Lies

I was sickened just by looking at that site.

 

How many "proven forgeries" created by non-Catholics and claimed FOR Catholics - have you seen USED on this forum?

What about "PRo-Catholic forgeries"?? Those writtne BY the RCC FOR the RCC AND promoted by no less than 10 Popes??

In Christ,

Bob

 

Wow....that was a short thread !

 

Bob,

You are without doubt referring to the Donation of Constantine. Which is a forgergy. Which the Church has said is a forgery.

That does not follow in the same circle as what is being discussed, nor did you address any of the questions. You counter-attacked; that's also known as a diversion.

 

Mike,

I find both sites interesting and incredible.

I was least impressed with Newman's ramblings, and found an absence of my favorite "Catholic fable" in the first site - the origen and meaning of the Irish name Maloney (Counties Clare, Limmerick, et al) and its variants.

As for your "four questions" (I counted five):
1. Do any non-Catholics here believe all of these are true (not lies or forgeries)?
"All?" I don't blindly believe much of anything I read on the internet, except God's Word of course. I certainly don't believe all of the material presented in your two sites.

2. Do any non-Catholics here believe some of these are false (are lies or forgeries)?
"Some?" I suppose so. I believe "some" are probably false; see my answer to question #1.

3. Are there a similar pages listing Anti-Protestant Forgeries, invented by Catholics and currently being sold and promoted as true by Catholics?
Don't know... haven't looked for any.

4. If the Catholic Church is as evil as some believe, I would expect the net to be crawling with Jesuit-created lies and forgeries, but I'm having a hard time finding them. If the Father of Lies is in control of the Catholic Church, how come the lies are so hard to find?
Perhaps you are using the wrong search engine?
Actually, you left me with a question for you - Why limit the "lies" question to those with "SJ" on the end of their names? Why not the Dominicans, Franciscans, et al?

5. We do agree that Satan is the Father of Lies, and that lies are the work of Satan, don't we?
If that is what you believe, then yes.

BTW, I could probably be characterized more as a dissenter than a protestant (at least by some); does that effect your oppinion of my answers?

 

The church "produced that forgery".

The church and her popes "promoted it" for more than 3 centuries and via a least 10 popes in their arguments made FOR the RCC.

Fabricated BY the RCC and FOR the RCC and then used BY the RCC for centuries. Many of your supposed hoaxes above do not have such a "long and glorious history" of endorsement.

Actually I DID address it - by asking which of them were being "actually USED" on this board by non-Catholics? I basically asked for "substance" and "relavence".

In Christ,

bob

 

Good link, Mike (I am referring to the anti-Catholic forgeries one).

Indeed, when studying history, original sources and the credibility of such are paramount. A single historian can set into play a myth that lasts centuries. The myth of Atlantis comes to mind from the writings of Plato. People still want to believe in that one.

It is for the same reason that many of us doubt the accounts of Peter in Rome. No evidence appears until centuries after the fact. That casts serious doubt on its validity. The same is true of many of the accounts of the deaths of the Apostles. With little to no evidence to back the assertions, they are at best questionable, at worst, fabrications.

The Pope Leo quote was one I had seen quite often and had taken for granted that it was true. I'll dig a little deeper on it. Historians will tend to follow each other around and we soon take legends and myths as facts. Paul Revere's ride as accounted by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow is an example of this. Though we know in this day and age that it is an exageration of the actual event, another century may take it as factual.

As to the question of anti-Protestant forgeries, I don't know whether there are any that started at a high level or not. There are certainly misconceptions about certain practices but luckily we have dialogue to clear most of these up. Though I do not consider them a true Christian sect, some of the things I hear about the LDS seem rather suspect to me.

Fabricated stories rarely advance a cause as when they are discovered, a bad light is shed on the perpetrator. Look at how we now view the story of Sir Thomas More. The Anglicans were definitely the "bad guys" as history relates the story to us. The truth and accuracy have much more longevity.

I appreciate you sharing the link with us.

 

The "so CALLED" Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius QUOTE has been "ACTUALLY used" on THIS "board" several "times".

 

I was pleased to see, though, that when the "Cardinal Hosius quote" was brought up in the "Baptist History" area a few weeks back, a response quickly declared it to be "obviously bogus." (Kudos to rsr and the other participants on that thread.)

There do appear to be a few folks around who still view "The Trail of Blood" and other writings of that sort as being nearly as authoritative as the gospels. But their numbers seem to be on the wane.

Mark H.

 

Clint says:

"It is for the same reason that many of us doubt the accounts of Peter in Rome. No evidence appears until centuries after the fact. "



from www.catholic.com
In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” He then says the two departed Rome, perhaps to attend the Council of Jerusalem (A.D. 49). A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

The Biblical evidence has been expressed before with regard to Peter's codewording Rome as Babylon but of course it doesn't fit the lie. There is also evidence in Paul's letter to the Romans that another Apostle had been there.

Romans 15:20
And thus I aspired to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, so that I would not build on another man's foundation;

He uses this as a reason for his not going to Rome early on.

Likely Peter as history and tradition give no indication of any other Apostle setting foot in Rome other that Paul and Peter.

 

Let's see, that would be, liberally, a full 50 years or so after his legendary martyrdom, would it not?

Perhaps you could give us some new insight on the Korean War that no one has yet postulated? That would be a parallel attempt.

Romans 15:20 is a rather lame Biblical defense. Paul says nothing about making an exception to this rule. While the evidence points to the fact that the Gospel had reached Rome, there is no evidence of Apostolic instruction, hence Paul's need to go there and the basic Gospel Message of Romans as a Letter. Had Peter been there, would Romans have been written on such an elementary theological level?

The search engine has been faulty on this part of the board for some time but when I have a little more time, I'll search out some of the threads that dispute the claim. Peter's claim to Rome is as valid as a "Washington Slept Here" sign. If you choose to have faith in such sketchy evidence, that is certainly your right, but to try to declare an absolute is as preposterous as some or all of the claim's on Mike's link.

Historians, and Catholic writers, tend to follow each other around without going to base evidence. It's gossip at its best. It seems that, somehow, for a Catholic to doubt poorly founded claims, is perceived as a "sin."

 

Have you considered that the President of the United States is headquartered in Washington D.C. but that his authority extends to all of the United States? Peter could very will have been Headquartered in Jerusalem and held Authority over the Christian Church in Rome. Peter need not have visited even once the City of Rome. If Peter is the "head of the Church" it matters not where he is physically located for him to have authority over the church.

There is little doubt that Peter was the prominant Apostle even while Jesus was with the Apostles. But his testimony at pentacost is evidence of his prominant position, else John may have been the one giving a "love" speech that may not have been effective in persuading the 3000 added to the church that day.

 

Perhaps you could give us some new insight on the Korean War that no one has yet postulated? That would be a parallel attempt. </font>[/QUOTE]I wholly disagree. The Korean War took place in a technological age; granted, it wasn't what we saw with this latest strife in Iraq, with 24/7 coverage, but with radio, TV, and the like, it was pretty well documented and up to date. Not so 2000 years ago. We don't even have copies of the original Biblical manuscripts, and these are SACRED texts. Every single history or oral tradition wasn't kept as safe as Scripture was, and even it was only saved through massive copying. Just because there is not abundant or immediate written history does not disprove anything. After all, how long exactly was it that the Gospels were written after the Ascension of Jesus? 50 years?

 

Hi Grant -

Been awhile. Hope all is well for you down there at LSU.

You are correct that we do not have the original texts of Scriptures. Therefore, it requires faith to believe that the Scriptures are true and accurate. I will never deny this.

Consider, however, that the Scriptures remain relatively consistent on the fact that to establish fact, two to three witnesses are required. You can see this in Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:5; Matthew 18:16; 1Timothy 5:19. That is the signifigance of three Disciples being present at the Transfiguration. The ancient writers of the Bible, through the inspiration of God, recognized the neccessity of collaboration.

No, a lack of evidence does NOT disprove anything. Again, you are correct. One can not argue from silence nor from non-existence. It is a logical impossibilty to prove a negative. The burden of proof must always rest on the positive. I can not say to you, "You can not prove that Bigfoot does not exists, therefore, Bigfoot exists." That follows no logic whatsoever. The burden of proof rests on me showing evidence that Bigfoot does exists, not on you showing me that he doesn't.

The Ascension is testified to by various Biblical authors (more than two) and, indeed, Paul acknowledges that belief in the Ressurection is essential to our faith in 1Corinthians 15:12-19.

Faith is "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." - Hebrews 11:1

I have no need to have faith in the assumption that Peter ever went to Rome. It is a non-essential element in my theology and has no bearing whatsoever on my salvation. Therefore, I am free to cast a skeptical eye on the legend just as it is non-essential for me to believe any of the rumors that Mike posted in his link. Truth should bear up under scrutiny. If it is not truth, I want to know that it is not.

Christ died to free us from our sins, not to free us from our minds.

 

If collaboration is your standard, Clint, why accept those things in Scripture which are only spoken of by one author? By your standard the Bible would be a pretty thin book.

As to collaborating proof that Peter was in Rome, would you accept evidence that is not written down in the New Testament?

 

Clint:

"Christ died to free us from our sins, not to free us from our minds. "

You sure about that?

Jeremiah 3:15
"Then I will give you shepherds after My own heart, who will feed you on knowledge and understanding.

Colossians 1:9
For this reason also, since the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding,