan. If your arguement is true then we must throw out Peter's two Epistles. Jesus called him Satan because at that time Peter was acting in a manner inconsistent with Jesus mission. After the resurrection Peter was in line with Jesus mission. Seems like you have read all the anti-catholic habadashary havent' you GB. And sucked it in, hook, line, and sinker.

 

DHK replied where I last said:
Uh, DHK, you are misinterpreting what I said; they had the completed word of God! ORALLY! What they did not have was scrolls of papyrus or parchment that had this "Word" inscriptured for about 30 years give or take after Pentecost (the latest ideas, scholars think, most of them taking it still out to sometime after AD 70, the destruction of Jerusalem and even beyond.)

Other then the book of Revelations, where Christ, from His throne in heaven, told John what to write concerning the seven churches, Christ gives absolutely no hint to His apostles to write a thing down! He taught them orally, infusing His "Word" into their hearts and minds without not one whit of a command to write anything!

Now we are getting somewhere!
And you have just accepted the idea that the "Word of God," today, is both that same Sacred Tradition (that remaining oral tradition that was also passed-down from apostle-to-successor) that is also the original authority, also included within and a part of the teaching magisterium of the Church, in a symbiotic relationship with the scriptures, as it came to be compiled, canonized and declared divinely inspired "God breathed" by the only "authority" around who could do so - The very same Church!
Or do I assume too much here?

We have no idea what was written about 35 years after Pentecost. But somewhere around that date, ink first touched papyrus in the writings of the apostles (through their scribes) that was to later to be canonized as scripture - the beginnings of the New Testament. So, yes, it is quite plausable that 5 years after the 30 year date I gave (which was quite arbitrary) that Peter would have seen and read Paul's letters!
I last said:
What they did not have was scrolls of papyrus or parchment that had this "Word" inscriptured for about 30 years give or take after Pentecost

Again, this is conjecture. We do not know the exact dates. Please note that I indicate that "30 years" is approximate, since it is "give or take."

 

(Continued from previous message)

No, they did not because it was their Oral Sacred Tradition that they believed so! But even the apostles had to convene to solve the controversy over the need for circumcision for Christians. And by the time the doctrine of the "Trinity" was challenged, it was defined!
There is an old saying: "Doctrine is not defined until it is challenged!" This is exactly what the Church had to do from time to time…
I last said:
My ultimate point is, if Sola Scriptura did not exist as a doctrine at one time, how can it be true in a later time, when finally, we have the New Testament, compiled by the only authority around that could do such a thing in the 3rd century, and then declare it, somehow, as our "sole source of faith and doctrine" or however you may want to define it in Sola Scriptura terms? Did the very authority that did this - the Church - loose that authority into thin air after the New Testament was finally declared canonical, God's written word, the New Testament?

Then that is another definition of Sola Sciptura, which deviates from the use of the term, "sola" in it's very description! Pardon me, but even in Protestant doctrines, you people cannot come up with one that will satisfy all, can you?
So, am I to take this to mean that while the New Testament was not written, then all authority was indeed, in the Church? BUT when the New Testament was finally compiled, canonized and declared authority, it suddenly becomes the only authority, and thus the final authority as you say?
Let's take this to it's logical conclusion: The authority of the Church, expended totally in it's final efforts to produce the New Testament, goes "poof," goes away, now only existent in the Bible. The final effect is for the Church to become a non-entity, a shell of it's former self, all authority in now in scripture for all to see, read and define as the holy Spirit moves them (all now think) and with the obvious lack of "self interpreting" that is implied here, finds us with (what is the latest figure?) 20,000 separate and distinct Christian denominations, sects and cults?
Sola Scriptura is not only self-defeating in it's effect, so also is "Final Authority in Scripture" (not knowing how to do this in Latin) crashing is flames in the same obviously observed effects - an explosion of denominations, sects and cults.

DHK, none of the accounts of Genesis existed on scrolls until Moses wrote it!
Now, can you show me evidence of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in the Old Testament? By now, you should realize that it does not exist in the New Testament, for such an important doctrine to be effective, it should have been there, at least strongly implied.
Did the oral authority of any of the prophets disappear when they finally had their words recorded on scrolls, sir? I am not denying the authority of the Old Testament as it was being written, after all, it is the authoritative word of God, given to the prophets now "etched in concrete" if you will. But it being done so takes away none of the authority of the prophet who wrote it (God's hand in the process is a given.)

OK…

How do you know that, DHK? Please find me one scrap of evidence that the bible is formally sufficient as you declare. It may be materially sufficient, in that reading it brings you to Christ to salvation, just as the Constitution of the United States may be materially sufficient to tell you something about the workings of our government, but to be completely sufficient, in that in and of it self, you need nothing else to demonstrate our government in action (formal sufficiency) is obviously false, isn't it?
And by the way, Judaism, in the old covenant, had it's sacred traditions too. In fact, Christ cited them a time or two. Can you name me the two magicians who defied Moses in Pharaoh's court? You will not find it in the Old Testament, DHK, but you will see it etched in the New Testament, from the mouth of Jesus.
I quote………..
BTW where was the Gospel before inscripturation? Where did Paul get
the notion that Christ said 'it is better to give than to
receive'-since he didn't have a written Scripture to go by--these
words are not found in the Gospels? Where in the OT did Our Lord draw
the words 'Moses seat' in meaning an authority inherited from Moses,
to Joshua etc.. down to the Pharisees--an institution Our Lord made
clear possessed a morally binding authority(Matt 23:2)? Why in the
world didn't Paul reject the extra-biblical idea of the rolling rock
in the wilderness (take a look at the notes in many commentaries noting
the Rabbinical tradition) rather than create a Christological type
simply from the word 'rock'(1 Cor 10:4)? Or why didn't Paul reject the
extra-biblical idea of the names of the magicians of Jannes and
Jambres that opposed Moses rather than using them(without their names)
as examples of false teachers(2 Tim 3:8)? Why didn't Jude reject the
extra-biblical notions of the archangel's dispute over Moses body
rather than derive doctrines and principles from them(Jude 9,14)?
These few examples prove Pedro that neither Our Lord nor the Apostles
practiced Sola Scriptura, contrary to your reading might conclude.
End of quote……
Taken from Joe Gallegos' famous papacy.zip available in HTML form at the following site:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/pv_church.htm

And you can find this idea where, DHK? it is seldom I do this, as it is a Protestant question to us Catholics, DHK, but it is applicable here as well: Where do you find this in the Bible, DHK?

Now, don't take me wrong here, but I do indeed believe in a "final authority" from God, but not in the Sola Scriptura (or should I now say, "Sola Fina Scriptura" (taking a stab at the Latin) That the Word of God, given orally by Christ, was "final" in it's instillation into the hearts and minds of the apostles. Nothing is really lacking at all, even while not a drop of ink has touched papyrus in it's being recorded or "etched in concrete" as I would say. Nothing is missing, even while it is solely in oral form. But when some of it (or even all of it, if that were possible) were written down, nothing insofar as the finality of the Word of God via the teachings and the gospel message of Jesus Christ is concerned. It was final when He taught them; it was final when He ascended to the Father in heaven; it was final when the holy Spirit came at Pentecost, and it was final when the canon of scripture was "finally" determined in the latter part of the 3rd century!
Yet you see scripture as "authoritive" without substance! Who told you this? How do you actually know that scripture is the divinely inspired "God breathed" Word of God, DHK? You know it only because a physical existing authoritative Church told you so!
Or do you believe in the circular logic that "The bible declares itself divinely inspired of God, therefore it is divinely inspired"?
Moslems declare that as well for the Koran, DHK…
I last said:
First of all, this is the first time I have ever seen as association of the "gifts" you speak of as being entirely connected to the inscripturation of the New Testament. In fact, I see that it was enough for the apostles to simply know in their hearts and minds what the "Word" of Christ is, without the tongues, certainly, but only conjecture as to "prophecy and revelatory knowledge" that seems to be applicable to the book of Revelation mostly, with little seen (from my viewpoint) in the rest of the New Testament, even the gospels beyond the actual words of Christ. (For example, the prediction of Christ of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.)

First of all, I am sure there was an "overseer" left at Corinth when Paul left. And no, he was no more an apostle then Timothy was. But I do agree that the gifts were not within the apostles alone, but were manifested in many of the lay Christians as well.

I am not sure what you point is here…
Certainly, not all of the apostles could be everywhere, even in the approximate holy Land areas at the time. Travel by foot was rather limiting, I am sure!

What has this to do with the "Word," being on the hearts and minds of the apostles? I'm loosing you here, DHK.
But you do touch upon an issue that would have caused Paul and the other apostles to appoint successors, one notable one being Timothy! How about Stephen as well, DHK? He was not an apostle either! Certainly, not all 12 are going to "make disciples of all nations" per Matthew 28:19 until and unless they appoint successors to continue the job, still continuing to this day, as they lay in the dusty graves all these 2,000 years! You have just swerved into the subject of apostolic succession, but we can save it for another day!
(Continued in next message)

 

(Continued from previous message)

No wonder that preaching from the pulpit was important! No wonder we see the beginnings of stained-glass windows depicting scenes from the New Testament, for even while everything you say he is true, you left out another important fact: illiteracy!
Does it occur to you know why Christ did not emphasize the inscripturizing of His Word while in the flesh with his apostles and disciples? Do you now see why "bible reading" was not the important issue at all, ever, in Christianity until
1.) Bibles were plentiful and cheap
2.) People could read!
Yet, even in those early times, I declare that the Word of God as given to us by Christ was final in every respect, even while it was totally and completely oral, in the hearts and minds of the apostles and their successors!
I don't know where it read this but I understand that early scribes actually committed scripture to memory! Can you imagine memorizing all of the gospel of Matthew word for word? It boggles my mind to think of this, but then the necessity was there to do this, the written word was so rare as you indicated.
I last said:
If this were so as you describe here, why does not scripture itself describe the process of this inscripturation? If Scripture is so all-encompassing as some declare, why is this not an obvious process described? In other words, where does it say that the authority of the Church passes into oblivion (or is at least subjugated) when the time comes when the New Testament is a completed document? Where does it in fact say that scripture is the sole source for faith and doctrine? (Or sole source of authority, it being the only Word of God, now that ink has completed it's mark on papyrus?

Who told you that, DHK? You pastor? Your assistant pastor? Who? How do you know the bible came from God? Do you recall that long list of "competing" works that did not make it into the New Testament in my last message? How do you know that the Church, in some error, left something out that was from God?
I have an answer that satisfies ME, (believing in the infallible nature of the Church) but again, how do you know all that, DHK?

So declared by Peter, upon whom Christ so named ("Peter" = "Rock") upon whom He was to build His church with awesome authority per Matthew 16:18-19!

Wrote down where? Was it possible in the Shepherd of Hermes or possibly the Gospel of Peter? Or perhaps it was in the epistle written by James, who many thought to be spurious, as well as John's Book of revelations?
My question simply reverts to: How do you know all this, DHK? Who told you?

I cannot agree more here, DHK!
But the "Devil is in the details" of your statement where we will obviously disagree!
The "final authority" is indeed, in the Word of God as spoken and as infused into the minds and hearts of the apostles!
At one time, it was "final" only in those hearts and minds before ink touched papyrus.
Later, some of it was enscriptured and written-down, "etched in concrete" as it were, the important parts of this same "final" Word, but not in and of itself, the total Word.
St, John wrote, "I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can talk face to face." 3 John 1:13
St. John said almost the same thing in 2 John 1:12
It would seem to me that John was not all that concerned about inscipturation at all, he wanting to talk to the people, not write to them!
Finally, we see John saying"
"There are also so many things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written." (Catholic NAB.) That is from John's gospel, John 21:25.
And so like the Old Testament, which fails to speak of the names of the court magicians who defined Moses, we see that there are things not recorded in scripture, all a part of the Sacred Tradition imparted to the apostles during Christ's sojourn here on earth.
I previously said:
DHK, that's fine. It is the same as the phrase "when two or three are gathered together in my name" we have therefore the "church." If my pastor comes to my house and says Mass (Oops, celebrates the Lord's Supper) for me and my sick wife, we have the "church."

Yes I do!
DHK, your particular Christian community is probably quite small, right? Therefore, it does not surprise me to find it quite small in it's organization as the largest Church community in Christendom - The Catholic Church!
Matthew 18:20 does indeed, describe church discipline, and the authority behind it with the "binding and loosing" clause, as given originally in Matthew 16:19, after giving Peter the "keys of the kingdom." For a Church to exercise such discipline is to strongly imply organization, does it not, DHK?
How big was that original organization? Quite small, as one would expect in the infant church. And if you go back and read the contests of papacy.zip as given in the Joe Gallegos site I speak of above, Joe does an eloquent job of describing how the papacy grew from a small acorn to the full blown papacy of a mighty oak and yet it is the same papacy! (Like the acorn is the same as the oak tree, in full blossom.) And likewise with the organization of the Church, DHK; from a small beginning to the mighty Church she has become, in 2,000 years of her history!

What is it then an organizational church? How is it that "two or three" gathered together is not an organization, even while the "two or three" are simple lay persons? They, in and of itself, is not the church (as in the authority of "The Church"), but certainly Jesus is with them in prayer! In other words, I think one must be careful to making too much of a comparison of the two statements you make above. To take a person "to the church" in discipline implies a lot more then just "two or three in my name" per the words of Jesus here.

And I think St. Ignatius did exactly that when he attached the word "Catholic" to the name of the Church in his day!
But to continue in your thought pattern, not only is there not a definitive "correct" name given to the Church, other then just "church," the is also no succinct or definitive discussion on such subjects that are to be pertinant today, abortion, birth control, the ordination of "gay" persons to the clergy, etc. (even while you can certainly point to implication, large or small as they may be) they are still not succinct or definitive as one may want.
That alone indicates that the bible cannot be the sole source for faith and morals - there must be an active authoritative church in existence that can do this, exactly as Christ said in Matthew 16:18-19 that "…the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" in infallibility, that it has the "keys of the kingdom" of authority (as seen in Jewish metaphor in Isaiah 22:22) and of course, the awesome power of "binding and loosing." In other words, you would be hard pressed to address these new issues from scripture alone. It is insufficient to complete explain the evils of artificial birth control! And it would be insufficient to address the evils of abortion as well…
(Continued in next message)

 

(Continued from previous message)

I just love the way this is spoken of, in a minimization of the authority, Christ obviously gave His church! I agree that there was a "church" in Aquilla and Precilla's house, just as I would have a "church" in my own house today if my pastor were to come in and say Mass for us in my house!
I do not intend to demean your words, DHK, only to put them into what I consider to be a proper prospective…

When I was on a camping trip with my family, pop-tent camper behind a Volkswagen bus, in the middle of Utah, we had Catholic Masses in individual homes. Just as you describe here for the Baptists!
I last commented:
When we all gather inside of St. John's Catholic Church (My parish) here in Warrington, FL, we have the "church." If we gather outside, in the open air, and celebrate the "Lord's Supper," we have the "church." And if a Catholic Chaplain says Mass (sorry, I must revert to my more modern meaning here) on the fantail of a ship, we have the "church." And if all the bishops gather together with the present pope in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome in a mighty ecumenical council, we have the "church." All of these events, be they in individual houses, aboard ship, in Rome, wherever, we have THE CHURCH, DHK!

And like the acorn into a mighty oak my Church has progressed, it was also a simple "assembly" as you say. And in my parish, it is still an "assembly of believers" believers in Catholicism which describes our doctrines and beliefs. What happened in your church community perfectly describes how it was with the original infant church, from a small acorn to a mighty oak it grew to what it is today!
We are simply 2000 years ahead of you, DHK!
Nevertheless, I see Christ looking favorably on your community in love and charity as well, not denying you anything you may ask of Him, in your innocence of the first and true church He established. At least you have the bible that His Church made available for you, which is good.
I wish you and your Christian community the best God has to offer, DHK…
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+

Almighty and eternal God, you gather
the scattered sheep
and watch over those
you have gathered.
Look kindly on all who follow Jesus,"
your Son.
You have marked them
with the seal of one baptism,
now make them one
in the fullness of faith
and unite them in the bond of love.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.
Amen.

 

Oh no! A good and honest priest receives Christ and exposes the evils of the RCC! (whatever that is)

In case you really don't know, the Chiniquy book is just another in a long line of anti-Catholic slanders. You can buy it from Jack Chick, if that tells you anything.

CHINIQUY DEBUNKED

MORE CHINIQUY

So, are you interested in truth or slander? </font>[/QUOTE]From the way yoiu write I would assume you have read the book. Or have you just read what someone else wrote about the book.

What I read about what was written was very poor. Several of the things I read as criticism about Chiniquy would not agree with my personal experince in the RCC. It would coincide with Chiniquy. The critic uses present tense reasoning to criticize something of the past culture. Hermeneutics dictates that when you interpet something in past tense that it must be ingterpreted in light of its historical context. Therefore the critic on the basis of his own ignorance demonstrates such poor methodology. He is acting much like someone who is trying to win a point at the ignorance of others. He is not even making an honest attempt to do careful work.

Again I ask you to point out personally where Chiniquy is wrong historically. Could you give me examples from your personal copy? </font>[/QUOTE]My personal copy!? I think it's mixed in with my personal copies of Boettner and Dave Hunt and Maria Monk and the Jesuit Oath

Luckily (or unluckily), Chiniquy is available all over the net, so that's my "personal copy." Worth every dime, too.

Here's just one example of a non-religious refutation of Chiniquy:

CHINIQUY AND LINCOLN

The summary:
It is clear that Charles Chiniquy met Lincoln in 1856 in Urbana and engaged his legal services. The facts of the case differ significantly, however, from those reported in Chiniquy's autobiography. As to the three separate interviews in Washington, it is reasonable to assume that the first two never took place. If a third did occur, it was for the purpose of obtaining a charitable contribution from the President. One may also conclude that Lincoln never offered Chiniquy a post in the foreign service, nor did he engage the former priest in long conversations about the Bible and assassination plots. [44]

As the by-no-means-exhaustive list of pamphlets and books cited in this essay suggests, Chiniquy's charges against the Catholic church will be kept alive by sectarian battlers disposed to believe what was said in Fifty Years in the Church of Rome. [45] Scholars, however, even when tempted to use less sensational passages from Chiniquy's book, should be wary. There is no evidence to support his claim that he was a close friend of the Sixteenth President.

But thanks for the inspiration to start a new thread. Keep an eye out for it.