Prayers To Mary

[The Biblicist]

You're changing your story. First you said the apostasy was complete by the year 100 which is why there is absolutely zero evidence of your 'true christians', even as a separate group, in the ante-nicene fathers. Now you're back to saying that the true christians existed side by side with the catholics from the year 100 on. So lets see the historical evidence for the true christians.

Was Irenaeus a Catholic? If so, he lists out all the known heresies of his time. Which of them do your true biblical Christians fall into? Or will you now claim again that they had completely disappeared to the point where an apostate Irenaeus didn't even bother mentioning them?

No, I am not changing my story. We have a misunderstanding between us.

When I said that the Ante-Nicene Fathers is the history of apostasy and that the apostasy began even before the New Testament was finished, in your mind (not mine) you believe that the Ante-Nicene Fathers is one and the same with New Testament Christianity and so you see a logical fallacy in what I said.

However, in my mind New Testament Christianity and the Ante-Nicene Father's are not comprehensive of each other. I see the Ante-Nicene Fathers as a separate branching out and not inclusive of New Testament Christianity but merely one aspect of it - apostate aspect.

Also, I see the Ante-Nicene Father's a growing apostasy that comes to full bloom in the time of Constantine. Hence, the roots of the Ante-Nicene Father's or the apostolic fathers is fairly orthodox with some seeds of apostate doctrine which gradually grow to full bloom by the time of Constantine.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Let's see your citation for this

The faulty Trail of blood.

However we find

Clarence Walker in J.M. Carroll’s “Trail of Blood”
said it was in Apud Opera, pages 112-113. Another said this was a quote from Hosius AT the Council of
Trent. So far, “Apud Opera” is a hoax.

note

I would choose the first one as being the bogus
one because of previous analogy and the following: A) “Baptists” was not a name he would have used. B)
“Reformers” is not a name he would use, as it would have been known as that much later (Like the KJV
was named many years after James died). C) “Knife” doesn’t suit me as a word the Cardinal would use to
describe the death of heretics. At least be Biblical or Inquisition-like with “sword”, “fire”, even “death”.
D) “…during the past twelve hundred years…” sounds like a modern day rendition of a time period than
how they would write in the 1500’s.

Clarence Walker also calls Hosius the
“President of the Council of Trent”, but he was “papal legate” of the Council of Trent, which just meant
he “represented the Pope armed with his authority”

There are problems with this quote

 

[JarJo]

When I said that the Ante-Nicene Fathers is the history of apostasy and that the apostasy began even before the New Testament was finished, in your mind (not mine) you believe that the Ante-Nicene Fathers is one and the same with New Testament Christianity and so you see a logical fallacy in what I said.

I understand what you are saying. You believe the Ante-Nicene fathers are an apostate branch of Christianity. What I'm asking you for, is evidence that there was more than one branch of Christianity. Surely the Ante-Nicene fathers would have written about or objected to this other branch of Christianity, the branch you believe is the true biblical branch. But there is no evidence that such a branch existed. The Ante-Nicene fathers mention all sorts of other groups that they considered heretical, but nowhere do they describe a heretical-in-their-opinion group that sounds anything like your idea of biblical Christianity.

How do you explain that?

 

[Moriah]

The RCC adopted the practices of the pagans. They pray to many gods, but the RCC calls them saints. They make Mary to be a co-redeemer with Christ.

We have one Mediator, one High Priest, One Advocate, one Redeemer. THese are but a few roles our Lord Jesus Christ fulfills.

The Catholic Popes tell Catholics to pray to Mary, because Jesus will not turn down a request from his mother.

 

[The Biblicist]

I understand what you are saying. You believe the Ante-Nicene fathers are an apostate branch of Christianity. What I'm asking you for, is evidence that there was more than one branch of Christianity. Surely the Ante-Nicene fathers would have written about or objected to this other branch of Christianity, the branch you believe is the true biblical branch. But there is no evidence that such a branch existed. The Ante-Nicene fathers mention all sorts of other groups that they considered heretical, but nowhere do they describe a heretical-in-their-opinion group that sounds anything like your idea of biblical Christianity.

How do you explain that?

It is found among those whom the Secularized state church condemned as "heretics."

 

[Moriah]

I'm sorry but this us just rude and a misrepresentation of what Catholics say they believe. Praying to the Saints is not the same thing as praying to a god. it is wrong and lacks scriptural support but that does not rise to the level of worship.

We are not supposed to pray to Mary or anyone! We are not supposed to say those things to Mary. We are supposed to go to Jesus.

 

[Moriah]

Sounds like Blasphemy to me!

Thank you for this reply.

 

[JarJo]

It is found among those whom the Secularized state church condemned as "heretics."

Let's see some quotes. What did they name this heresy, if it really existed? What did they say about it, if it really existed?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

We are not supposed to pray to Mary or anyone! We are not supposed to say those things to Mary. We are supposed to go to Jesus.

So what yu are saying is that these servants did the wrong thing going to Jesus mother for a request and again Jesus Mother was wrong speaking to them?

On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, 2 and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.” ...

5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”

 

[The Biblicist]

The faulty Trail of blood.

However we find note There are problems with this quote

Your research is faulty. Carolinne, White, PhD., Oxford University researched this quote and presented her findings under the title "Tracing the Cardinal Hosius 'Baptist Quote'. She is the head of the Oxford Latin Department.

Her own literal translation goes as follows:

"For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who, so we read, were ponounced heretics TWELVE HUNDRED YEARS AGO and deserving of capital punishement. He wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing."

Carroll had another source of translation. However, the point Carroll was making is that Hosius acknowledge their existence over twelve hundred years ago.

 

[Jerome]

The faulty Trail of blood.
. . . .

Clarence Walker also calls Hosius the
“President of the Council of Trent”, but he was “papal legate” of the Council of Trent, which just meant
he “represented the Pope armed with his authority”

There are problems with this quote

Whoever you are quoting ineptly trying to cast aspersions on Cardinal Hosius's admissions is the one who has problems.

From the title page of the 1567 English edition of Hosius's Of the Express Word of God:

 

[DHK]

Let's see your citation for this

2. The Primitive Church Magazine, pages 73-74, 1841 (# means I own this – BT)
The historian Mosheim, a paedobaptist, says, that the “true origin of that sect which acquired the denomination of anabaptists is hidden in the depth of antiquity;” and Cardinal Hosius, chairman of the Council of Trent, 1555, says, “If the truth of religion were to be judged by the readiness and cheerfulness which a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the opinions and persuasions of no sect can be truer or surer than those of the anabaptists; since there have been none, for these twelve hundred years past, that have been more grievously punished.”

drbentownsend.com/Documents/HosiusQuoteInBaptistBooks.pdf

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your research is faulty. Carolinne, White, PhD., Oxford University researched this quote and presented her findings under the title "Tracing the Cardinal Hosius 'Baptist Quote'. She is the head of the Oxford Latin Department.

Her own literal translation goes as follows:

"For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who, so we read, were ponounced heretics TWELVE HUNDRED YEARS AGO and deserving of capital punishement. He wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing."

Carroll had another source of translation. However, the point Carroll was making is that Hosius acknowledge their existence over twelve hundred years ago.

Nope I read her work and its still faulty and I'll tell you why.

She agrees that

There is no section titled “Apud Opera” among Hosius‘ complete works. And there is no letter of that name. So the reference “Letters, Apud Opera” is apparently meaningless.

Also she has concluded that

The section in his “Opera Omnia” entitled “Liber Epistelarum” contains all of Cardinal Hosius‘ letters, 277 in total, written in Latin...in only 12 of them (letters XXVIII, XLI, XLIII, CV, CXVI, CXXVIII, CXXIX, CXXXIV, CL, CLVII, CLVIII, and CLX) is there any mention of the Anabaptists. In none of them is to be found the statement cited at the top.

further

The citation by various Baptist websites of two completely different purported statements by Cardian Hosuis, both given the same page reference, adds to the doubt about the genuineness of either.

Now what does Hosius actually say?

Cardinal Hosius meant by the term “Anabaptist” a general term for any kind of re-baptizing sect. We see the proof of this in his assertion that the Donatists were Anabaptists. But we know, of course, that the Donatists had completely different beliefs from modern day Baptists (or even 16th century Anabaptists). For example, they only believed in re-baptism for those Christians who had apostasized under persecution and later returned. Thy did not say infant baptism was wrong, they did not day baptism must be by immersion only, they did not say baptism was merely a symbol. So it is absolutely wrong for modern-day Baptists to suggest that Cardinal Hosius testifies to their existence at the time of Augu

So we know he didn't use the term Baptist but Anabapist but only in the general sense in which all re-baptizers were anabaptist not a particular one sect. Note this is because

from “Liber Primus De Haeresibus Nostri Temporis” found in “Opera Omnia” on page 432 of the Cologne, 1584 edition. It shows clearly how the Anabaptists of the time of Hosius could not agree among themselves, just as the anabaptist groups of Augustine’s time were also likewise hopelessly disunited.

thus

But this sect of Anabaptists is greatly divided. For they neither agree on the main doctrines among themselves

therefore the quote

Est autem & haec Anabaptistarum secta valde dissecta: Neque enim doctrine capitibus inter se conveniunt. ) It has also been in Augustines century, (fuit etiam Augustini seculo, & ficut aliae pleraeque omnes haereses) all heresies immediately from the beginning divided into many parts (sic & haec statim ab initio multas in partes fuit divisa).

becomes misleading (because it seems there is a trace back to Augustine when in fact when you read the next passage

(Nam alij vocabantur Donatistae, alij Rogatistae, alij Maximianistae, Circenses alij, qui conversi tandem sunt a factione Donatistarum ( hoc enim nomen caeteris erat celebrius) ad Ecclesiae Catholicae societatem. )
(„For some are called Donatists, others Rogatists, other Maximinianists, othere Circenses, which at length are changed from the faction of the Donatists to the Catholic Church“) “Muncerani, alij Orantes, alij Silentes, Somniantes, pueris similes, Synceri, Impeccabiles a Baptismo, Liberi, Binderliani, Sabbatarii, Maderanii, Hoffmannici, & post eos exorti Circumcisi: fortassis & Adamitae ad Anabaptistarum sectam pertinent.”

naming unrelated sects save that they all rebaptize. thus he is being general to all rebaptizers. Thus

This is very important to note, for it destroys conclusively any notion that the Baptists of today can trace their lineage back to the time of Augustine.

What is often ignored from the same letter is this

Nonne videmus a Lutheranismo ad Calvinismum, a Calvinismo ad Anabaptismum, ab Anabaptismo ad Trideismum, a Trideismi ad Atheism iam esse ventum? “
(“Do we not already see the wind to be from Lutheranism to Calvinism, from Calvinism to Anabaptism, from Anabaptism to Trideism, from Trideism to Atheism?”).

indeed this is proof that

if it were needed, that Cardinal Hosius certainly didn’t see the Anabaptists of his time being in any way descended from the groups at the time of Augustine.

therefore to put it succinctly we can say

it is almost certain that Cardinal Hosius never made that remark which is attributed to him, for reasons given in section I above, and (ii) that Cardinal Hosius certainly did not regard the Anabaptists of his time as being in any way descended from the sects of the time of Augustine. An understanding of the general nature of the term “anabaptist” as simply meaning “re-baptizer” will clarify why Hosius says they existed as early as Augustine`s time

You couldn't have believed I wouldn't have searched this all the way down.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Whoever you are quoting ineptly trying to cast aspersions on Cardinal Hosius's admissions is the one who has problems.

From the title page of the 1567 English edition of Hosius's Of the Express Word of God:

It has been shown that the quote is inaccurate in the trail of blood. That the text it refers to does not exist and what he does say is not declaritive of modern baptist existing before the reformation. That magazine quote is wrong. Search for it yourself.

 

[Jerome]

. . .bogus
. . .because. . .C) “Knife” doesn’t suit me as a word the Cardinal would use to
describe the death of heretics. At least be Biblical. . .

P. 49, Hosius's The Hatchet of Heresies (1565):

 

[Thinkingstuff]

P. 49, Hosius's The Hatchet of Heresies (1565):

Where is his work Apud Opera? Its made up. You'll not find it. And I doubt even that quote due to the source. Where is his actual quote. Where is his actual statement? You do not provide it. Quote from the source not the chop job of a magazine. and if you want more proof read my post 33

 

[DHK]

It has been shown that the quote is inaccurate in the trail of blood. That the text it refers to does not exist and what he does say is not declaritive of modern baptist existing before the reformation. That magazine quote is wrong. Search for it yourself.

The quote exists. There is far too much evidence for you to come on the board and willy nilly deny that it just does not exist. I also gave you a reference that it exists. Whether Hosius said it in a rebuttal or in praise doesn't matter. What does matter is that he acknowledged their existence. He also called them anabaptists, another important point.
Ana-baptist--to baptize again. It was a name given in disdain, but given to those who baptized infants (that had been baptized as infants) again, once they had professed Christ as Savior. Then they baptized them by immersion according to the dictates of the Bible.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The quote exists. There is far too much evidence for you to come on the board and willy nilly deny that it just does not exist. I also gave you a reference that it exists. Whether Hosius said it in a rebuttal or in praise doesn't matter. What does matter is that he acknowledged their existence. He also called them anabaptists, another important point.
Ana-baptist--to baptize again. It was a name given in disdain, but given to those who baptized infants (that had been baptized as infants) again, once they had professed Christ as Savior. Then they baptized them by immersion according to the dictates of the Bible.

I've just shown you in post 33 how it was mistranslated and wrongly interpreted. And from the correct source not some fictional source as listed in the trail of blood.

 

[Jerome]

Where is his work Apud Opera? Its made up. You'll not find it.

Apud is not a title, it is a citation word, like Ibid.

 

[DHK]

I've just shown you in post 33 how it was mistranslated and wrongly interpreted. And from the correct source not some fictional source as listed in the trail of blood.

My post (apparently you didn't read it) was in #32. It is reliable, and I can give you many more. Most of your sources are stained with the poison of the RCC pen. They like to cover up their mistakes. But the quote stands. I never went to "The Trail of Blood." I used other sources. Again there is too much evidence for you to ignore.