• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Cardinal Manning said...

K

Kathryn

New Member
DHK:
Originally posted by Kathryn:
Yes, the Holy Catholic Church is the same same church. Ask the eastern Orthodox Christians, their spiritual fathers were all part of the Holy Catholic Church back then too.

This is an opinion which cannot be validated. It is my opinion that the Catholic Church started in the fourth century with Emperor Constantine, which I believe has more validity to it than yours.
Click to expand...
You have to reject legitimate history, and make up your own. Constantine only issued a policy of religious freedom for all. The Church had been around for about three hundred years already.
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/milan.stm
(non-Catholic site)
The Edict of Milan
Constantine Augustus and Licinius Augustus
The persecution of Christians ended in 313 when of the West and Licinius of the East proclaimed the Edict of Milan, which established a policy of religious freedom for all. This is an English translation of the edict.


God Bless
 
K

Kathryn

New Member
DHK: The KKK was against blacks, Catholics, and Jews.

http://www.usgennet.org/usa/wi/county/eauclaire/history/ourstory/vol5/klan.html

Tracing history requires chronicling the unjust as well as the just.
Therefore, the short-lived role of the Ku Klux Klan during the hectic and free-wheeling days of the 1920s in the Chippewa Valley, must be recorded.

The Eau Claire-Dunn-Chippewa-Rusk county area was one of four centers of KKK power from 1921-30, when the organization shriveled.
Chippewa County was a particular stronghold of these white-hooded men who believed blacks, Jews and Catholics threatened the American way of life as they viewed it. Therefore, most KKK members at least professed, if they didn't practice, Protestantism.


God Bless
 
D

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Kathryn:
Here is a great site about the Catholic Church and the Negro. University Of North Carolina Chapel Hill Library :


http://docsouth.unc.edu/church/butsch/butsch.html


God Bless
Click to expand...
This is from your own link--Catholic biased of course:

Catholic colonists were confined to Maryland and Louisiana. They also had slaves in their homes and on their plantations, but it is known that they provided for their religious needs and were obliged by their religion to regard their slaves as human beings and not as mere chattels.

Other searches would prove that the Catholics were not the "angels" that your Catholic link describes them to be.
DHK
 
D

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Kathryn:
DHK: The KKK was against blacks, Catholics, and Jews.

http://www.usgennet.org/usa/wi/county/eauclaire/history/ourstory/vol5/klan.html

Tracing history requires chronicling the unjust as well as the just.
Therefore, the short-lived role of the Ku Klux Klan during the hectic and free-wheeling days of the 1920s in the Chippewa Valley, must be recorded.

The Eau Claire-Dunn-Chippewa-Rusk county area was one of four centers of KKK power from 1921-30, when the organization shriveled.
Chippewa County was a particular stronghold of these white-hooded men who believed blacks, Jews and Catholics threatened the American way of life as they viewed it. Therefore, most KKK members at least professed, if they didn't practice, Protestantism.


God Bless
Click to expand...
I have already demonstrated in another thread that this is not so. Catholics were deeply involved in the KKK. It was an white supremacy group, much like the Aryan nations are today. If you were not white you were a target of the KKK. Most of the Catholics in that era were white that I know of from history. And many of them part of the KKK. The problem is that the RC's just want to white-wash their history of their sordid crimes, and cover-up their shameful past, as they continue to do to this day. Instead of prosecuting those that break the law permitting pedophelia to go rampannt among the Catholic church, the church harbors their own criminals. They repeat their own horrible past and then try to revise their own history by denying it. Innocent?? Not a chance!
DHK
 
K

Kathryn

New Member
To say that Catholicism didn't exist before Constantine is historical revisionism. There was already a papal lineage, a means of transmitting authority, a consensus on biblical canon, a common ritual, dogmas, etc.

You might want to examine the historical writing of the Church fathers and discover they had the Sacrifice of the Mass, believed in the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, believed in the sacraments, talked of the persecution from the Romans, defended the faith, and many were martyred. There are Christian catacombs with paintings and artwork, they buried their dead and attended Mass in the catacombs. These were Catholics. East and the west, the persecuted Church.

God Bless
 
D

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Kathryn:
To say that Catholicism didn't exist before Constantine is historical revisionism. There was already a papal lineage, a means of transmitting authority, a consensus on biblical canon, a common ritual, dogmas, etc.
Click to expand...
This can be construed or misconstrued (depending on your point of view) either way. The writings of the early church fathers were sometimes confusing and even contradictory. Some of the were outright heretics. Ask Carson Webber to give you a list of the beliefs of Origen. Origen is known as the Father of Arianism. Do you claim him as one of your church fathers. Some of you Catholics rail on the Calvinists for their views. The Father of Calvinism is not Calvin, but Augustine. Calvin preached Augustinianism, another heresy. Baptismal regeneration did not from the Bible, but was introduced later by one of the church fathers. Likewise purgatory. Because these heresies gradually came through these men, does not mean that there was a Catholic Church in existence. You can use the same argument for the Oneness Pentecostal Church, who also believe that you must be batized in order to be saved. Frank and SolaScriptura belong to the "Church of Christ." They believe that their church is the one that can be traced back to the time of the Apostles, even though it started with Alexander Cambell. There is as much historical evidence that the church that Frank attends started with Alexander Cambell (though he will deny it), as there is that the Catholic Church started with Constantine (though you will deny it).
DHK

[ June 16, 2003, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]
 
K

Kathryn

New Member
The evidence of the Catholic Church is overwelming. Our Old Testament testifies to the existence of the Church. The Catholic Bible uses the same canon of books of the Old Testament writings that Jesus had used, the Greek Seputagint. The Jewish council of Jamnia, years after, rejected the Septuagint because it was "the bible of the Christians". It was the scriptures that the Christians used against the Jews to show them that the "Christ" had come. There is evidence that Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint. This was the reason Jamnia removed the books that pointed toward Christ. At Jamnia the Jews cut their canon off several hundred years before Christ was born. The Jews decided not to recognize these "later" books that pointed to Christ.

It was not until the Protestant Reformation that the Protestants decided to use the Jamnia canon and remove the seven books that had been in the Christian bible for 1500 years. The west (Catholic Church ) continued to use the Septuagint books as did the Church in the east ( Orthodox Christians). The west however not being Greek readers or writers translated it first into the Latin Vulgate (the language of anyone that could read and write), then later English (Duay Rheims Version).

Catholic still have the same 72 books in the Old Testament they always had. It is the Protestants who removed these 7 books. The original King James Bible, published in 1611, had 72 books.


God Bless
 
D

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
You have proved nothing. The early Christians knew which books were the Word of God soon after they were written. We have ample proof of that in the writings of Peter.
As for the spurious books of the Apocrypha:
The early believers never accepted them
The Jews never accepted them.
They are not in the Jewish Old Testament to this day.
Protestants have never accepted them
Even Jerome who wrote the Latin Vulgate had a hard time accepting them and protested against it.
The Catholic Church itself never officially accepted them as part of the Bible until the Council of Trent in 1534
DHK
 
M

MikeS

New Member
Originally posted by Lorelei:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MikeS:
However, non-Catholic Christians accept the claims of Christ (as revealed by the Catholic Church and its canon of scriptures) while rejecting the claims of the Catholic Church. A very inconsistent position that
Click to expand...
It is not inconsistant to dismiss the claims of a church, when that churches doctrines are inconsistant with the teachings of Christ.

~Lorelei </font>[/QUOTE]Inconsistent according to whom? Certainly not the Catholic Church. So who gets to decide what is inconsistent? What is the pillar and foundation of truth? Who continues to guard the Sacred Tradition passed down from the apostles? Who was given the power to bind and loose (and with it an implicit guarantee of infallibility), and who are their successors? Who received the promise to be guided into all truth, and who are their successors? Who alone was given the keys to the kingdom, and who are his successors? When interpretations differ, how is one to know with certainty which interpretation is the true teaching of Christ?
 
K

Kathryn

New Member
St. Peter was using the Septuagint, unlike todays Protestants. The Jews rejected these books because they were rejecting the Old Testament the Christians were using to prove Christ had come. Council of Jamnia was years after Christ had died and risen.
The Council of Trent reafirmed the books that were already in there. We have the same books before Trent as after.

God Bless
 
D

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Kathryn:
St. Peter was using the Septuagint, unlike todays Protestants. The Jews rejected these books because they were rejecting the Old Testament the Christians were using to prove Christ had come. Council of Jamnia was years after Christ had died and risen.
The Council of Trent reafirmed the books that were already in there. We have the same books before Trent as after.

God Bless
Click to expand...
You know not whereof ye speak. First of all I have a copy of the Septuagint which I sometimes refer to, so that disproves one of your statements.
Secondly, the Septuaging was simply a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament made about 250 B.C. Jesus and some of the Apostles may have quoted it some of the time. Of course the New Testament was entirely written in Greek. It was the common language of the day. It is entirely possible that when speaking to a Greek audience, a person such as Paul (missionary to the Gentiles) would quoted from the Septuagint). Even the Hebrew language at that time was becoming lost to the Jews themselves who were quickly becoming Hellenized in a Greek culture.
If the Septuagint included the Apocryphal books, they were not included until later, and they were only included as extra material; just as my Bible has a Bible dictionary and a concrodance in it. Those are not part of the Bible itself, but extra to the Bible. The Jews knew which Books were inspired, and they fully rejected any apocryphal books. If you want proof, ask an orthodox Rabbi in this day and age.

Today's protestants don't use the Septuaging on a regular basis for the obvious reason that not all of them speak or read Greek fluently. They also believe God inspired the Old Testament Scriptures in the Hebrew texts, which is true. The Septuagint is only a translation.
The inspired Hebrew has no apocrypha. That is what the Jews use.
DHK
 
G

GraceSaves

New Member
Originally posted by Rakka Rage:
Cardinal Manning: Lectures on the Four-fald Sovereignty of God. London, 1871, p. 171

Cardinal Newman: Essays II or 11, p. 116, 173
http://www.newmanreader.org
Click to expand...
I am having great trouble locating the Newman text on the website because there is nothing simply labeled "Essays II or 11". It must be part of another work. Could you point me to that work? Thanks!

God bless,

Grant
 
G

GraceSaves

New Member
Nevermind. I finally found it. And interestingly enough, it's from an article about what protestants consider the antiChrist. Here is a nice paragraph, containing the quote:



It is no accident then or strange occurrence that the Church should have been called Antichrist. She must be called so in consistency by those who separate from her. Such an imputation is the necessary result of disbelief in her commission. Her acts are known in all the world; there is no mistaking them. Difference of opinion about them will be shown not in disputing against what is mere matter of history and public notoriety, but in viewing them in a different light, and referring it to a distinct origin. Convince the Presbyterian or Wesleyan that the Church has spiritual powers, and he will find no great difficulty in her general conduct: she does not act up to her commission. If the Church be from Christ, even her least acceptable words or deeds ex cathedrâ may be taken on faith: if she be not, even her best are presumptuous, and call for a protest. She is an honoured servant in one case; an usurper and tyrant in another. There is on the whole then but one issue in the controversy about the Church, and that a very plain and simple one. Its children and its enemies both understand that the Church professes to act for God, but the one party says rightfully, the other wrongfully. This then is the point on which the controversy turns, and before which all other questions sink in importance. All may easily be arranged when this one question is settled. Neglect it, and we shall be arguing without understanding where we are; master this one principle, and you may change your whole position in a day: the Church will be henceforth faithful for arrogant, diligent for officious, charitable for political, firm for violent, holy for blasphemous, Christ for Antichrist. If we believe she has a commission, we {173} shall be Catholics, and call her holy: if we make our inward light, or our reason, or our feelings, our guide, and set up Antichrist within us, then, with Gnostics, Montanists, Novatians, Manichees, Donatists, Paulicians, Albigenses, Calvinists, and Brownists, we shall, in mere self-defence and mere consistency, call her Babylon, Sodom, sorceress, harlot, Jezebel, Beelzebub, and Antichrist. A sacerdotal order is historically the essence of the Church; if not divinely appointed, it is doctrinally the essence of Antichrist.

God bless,

Grant
 
G

GraceSaves

New Member
Here is the reference from page 116:



And another serious question is this, whether we ought not to be very sure before we assert that a branch of Christ's Church, not merely has evil extensively prevailing within it, but is actually the kingdom of evil, the kingdom of God's enemy; considering that, if it be not the {116} kingdom of darkness, it is the Church, the dwelling-place of the Most High. The question really lies, be it observed, between those two alternatives, either the Church of Rome is the house of God or the house of Satan; there is no middle ground between them. Now, surely our Lord's strong language about the consequences of speaking against the Gracious Presence which inhabits the Church, or of ascribing the works of the Spirit to Beelzebub, is enough to make us very cautious of forming a judgment against particular branches of the Church, unless we are very certain what we are saying. If we are not "treading upon the adder," we are "kicking against the pricks."
 
K

Kathryn

New Member
DHK:
In the Christian journal 'Ministry' November 1987, pages 4-8, and entitled 'The Old Testament Text in Antiquity.' Siegfried H. Horn, Professor Emeritus of Archaeology at Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan writes about the Council of Jamnia and dates it to 100 AD.

'A unified text suddenly became the standard at the end of the first century and [the fact] that not one copy of a divergent text survived (except the Dead Sea scrolls that had already been hidden when Jamnia convened), indicate clearly that the Council of Jamnia must have taken actions in this matter.'

Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph was this Council's undisputed leader, though its Chairman was Yohannan ben Zakkai. The Council of Jamnia rejected the original Hebrew versions and the LXX (Septuagint) based upon them. Professor Horn stated that '...the Jews rejected it (the pre-70 AD Hebrew version) and LXX since... it had become the Bible of the Christians.'

Why Protestants at the Reformation decided to remove 7 books from the Old Testament Books because the Jews at the Council of Jamnia did so is puzzling because Jamnia redid their canon to counter the Bible of the Christians. Jesus and the Apostles were using these texts.

In any case, the Catholics were the Christians at that time and we still have our 72 books. Trent just redefined the same books that were in there, as an answer to the 7 books removed by the Protestants. Same 72 books before Trent as after.

God Bless
 
C

Clint Kritzer

Active Member
Site Supporter
Excuse my intrusion into the thread, but I have edited the title from "Two priests walk into a bar..." to the current title of "Cardinal Manning said..."

The title as it stood was irrelevant to the discussion and was likely to bring more heat than light.

Clint Kritzer
Moderator
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top