20 Years without one iota of New Testament Scripture?

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
There is only one "Roman Catholic" denomination. There are many sects which broke away from the Catholic Church which refer to themselves as "Catholic" in some form, but to be Roman Catholic you must be under the Bishop of Rome. And if you are, you are not divided.

Just clearing that issue up.

Click to expand...

Sorry but that won't wash! if you want to use Barett's definitions gainst prottestants then you're going to have to acept then aplied to your club too. And he says there are many many RC denominations using the same definition of denomination for RCism as fro protestantism.

If you don't like the result for RCism then maybe you shouldn't use the figures at all. You sure can't use them only one way and be fair and honest.

Carson:

1) I've read Ray. He has no credentials to do exegesis. And his exegesis holds no water anyway for anyone who knows what they're talking about. And yo bought it huh? Hmm....

2) "Of course, that's a qualification that you impose upon the text. St. Paul nowhere states that oral traditions must equal what is written down."

LOL. Not hardly. It's what the text says. It is in fact eisegesis to assume that they are differnet messages.

3) "Yes he does. St. Paul commands us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess 2:15)"

So you want to be circular?? LOL. Give us a break here, Car. The texty is explicit hod fas to the traditions, however you receive them. Its all the same traditions buddy. Not different ones. you provide the evidence of your own eisegesis.

Like shooting fish in a barrell.

4) "Under "Christian Organizations", object 44 is titled "Denominations", and under the column "mid-2002", 35,500 is the number listed."

Yes, Isaw it. Heck, I CITED it! But, as I explained (and you obviosly didn't read) you still misrepresented the findings badly. Go back and read my post. Repeating your mistake doesn't make you right guy. It just further ruins your credibility.

Hi Will,

I can see that you are unable to answer the question that I've asked because you are uncomfortable with Fact 1, which is that "Eusebius, a renown Church historian, tells us that Christian communities rejected 2 Peter, James, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude as inspired Scripture in the year 324 A.D."

You wrote, "You are claiming that Christian communities rejected these books? How do you know who Eusebius was speaking for here other then himself? I have already pointed out that he wasn't always reliable on theology (he was an Arian at one point.) Could it be for the heretical Arians? It not, how do you know that?"

I'm presenting Eusebius as a representative historian of the early 4th century Christian Church.

In his Ecclesiastical history, Eusebius gives a narrative history of the Church up to his time from the information that he had gathered. In this History, he lists what he has witnessed concerning various writings in the Church. He speaks for everyone:

recognized writings:

the 4 Gospels followed by Acts
the Epistles of Paul
the extant former Epistle of John
the Epistle of Peter
the Apocalypse of John (seen as spurious by some)

the disputed writings:

the Epistle of James
Jude
the second Epistle of Peter
the Second and Third of John

the spurious writings:

the Acts of Paul
the Shepherd
the Apocalypse of Peter
the extant Epistle of Barnabas
the Teaching of the Apostles [Didache]
the Apocalypse of John (recognized by some)
the Gospel of the Hebrews (recognized by some)

and then he lists some texts clearly defined as heretical, which include the Gospels of Peter, Thomas, and Matthias.

Cf. Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History Book 3, Chapter 25 at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

You wrote, "do you accept the Coptic Church canon? If not, why not? This early church tradition is older then the Catholic Church's. What about the Syrian Church canon?"

I only accept one canon and that is the canon as formally defined once again at the Council of Trent. I accept this canon because I'm a Catholic, and I have an authority that I can point to.

Now, are you ready to answer the difficult question that I've posed? I only see it as difficult for you because you don't have an authority other than Scripture, which can't determine its own content - thus entailing the logical fallacy of Sola Scriptura (which seeks Scripture as the final authority).

I intend to have demonstrated that Sola Scriptura relies necessarily upon the authority of the Catholic Church in determining its canon, which undermines the very premise of Sola Scriptura.

Hi Colin,

You wrote, "I got the impression that it was finally up to the church which writings/ doctrines of the church fathers were to be considered as reliable Tradition."

This is correct.

You wrote, "That is, from your perspective, the church decides what is Scripture, and also what is Tradition."

Not exactly. The Church decides what is Scripture according to the Tradition received (The Church doesn't invent Scripture - it simply is the only place where a pagan can go to find the authentic Tradition that says what Scripture is). And, the Church determines what is valid Tradition.

For instance, with the definition of the New Testament canon, the Church had different datum to work with, and with the authority granted it (Mt 16:18; 18:18), it made the authoritative decision as to what the authentic Tradition (in this case, the canon) was. It must also be noted that the Church is the servant of Tradition and Scripture - She is never above the Word of God as received from the apostles.

You wrote, "The church is thus the final authority for you."

You are correct.

You wrote, "Presumably, however, having once decided that something is authoritative, it is obliged to adhere to that for all time. Am I getting close?"

Yes. You see, Scripture was (and I'm coming from a historical standpoint) canonized not so much as to be a final authority to turn to doctrinal answers but so as to determine what was to be read in the liturgy in the various churches. The Church is concerned with saving souls, and She has always been determined to provide the Word of God for the faithful for their salvation. Historically speaking, this occurred primarily in the liturgy, where the faithful hear the Word of God. If you attend Mass every day for 4 years, you will have heard the vast majority of Scripture due to the cycle of readings. (John 5:25 - "Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.")

The Church is the final authority, which derives her datum from the Word of God as manifest in both Scripture and Tradition, serving the Word as its faithful keeper and guardian with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit
protects the Magisterium,
inspires the Scripture,
and animates Tradition.

If the Church does not have authority and is not protected by the Holy Spirit, then we can easily have apocryphal books in our canon of New Testament Scripture.

The Evangelical scholar R.C. Sproul admits (albeit, with a grain of salt) that we have "a fallible list of infallible books", which leave the believer in a sticky situation that - with the infallible Teaching authority assisted, guided, and protected by the Holy Spirit - is easily avoided.

God bless,

Carson

[ September 20, 2002, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

Carson --

Now you are getting a bit facetious! 8o) Which
Apostolic Writings? You know which ones I
intend.

I think most people here know what undermine
means, but perhaps not everyone knows what
Sola Scriptura means. Where did I say I was
Ssola Scriptura?

Originally posted by Carson Weber:


I receive my figures from the World Evangelization Research Center which is based in Richmond, VA and reports 35,500 Christian Denominations in mid-2002:

http://www.gem-werc.org

Click to expand...

Statistics can be deceiving can they not. The 35,000 refers to "denominations" under the category of "Christian Organizations" But I suppose that the Catholic Church does not consider itself as a Christian organization and thus does not lump itself into that category.

Further up there is another category of "evangelicals," stating that there are 217,896,000 in that group. Why doesn't that Catholic refer to that Stat instead showing their unity and their size in number? Isn't it amazing what you can do with numbers when you are out to purposely deceive people.
DHK

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi Dualhunter,

You wrote, "I simply do not see any Catholic evangelists"

You're reading the posts from one.

You wrote, "What does the good news that you described mean in terms of how a person is saved?"

You know very well the means, and it seems quite superfluous for you to ask this question.

My friends who live as disciples of Jesus in the religious order known as the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal give this message: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him." (Acts 2:38-39)

Click to expand...

The only problem with that is that I'm worried that you might be teaching people to trust in baptism to save them instead of trusting completely in Christ. Notice the Gospel as you listed it does not mention baptism. Converts should be baptized of course but it is not part of the Gospel of salvation which is significant.

Hi Abiyah,

You wrote, "Which Apostolic Writings? You know which ones I intend."

No, I do not.

Which Apostolic Writings are you referring to?

Hi DHK,

The reality behind the argument is that non-Catholic Christians are well-divided in doctrine, morality, and worship.

Hi Dualhunter,

You wrote, "The only problem with that is that I'm worried that you might be teaching people to trust in baptism to save them instead of trusting completely in Christ."

Why the false dichotomy?

Baptism is precisely one's entrustment to Christ. So, it's quite difficult to rely on baptism for salvation apart from Christ if it's baptism that both signifies and brings about one's total consecration to the Saviour of the World.

God bless,

Carson

The inspired Word of God during the first twenty years came through the spoken word of inspired men. The epistle written by all the apostles and elders at Jerusalem changed that. While the inspired word of the apostles would have been sufficent to convince the Jewish Christians relative to their Gentile counterparts, the epistle served to open the door to the acceptability of the procession of epistles that followed. The inspired epistle was as authoritative as the inspired man and was delivered as such to the churches.

Acts 15: 30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:

Acts 16: 4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.

5 And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.

The written word, then, was to be of equal authority with the spoken word but, since the revelation of all truth was completed prior to writing of any of it, the written word could not contain anything new within it that had not been revealed! Whatever was written of necessity had to conform to the spoken word else the Holy Spirit had not guided the apostles into all truth.

Footnote... The phrase All Truth is embraced in (teaching, doctrine, revelation, law, ect.) and identifies the New Testament law with all its attending commandments, statutes and ordinances. This is not to say that the application of these principles had been made to every situation that would develop. They had not. Even today we must apply these same principles (commandments) to differing situations. The law of Christ by which right and wrong is determined, however, was fully revealed before it was written in our New Testament Scriptures.

The first book of the New Testament to be written was I Thessalonians. It was written by Paul in late 52 A.D. while at Corinth ... Taken from The Development of the New Testament by Arthur Ogden... Brother Glen

[ September 20, 2002, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi Dualhunter,

You wrote, "The only problem with that is that I'm worried that you might be teaching people to trust in baptism to save them instead of trusting completely in Christ."

Why the false dichotomy?

Baptism is precisely one's entrustment to Christ. So, it's quite difficult to rely on baptism for salvation apart from Christ if it's baptism that both signifies and brings about one's total consecration to the Saviour of the World.

God bless,

Carson

Click to expand...

Then why is it that sprinkling a bit of water on a baby's head does not produce anything new other than a slightly wet baby? When the infant grows older we see that the person is still ruled by sin and only Christ can truly set them free. Supposedly the sprinkler set them free but the evidence says otherwise. On the other hand when a person genuinely trusts Christ we see that the person is a new creature and has been set free from the snare of sin.

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
The reality behind the argument is that non-Catholic Christians are well-divided in doctrine, morality, and worship.

Click to expand...

The statistics are misleading, and the statement you make can be proven false very easily. I live in a predominately Catholic nation. If I were to construct a survey concerning doctrine (Biblical), and morality, and worship (Biblical), and then conduct this survey to the surrounding community, I could almost guarantee you what the results would be. First you would weed out all who were not either evangelical or Catholic. Then you would divide the Catholics into one group and the evangelical answers into another group. As a whole evangelicals would be more united in their doctrine on soteriology, pneumatology, Christology, ecclesiology, eschatology, and many other doctrines. There is a wide diversity of beliefs among Catholics, if not ignorance. There are many who call themselves Catholics and you know full well that they don't have the knowledge you do. They quite frankly don't know what they believe. Most Catholics have never seen a Bible, much less read one. On what authority do I say these things? For years, I have gone door to door, talking to individuals about Christ, many, if not most, have been Catholics--very, very, ignorant about doctrine.
Take a survey. You will find that evangelicals are more united in their doctrine than Catholics are. I challenge you.
DHK

Hi DHK,

The point is that Catholics who are believers (in other words, those who are not just "in" the Church, but who are "of" the Church) are united doctrinally around one altar.

Non-Catholic Christians are hopelessly divided (and continue to divide) on doctrines central to the Christian kerygma.

Many towns in the United States these days have one main street with numerous Churches lining this one street: Church of the Nazarene, Assembly of God, First Baptist Church, Free Methodist, Grace Bible Church, St. John Lutheran. Why not one? What divides?

Hi Dualhunter,

You asked, "Then why is it that sprinkling a bit of water on a baby's head does not produce anything new other than a slightly wet baby?"

You mean to ask, "Why is it that sprinkling a bit of water on a baby's head does not produce anything perceptible other than a slightly wet baby?"

"Supernatural" is a condition that is above nature. Our five senses operate on the natural level, so it is not necessary for something supernatural to occur in a perceptible fashion on the level of the flesh.

This is analagous to the prime Sacrament, God Incarnate. If you were to look at baby Jesus in Palestine near 3 weeks of age, you would perceive with your 5 senses a stinky human baby - most certainly not the second Person of the Blessed Trinity. But, regardless, his human nature both signified and served as the instrument for the ineffable God who created the universe.

You wrote, "When the infant grows older we see that the person is still ruled by sin and only Christ can truly set them free. Supposedly the sprinkler set them free but the evidence says otherwise."

Baptism only gives one the operative principle of the Christian life - the Holy Spirit - not instant sinlessness. The living out of the obedience of faith is necessary for the Christian to embrace the Christian life and grow in sanctification.

This is why the Church only baptizes those who either have a sponsor who will raise them in the Faith or those who have made an act of faith for themselves. Many of my evangelical Catholic friends who raise their young children in the fear of the LORD have children that display an extraordinary amount of personal holiness.

You wrote, "On the other hand when a person genuinely trusts Christ we see that the person is a new creature and has been set free from the snare of sin."

Absolutely. Faith is the necessary disposition to embrace the life of the Holy Spirit given in the sacrament of Baptism. Baptism doesn't work like magic: be baptized and you're sinless. It is the beginning of a journey towards holiness.

God bless,

Carson

[ September 21, 2002, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi DHK,

The point is that Catholics who are believers (in other words, those who are not just "in" the Church, but who are "of" the Church) are united doctrinally around one altar.

Non-Catholic Christians are hopelessly divided (and continue to divide) on doctrines central to the Christian kerygma.

Many towns in the United States these days have one main street with numerous Churches lining this one street: Church of the Nazarene, Assembly of God, First Baptist Church, Free Methodist, Grace Bible Church, St. John Lutheran. Why not one? What divides?

Click to expand...

The point is that you make a false dichotomy between Catholics and "Catholics," and then proceed to make divisions among evangelicals where there are none. Very deceitful. It goes like this: All those "Catholics" who claim to be Catholic, and don't believe like me, are not really Catholic. (I have heard that logic from the Muslims). Whereas in some of the above churches that you listed may not even be evangelical. Now, that is deceitful isn't it? In the issue of soteriology evangelicals in general are united. If I were to ask the same basic questions on salvation that I would ask of evangelicals to Catholics, most Catholics would be clueless. In basic Bible doctrine they are naive.
DHK

Catholics are not as united as they so often think. As I've mentioned before, I'm not a Baptist, DHK is, despite our differences we are united in Christ with one common Gospel.

17 Therefore if anyone is (1) in Christ, he is (2) a new creature; (3) the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. - 2 Corinthians 5:17 NASB

Since you don't seem to quite understand this verse let me highlight some things for you:

Therefore if anyone IS [not wants to be, not wants to stay in, it says "is"] in Christ, he IS [not is slowly becoming, not will eventually be, it says "is"] a new creature; the old things passed away [that's "passed" which is past tense, aorist in Greek, it doesn't say passing away, it says "passed away"], new things have come [again it doesn't say new things are coming, it says "new things have come"].

Jesus offers more than a wet head, He dramatically and fundamentally changes peoples lives.

Hi DHK,

You wrote, "It goes like this: All those "Catholics" who claim to be Catholic, and don't believe like me, are not really Catholic."

This is correct. One can formally be a member of Christ's Church but not hold the faith of the Church - and of course, not be saved. This is self-evident.

Latreia answered Born Again Catholic's question, "What would be the biggest theological differences between a conservative non-denomnational Christian and a Southern Baptist?," with this answer:

"They have divergent beliefs regarding what is the true doctrine of salvation by grace alone. They disagree over justification (how it happens and even what it is), the protestat belief regarding Scripture alone as the norm that norms all norms. They disagree over baptism (mode, subject and effect) and Communion (the nature of Christ's presence), and over ministry (who is a minsiter and what are the powers of a minister). They also have different views of the Church (what it is, and how it is to be run). Those would I think be the biggest.

All Catholics who adhere to the Church's teaching are united in all of the above matters and can point to one body of teaching and one teaching authority.

St. Augustine says, "This is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church fighting against all heresies. Fight it can; be fought down, it cannot. Let us love Our Lord God, let us love His Church, Him as a father, Her as a mother; Him as Lord, Her as His handmaid. No man offends the one and wins the favor of the other. He will not have God for his father who refuses the Church for his mother.

"What does it profit you not to have offended your father, since he will punish your offenses against your mother? What does it profit you to praise the Lord, to honor Him, to preach Him, to believe in His Son, to confess that He sits at the right hand of God the Father, while at the same time you denigrate His Church? Outside the Church you can find everything except salvation. You can have dignities. You can have sacraments. You can sing 'Alleluia', answer 'Amen', have the gospels and have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Spirit and preach it too. But you will find salvation and all the means of grace alone in the Catholic Church."

Non-Catholic Christians (other than some Anglicans and the Orthodox) are hopelessly divided over doctrines foundational to the Christian kerygma (as I've stated before) as they hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (apparently, over which Protestants even disagree!). Their final authority isn't the Scriptures, because the Scriptures cannot interpret themselves (there is always a human reading and digesting the words).

There are as many final authorities in Protestantism as there are Protestants.

Hi Dualhunter,

You quoted, "Therefore if anyone IS [not wants to be, not wants to stay in, it says "is"] in Christ, he IS [not is slowly becoming, not will eventually be, it says "is"] a new creature; the old things passed away [that's "passed" which is past tense, aorist in Greek, it doesn't say passing away, it says "passed away"], new things have come [again it doesn't say new things are coming, it says "new things have come"]."

Amen! When we're baptized, we're presently in Christ, are a new creature, and new things have come. This is precisely what happens when one is born again.

You also wrote, "Jesus offers more than a wet head, He dramatically and fundamentally changes peoples lives."

Amen to that. We're "changed" intrinsically when we're justified unlike the Protestant battle cry of Sola Fide, in the light of which Luther wrote, "Melanchthon, go and sin bravely! Then go to the cross and bravely confess it!"

God bless,

Carson

[ September 22, 2002, 12:56 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

You still don't get it Carson. IS a new creature NOT is gradually trying to be a new creature. But trusting solely in Christ for salvation a believer is transformed into a new creature. The transformation is not what puts a person in Christ it is the result of being in Christ by faith with nothing else attached. You are still ignoring that when a baby is baptized, it's head is a little wetter but there is not observable and change and all too often once the infant grows older we see that it is a child of sin. On the other hand, a person who has genuinely put their trust in Christ is a truly changed person.

Originally posted by Carson Weber:

St. Augustine says, "This is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church fighting against all heresies. Fight it can; be fought down, it cannot. Let us love Our Lord God, let us love His Church, Him as a father, Her as a mother; Him as Lord, Her as His handmaid. No man offends the one and wins the favor of the other. He will not have God for his father who refuses the Church for his mother.

Click to expand...

If you are going to quote an authority quote the Bible, and leave the heretics out of it. I doubt if all Catholics agree with Augustine or even know what Augustine taught. Most people on this board probably don't. Augustine was the true founder of what is commonly called "Calvinisim." There is nothing new underneath the sun. The doctrine of God deliberatley electing some to go to Hell and some to go to Heaven came from Augustine, not Calvin. Ask the average Catholic if God has already predetermined and chosen certain elect to go to Hell, and see what reaction you get. Catholics are in agreement?? NOOOOOO!!!!!!
DHK

It should be known that Carson is quoting me inappropriately, though not by his own fault.

I thought I was answering the question "what is the difference between Roman Cathlics and Southern Baptists?"

That is the general context of the post I was responding to, and I didnt read the specific question I was answering closely enough to realise that there was a shift in subject.

In actual fact you will not find a single protetant denomination that disagrees over hte fact that mbnistry od for the whole membership. You will not find a division over the fact that there IS a pesence in communion. You will not find a denomination that does not baptise. I think you get the idea.

Ther is far more unity that Carson suggests.

But there is also complete disunity in the RCC over a number of central issues as well. What are the dogmas? How many are there? What kind of obedience to the Pope is due on non-dogmatic matters? Who makes up the magiterium? Are you Jansenist, Dominican or Jesuit in theology (great differnces on the nature of grace)? Do you believe that election is conditional or not? How do you interpret EENS (extra ecclesiam nullum salus)? Do you have a partim-partim viw of scripture or not?

So you see differences among RCs on the same issues as among protestants.

Indeed, Baptists are the only ones who are aloud to argue, badmouth, and gossip.

Carson brought up some good points. The original topic of 20 years without new scripture is sound. Aside from the OT, the new churches wer creating new customs (or traditions, or whatever you want to call it). Indeed, much of what we do, both in and out of the poews, is based on traditional customs. Most churches have cumstomarily have a cross in the church, and say the Lord's prayer, and end prayers with the word "amen". Yet, we're not commanded to do any of these by NT definition. In fact, "amen" came from the Jewish tradition of closing prayers (which is "amen" or "amein").

The early church developed new customs before the writings of the NT. The earliest NT writings probably weren't penned until 50ad. The later weren'd penned until 70ad. Regardless, the NT writings weren't considered scripture until long after the writers were dead and buried (or mutilated, unfortunately).

Yet we downplay churches who rely heavily on tradition. More to the point, we downplay churches that rely on tradition more than us. If we are to give tradition no merit, then we must give our traditions mo merit as well.

"Indeed, Baptists are the only ones who are aloud to argue, badmouth, and gossip."

Haven't a clue what you're talking about, but it doesn't look ediofying, so I'll thank you to not elaborate.

"Carson brought up some good points."

Not really. He has raised some facts. However he has tired to make points with them that re baseless.

"The original topic of 20 years without new scripture is sound."

But the conclusions that Carson tries to draw from it are not. This has laready been discussed and pointed out.

"Aside from the OT, the new churches wer creating new customs (or traditions, or whatever you want to call it). Indeed, much of what we do, both in and out of the poews, is based on traditional customs. Most churches have cumstomarily have a cross in the church, and say the Lord's prayer, and end prayers with the word "amen". Yet, we're not commanded to do any of these by NT definition. In fact, "amen" came from the Jewish tradition of closing prayers (which is "amen" or "amein")."

What does this have to do with anything? Sola Scriptura does not deny that the Church (and individuakl churches) have their traditions. It does nt deny that these have their place. But this is NOT what Carson argues for. To suggest that the fact that churches have traditions is in anyway similar to what the RCC proclaims as Sacred Tradition is incorrect.

"The early church developed new customs before the writings of the NT. The earliest NT writings probably weren't penned until 50ad. The later weren'd penned until 70ad. Regardless, the NT writings weren't considered scripture until long after the writers were dead and buried (or mutilated, unfortunately)."

Again, traditions in the sense of where to put the pews has nothing to do with what Paul measn by traditions in 2Thess 2:15. Knowingly or otherwise you ignore a vital distinction.

"Yet we downplay churches who rely heavily on tradition. More to the point, we downplay churches that rely on tradition more than us. If we are to give tradition no merit, then we must give our traditions mo merit as well."

See above. If you don't know or understand the differnece between what Paul means by traditions, and what Carson puts forward as Sacred Tradition then you need to learn. Traditions such as you refer to have nothing to do with Tradition in the way Carson uses it. Or how Paul uses it, which is something different again from Paul.

Hi Carson,
thanks for your replies. The idea that the church is the final authority is a big divide between us. For you, it is the church which declares what is scripture, and what is tradition, and both are then binding. It often seems to me that if a Catholic has a problem, he is told to ask the priest, rather than go to the Bible. Church teaching and practice are also seen as authentic revelations of the will of God, so one's own history becomes normative. The trouble is that this just isnt true.

Catholics in Poland and Hungary in the 1930s and 40s read in their official Catholic press (edited closely by bishops) that Jews were "sewer rats", "scum", "bacteria", "invading fleas" etc. They heard their cardinals tell them to avoid all contact with Jews, and had high-ranking priests quote church fathers, councils and canons, as well as numerous popes to back up their position. The Cardinal in Hungary voted in parlament in his official role as leader of the church to impoverish and exclude Jews from public life, and to defend this as the true Christian position. The Synod of Bishops publicly supported the Etelkozi Szovetseg, whose first goal was "war against destructive Jewry". In 1938, the Jesuits in Poland published a call, based on Tomas Aquinus, that Jews should be expelled from Poland. Taught to accept church history, councils and teaching as authoritative, the average Catholic in these lands assumed that this was the will of God. Eichmann went to Hungary in 1944 with 100 men. Without the active cooperation of the Hungarian population, he would never have been able to deport and murder 437,000 Hungarian Jews in just 7 weeks. Likewise in 1942, the Catholic episcopate issued a pastoral letter stating "in our eyes, the influence of the Jews has been pernicious ... The Church cannot be opposed therefore if the state with legal actions [deportation to Germany] eradicates the harmful influence of the Jews". In Lithuania, Bishop Brings forbade his clergy from giving any help whatsoever to the Jews. Average Catholics, taught to obey their priests, and revere their history and teaching, assumed that the removal of Jews from society was God's will. Church leadership, history, teaching, councils and papal statements were revealed to be a source of sin. The Bible alone is the infalable Word of God.

Put another way, were the Catholic leaders of the day wrong to consult their own history and teaching to determine their own position re the Jews? Were they wrong to affirm it? Clearly the answer is yes, but by so doing, they were only doing what they had been taught was the correct, the Catholic way to determine God's will.

I should say that the Protestants of these lands, who also saw their own history as normative, were often just as bad. The lesson is, dont rely on councils and men, but on the person and work of the indwelling Spirit, affirming His word.
God bless, Colin