Looking for ACCURATE Dates

Ah, so dates do matter all of a sudden. In that case let's take a visit to 16th cenutry Europe if you are tracking down errors.

 

You may want to start with the writings of the Early Church Fathers of the first couple of centuries of the Church.

 

" Most lists of when the "errors" of Catholicism were introduced are inaccurate and of "chick" quality - designed to inflame and denigrate.

Ah, so someone is finally admitting that the lies are really lies like we have been saying all along. That bearing false witness (a commandment BTW) is rampant in Protestantism as distort and revise history? Kudos Dr. Bob.

"Wonder if some would give dates when first WIDESPREAD practice could be verified and then when OFFICIAL practice was established."



Immaculate conception of Mary - 16 BC
Perpetual virginity of Mary - 45 AD
Assumption of Mary - 45 AD
Mediatrix of Mary - 45 AD
Purgatory - 33 AD
Penance - 33 AD
Indulgences - 33 AD
Papal infallibility - 32 AD
Prayers for the dead - About 600 BC
Real Prescence 32 AD almost to the day. See John 6:4.


How's that?

The odd thing about all of these Catholic dogmas is it is extremely difficult to trace them back to one person and one time. In fact it is impossible except if they are actually rooted in the time of Christ. For instance the Assumption... In the 6th Century a feast of the assumption had been declared but there were already Churches named for the Assumption and feast days associated with it in both the East and the West. It was widespread. Perpetual Virginity is attested to in the mid second century by Irenaus I believe it is. But there is no indication that it was his brainchild.


Blessings

[ November 12, 2003, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

when the "errors" of Catholicism were introduced

This, of course, presupposes that these are "errors". SDA adherents would add Sunday worship to your list. Oneness Pentecostals would add the dogma of the Trinity.

Here is one example of a supposed "Catholic error", which was defended by the greatest figures of Christian orthodoxy in the Early Church:

Perpetual virginity of Mary

"Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed." [Athanasius, Orations against the Arians II:70 (A.D. 362)]

"And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.' He hath here used the word till,' not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, till'? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.' And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, From age until age Thou art,' not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,' it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word "till," to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference. Thus, what it was necessary for thee to learn of Him, this He Himself hath said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for thee to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home? How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils provided, that the birth, being such as it was, might be for a time screened. Wherefore even John so called them, saying, For neither did His brethren believe in Him.'" [John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew V:5 (A.D. 370)]

"But those who by virginity have desisted from this process have drawn within themselves the boundary line of death, and by their own deed have checked his advance; they have made themselves, in fact, a frontier between life and death, and a barrier too, which thwarts him. If, then, death cannot pass beyond virginity, but finds his power checked and shattered there, it is demonstrated that virginity is a stronger thing than death; and that body is rightly named undying which does not lend its service to a dying world, nor brook to become the instrument of a succession of dying creatures. In such a body the long unbroken career of decay and death, which has intervened between the first man and the lives of virginity which have been led, is interrupted. It could not be indeed that death should cease working as long as the human race by marriage was working too; he walked the path of life with all preceding generations; he started with every new-born child and accompanied it to the end: but he found in virginity a barrier, to pass which was an impossible feat. Just as, in the age of Mary the mother of God, he who had reigned from Adam to her time found, when he came to her and dashed his forces against the fruit of her virginity as against a rock, that he was shattered to pieces upon her, so in every soul which passes through this life in the flesh under the protection of virginity, the strength of death is in a manner broken and annulled, for he does not find the places upon which he may fix his sting." [Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity 13 (A.D.371)]

"But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord's brethren were the issue of those wives, an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity not from piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin." [Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Mary Against Helvedius 21 (A.D. 383)]

 

Just to be fair, it is not only Protestants who have bore false witness to facts. However, whoever does it is in the wrong.

In Christ,
Neal

P.S. Dr. Bob is not the first to admit that there are inaccuracies in Protestant arguments. I have been saying that personally for over six months, and there are a number here that have as well.

 

"Just to be fair, it is not only Protestants who have bore false witness to facts. However, whoever does it is in the wrong."

Granted. But is it my imagination or is it more rampant in Protestantism? I don't know how many websites there are that say that the Catholic Church added 7 books to the Bible at Trent or the Council of Toulouse put the Bible on the list of forbidden books (for those of you who don't know there was no such list until 300 years later so it would have been difficult for the Bible to be put on the list by that council, a non-ecumenical one by the way), and on and on. Not that I am trying to say that makes it right for us Catholics (of which I have been guilty a few times ). It just seems like the Christmass fruitcake gets passed around with much more wreckless abandon in Protestant circles.


"Dr. Bob is not the first to admit that there are inaccuracies in Protestant arguments. I have been saying that personally for over six months, and there are a number here that have as well."

You are correct. Kudos to you also.

blessings

 

Your point. I agree with your assessment, imagination, or whatever you want to call it.

In Christ,
Neal

 

Your point. I agree with your assessment, imagination, or whatever you want to call it.

In Christ,
Neal </font>[/QUOTE]We agree.

Now the question is why?

I think Frued called it Authority Envy?

stirring the pot once agian.

Blessings

 

Hehe....you are a funny guy. If you look at some of the other threads, I am asking some hard questions and pointing out some things that are strangely being ignored by some, especially non-Catholics.

I wouldn't call it envy, but rather just looking at the obvious facts that it is more prevalent in Protestants. But then again, I am not into Frued.

In Christ,
Neal

 

Thessalonian,

I am quite interested in these dates of yours.

Any chance you are able to quote documents and sources? What I love about this board is that there are Protestant scholars here who would check interpretation of the Greek or other language document to which you refer.

Can you show us how John 6:4 demonstrates the Real Presence (and what Real Presence means...I'm assuming it's transubstantiation and that might be wrong.)

Blessings, and our thanks for your contribution to our (?my) meager historical knowledge of this period.

CalvinG

 

Your point. I agree with your assessment, imagination, or whatever you want to call it.

In Christ,
Neal </font>[/QUOTE]We agree.

Now the question is why?
</font>[/QUOTE]I think there's much insight to be gained on this matter from Newman's lectures: Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in England

 

Here is the funny thing about quotes from books. In the Catholic Church a quote from a book does not mean that the espoused truth was begun at that time. It only means that it was believed at that time and someone expounded upon their belief in writing. I could go through and find the earliest possible writings external to the Bible of the various doctrines that I have put dates to then, like the Assumption and PV of Mary, I can find evidence that the doctrine existed earlier and no claim that the man who wrote about the doctrine claimed it for his own, unlike Sola Scriptura for instance which cannot be traced through the centuries and is quite clearly an invention of the reformatoin. As my point on John 6:4 the point is that Jesus spoke his discourse 1 year before the crusifixion near the passover. His words are explicitly clear that "the bread that I WILL give...." he will truly be present in that bread. Not only spiritually for his says "MY FLESH IS TRUE FOOD AND MY BLOOD IS TRUE DRINK". Not "my spiritual flesh" and the Jews took him very literally "HOW CAN THIS MAN GIVE US HIS FLESH TO EAT?" v. 52. To which he does not correct them but says "TRULY TRULY, (that's the real thing) unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man (then he really hits em between the eyes with a 2 X 4) and DRINK HIS BLOOD you shall have no life within you". Now to a Jew if he had said this even symbolically it was revolting. For to drink the blood of an animal was forbidden in the OT (see Lev 10, 17). But the reason is that the blood was thought to contain the life of the animal. Now Jesus is telling them, you need my life in you to make you whole and he is saying it in a very explicit way. So my point isn't just John 6:4, but the whole chapter, which occurs "Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was near" one year before Matt 26 and the last supper. The Apostles would have had John 6, which occured a year before in their minds as the Lord's Supper was going on. There are some interesting parrellels between John 6 and Matt 26 but I will leave those till later.

Blessings Calvin

 

thessalonians,

Jerome did not believe that those books belonged in the OT canon.

And if they were not in the OT canon,then I cannot believe that they are inspired of God since to Israel were committed the "oracles of God"(Ro.3:2).

If they were inspired of God then they would have been included in the Scriptures of the Jews.But even Jerome says that they were not included in the Jewish canon.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

I found this paper called the "DICTATUS PAPAE", written by Gregory VII. But I believe some of the statements may have been policy for years by the time the paper was written. If I am wrong, forgive. The paper was written in 1075 A.D., and recorded in his official register.

1. That the Roman church was founded by God alone.

2. That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.

3. That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.

4. That, in a council, his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.

5. That the pope may depose the absent.

6. That, among other things, we ought not to remain in the same house with those excommunicated by him.

7. That for him alone is it lawful, according to the needs of the time, to make new laws, to assemble together new congregations, to make an abbey of a canonry; and, on the other hand, to divide a rich bishopric and unite the poor ones.

8. That he alone may use the imperial insignia.

9. That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.

10. That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches.

11. That this is the only name in the world.

12. That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors.

13. That he may be permitted to transfer bishops if need be.

14. That he has power to ordain a clerk of any church he may wish.

15. That he who is ordained by him may preside over another church, but may not hold a subordinate position; and that such a one may not receive a higher grade from any bishop.

16. That no synod shall be called a general one without his order.

17. That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.

18. That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it.

19. That he himself may be judged by no one.

20. That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair.

21. That to the latter should be referred the more important cases of every church.

22. That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.

23. That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter; St. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As is contained in the decrees of St. Symmachus the pope.

24. That, by his command and consent, it may be lawful for subordinates to bring accusations.

25. That he may depose and reinstate bishops without assembling a synod.

26. That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered catholic.

27. That he may absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.

Now I belive it was sometime in the early to mid 1800's that papal infallibilty became strict teaching, but again, I could be wrong.

 

thessalonians,

Jerome did not believe that those books belonged in the OT canon.

And if they were not in the OT canon,then I cannot believe that they are inspired of God since to Israel were committed the "oracles of God"(Ro.3:2).

If they were inspired of God then they would have been included in the Scriptures of the Jews.But even Jerome says that they were not included in the Jewish canon.

In His grace,--Jerry </font>[/QUOTE]First of all Jerome was one of the few. He's hardly infallible and I would trust the collective opinion of Hippo and Carthage and Flourence over an individual. It is the Church which is "the pilar and support of the truth" 1 Tim 3:15. Not Jerome or the Jews who were sitting around in AD 90 or so trying to figure out what was truly canonical. They had lost their authority.


Also Pope Damusus declared the canon in 384 and Jerome is quite a fan of the Papacy so likely went along with Damusus on this one:

JEROME’S LETTER TO POPE DAMASUS, THE BISHOP OF ROME contains the following: (letter # 15 - This letter, written in AD 376 or 377, illustrates Jerome's attitude towards the see of Rome which was held by Pope Damasus at that time.)


"…As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built ! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. … He that gathers not with you scatters…"


Second of all while at one time it is apparent that Jerome didn't think they should be he did include them in the Latin Vulgate.

Thirdly it seems quite likely that Jerome did eventually accept them as cannonical for he says:

"Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power' [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207"


"I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH,'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MA

Blessings

 

You make a good point in that the RCC is viewed as being in doctrinal error by a wide variety of Christian groups today.

However to get "the catholic perspective" on your point above --- here is the "Faith Explained" the well respected Catholic Commentary on the Baltimore Catechism after Vatican II.

Of course that is quoting an "RC" source on the subject not a Protestant one - so I know my non-RC bretheren will object.

And since it exposes the truth about RC positions on this subject - I know my RC bretheren will also object to that RC source being quoted.

Oh well..


In Christ,

Bob

 

You make a good point in that the RCC is viewed as being in doctrinal error by a wide variety of Christian groups today.

However to get "the catholic perspective" on your point above --- here is the "Faith Explained" the well respected Catholic Commentary on the Baltimore Catechism after Vatican II.

Of course that is quoting an "RC" source on the subject not a Protestant one - so I know my non-RC bretheren will object.

And since it exposes the truth about RC positions on this subject - I know my RC bretheren will also object to that RC source being quoted.

Oh well..


In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]I happend to have the book. I will look it up later. But the fact is that we do accept oral tradition and the Sunday Sabaath is implicit in the NT no matter how much fanagling Johnny come lately SDA's who believe in soul sleep, anihilationism, and the Divine Inspiration of Ellen G. White want to talk it down. Bob are those who worship on Sunday going to hell. Or can the be invincibly ignorant of this "truth" of yours? Is there a greater message of salvatoin in the SDA Church such that it contains a fuller truth than all the rest of Protestantim?

blessings bob.

 

The "Catholic Encyclopedia" says that "St. Jerome owes his place in the history of exegetical studies chiefly to his revisions and translations of the Bible. Until about 391-2, he considered the Septuagint translation as inspired. But the progress of his Hebraistic studies and his intercourse with the rabbis made him give up that idea, and he recognized as inspired the original text only".

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08341a.htm

Jerome says:

This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a "helmeted" introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd, are not in the canon"(Jerome,"Preface to the Books of the Kings").

http://www.bible-researcher.com/jerome.html

Here is what the "Catholic Encyclopedia" says about Jerome:

"To sum up, the Biblical knowledge of St. Jerome makes him rank first among ancient exegetes. In the first place, he was very careful as to the sources of his information. He required of the exegete a very extensive knowledge of sacred and profane history, and also of the linguistics and geography of Palestine."

The "Catholic Encyclopedia" says that he "ranks first among ancient exegetes" but because he did not agree with the leaders of the church at Rome he cannot be trusted on this issue.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the Apocryphal books were ever included in the Jewish canon which was assembled by the scribes of Israel.

In fact,Jewish historian Josephus stated that the Apocryphal books were never included in the Jewish canon.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

The "Catholic Encyclopedia" says that "St. Jerome owes his place in the history of exegetical studies chiefly to his revisions and translations of the Bible. Until about 391-2, he considered the Septuagint translation as inspired. But the progress of his Hebraistic studies and his intercourse with the rabbis made him give up that idea, and he recognized as inspired the original text only".

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08341a.htm

Jerome says:

This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a "helmeted" introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd, are not in the canon"(Jerome,"Preface to the Books of the Kings").

http://www.bible-researcher.com/jerome.html

Here is what the "Catholic Encyclopedia" says about Jerome:

"To sum up, the Biblical knowledge of St. Jerome makes him rank first among ancient exegetes. In the first place, he was very careful as to the sources of his information. He required of the exegete a very extensive knowledge of sacred and profane history, and also of the linguistics and geography of Palestine."

The "Catholic Encyclopedia" says that he "ranks first among ancient exegetes" but because he did not agree with the leaders of the church at Rome he cannot be trusted on this issue.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the Apocryphal books were ever included in the Jewish canon which was assembled by the scribes of Israel.

In fact,Jewish historian Josephus stated that the Apocryphal books were never included in the Jewish canon.

In His grace,--Jerry </font>[/QUOTE]
For all his knowledge and all his expertise he was still only a CATHOLIC priest and not the Church itself. He was not infallible. He submitted to the authority of the Pope and included the Deuteros in the Vulgate. So the point is moot. The "Church is the pillar and suport of the truth". Not Jerome. Damaus held the keys (as Jerome himself acknowledges and was quite apparently willing to submit to). The Councils of Hippo Carthage and Flourence ratified Pope Damausus decision so while Jerome's opinion is interesting it does nothing to move me in your direction. Further I find it interesting that you guys become history experts when you can find one guy that is on your side on an issue. It's slim pickens for you in general so you have to milk for all there worth the few times that someone actually agreed with one of your positoins. You will find the rest of Jeromes writings quite Catholic. i.e. he believed quite clearly in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Of course when that conversation comes up you will say what a nasty disposition he had and so noone could possibly believe him.

Blessings though