Problems with Orthodoxy and Catholicism

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Wasn't he a rationalist?

Oh you got that off of Wikipedia.... IE you havent studied him.

how about Francis Bacon......anything to get off of this topic.

 

[Dr. Walter]

For the record, Paulicians rejected the Old Testament and refused to observe the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper. Genuine orthodox believers, those guys. Dr. Walter, why do you find it necesary in your posts to devote a sentence or two to the issue at hand and then write a whole paragraph ranting about the evils of "Rome"?

There is sufficient documents to prove all these charges as false. The "key of truth" demonstrates they believed in the Old Testament scriptures and in the ordinances. They were charged so by Rome because they rejected the ordinances as interpreted by Rome. They rejected the Old Testament as interpreted by Rome.

 

[Matt Black]

Which primary source documents would these be?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Which primary source documents would these be?

The Key of truth - primary souce material from Paulicians
Recognition by Catholic Encylopedia in article on Paulicians that they knew the Paulicians denied such charges and they list documents

 

[chadman]

The Key of truth - primary souce material from Paulicians
Recognition by Catholic Encylopedia in article on Paulicians that they knew the Paulicians denied such charges and they list documents

Did the Paulican's teach that Christ - the one on earth/physical was really an angel and created?

 

[DHK]

Did the Paulican's teach that Christ - the one on earth/physical was really an angel and created?

No, they did not.
Here is some information about the Paulicians:

5. The Paulicians sincerely condemned the memory and opinions of the Manichean sect, and complained of the injustice which impressed that invidious name on the simple followers of Paul and Christ. The objects which had been transformed by the magic of superstition, appeared to the eyes of the Paulicians’ in their genuine and naked colors. Of the ecclesiastical chain, many links were broken by these reformers; and against the gradual innovations of discipline and doctrine, they were strongly guarded by habit and aversion, as by the silence of Paul and the Evangelists. They attached themselves with peculiar devotion to the writings and character of Paul, and in whom they gloried. In the gospels, and epistles of Paul, Constantine investigated the creed of the primitive Christians; and whatever might be the success, a Protestant reader will applaud the spirit of the inquiry. In practice, or at least in theory, of the sacraments, the Paulicians were inclined to abolish all visible objects of worship, and the words of the gospel were, in their judgments, the baptism and communion of the faithful. A creed thus simple and spiritual, was not adapted to the genius of the times, and the rational Christian was offended at the violation offered to his religion by the Paulicians. [Gibbon, ut sup]

13. "From Italy," says Mosheim, "the Paulicians sent colonies into almost all the other provinces of Europe, and formed gradually a considerable number of religious assemblies, who adhered to their doctrine, and who realized every opposition and indignity from the popes. It is undoubtedly certain, from the most authentic records, a considerable number of them were, about the middle of the eleventh century, settled in Lombardy, Insubria, but principally at Milan; and that many of them led a wandering life in France, Germany, and other countries, where they captivated the esteem and admiration of the multitude by their sanctity. In Italy, they were called Paterini and Cathari. In France, they were denominated Bulgarians, from the kingdom of their emigration, also Publicans, instead of Paulicians, and boni homines, good men; but were chiefly known by the term Albigenses, from the town of Alby, in the Upper Languedoc. The first religious assembly which the Paulicians formed in Europe is said to have been at Orleans, in the year 1017, on which we shall enlarge under the churches in France, to which we shall repair after we have traced their existence and labors in the kingdom of Italy.

14. Here we may be permitted to review the apostolic character and exertions of this extensive body of people, while we may express our surprise at the virulent opposition, the cruel measures used, and the extensive sacrifice of human life, for successive ages, on the alone ground of religious views. A special instance of divine grace was displayed in this people’s rise and early success; and we must attribute their preservation and enlargement to the exercise of the same compassion. An evident mark of apostolic spirit possessed by this people must be admitted by all; without any funds or public societies to countenance or support the arduous undertaking, otherwise than their respective churches, the Paulicians fearlessly penetrated the most barbarous parts of Europe, and went single-handed, and single eyed, to the conflict with every grade of character. In several instances they suffered death or martyrdom, not counting their lives dear, so that they could promote the cause of their Redeemer. [See Mosheim’s History; Gibbon’s Ro. Hist. ch. 54; Robinson’s Eccl. Res. ch. 6, pp. 77-79; Jones’s Lectures on Eccl. Hist. v. ii., pp. 179--184]

From:

A CONCISE HISTORY OF THE BAPTISTS

By G.H. Orchard

 

[Dr. Walter]

Did the Paulican's teach that Christ - the one on earth/physical was really an angel and created?

The Paulicians were spread all over Europe. Those who merged with the Waldenses did not teach that idea. Those in the area where the "key of truth" originated did teach that idea. The Paulicans can be traced in a movement across Europe from the seventh to the tenth century where they merged or came under the name of groups already in that locality. Hence, it depends upon which name, and which locality they are found and in what particular time. The records by Roman persecutors do not always agree with each other about what they did or didn't believe. Hence, admittedly there is some ambiguity and ambiguity should be expected as they were not allowed to always explain what they believed for themselves.

Those who have studied these groups without a Roman Catholic bias believe that there is room to believe that not all who were herded together under the same degrading epitaphs were guilty of all they have been charged with.

 

[Dr. Walter]

No, they did not.
Here is some information about the Paulicians:

From:

A CONCISE HISTORY OF THE BAPTISTS

By G.H. Orchard

Better stated than my feebele attempts

 

[Matt Black]

The Key of truth - primary souce material from Paulicians
Recognition by Catholic Encylopedia in article on Paulicians that they knew the Paulicians denied such charges and they list documents

Thanks. I've now downloaded that and read it and am still persuaded that they are heretical, not least for their Adoptionist Christology.
Whilst they may have rejected pedo-baptism they nevertheless believed that both Baptism and Communion were sacraments essential to salvation and believed in some form of transubstantiation.

As Bro James would say, now what?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Oh you got that off of Wikipedia.... IE you havent studied him.

how about Francis Bacon......anything to get off of this topic.

Yes I got that he was a rationalist off of wiki. However, I got the quote from a quote farm. I like some of his quotes. Sir Francis Bacon is an interesting study however, I'm not sure what he has to do with our discussion?

 

[targus]

Those who have studied these groups without a Roman Catholic bias believe that there is room to believe that not all who were herded together under the same degrading epitaphs were guilty of all they have been charged with.

Pity you don't give Catholics the same benefit of the doubt.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes I got that he was a rationalist off of wiki. However, I got the quote from a quote farm. I like some of his quotes. Sir Francis Bacon is an interesting study however, I'm not sure what he has to do with our discussion?

Im suggesting another one mate.:thumbs:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Pity you don't give Catholics the same benefit of the doubt.

Note I like how Dr. Walter uses the term ROOM. In other words since he suggesting there is not enough evidence to support his view one way or another than any view is good and his is just as valid as the next one. So very likely he is mistaken and these people were far from the forerunners of the baptist. The only distinguishing fact that compares the two is a dislike for the Roman Catholic Church. How is that a fair view to hold. He argues adamently for that view but realizes the basis of that argument could be false.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Im suggesting another one mate.:thumbs:

Can we incorporate older philosophers like Anselm and Thomas Aquinas?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Can we incorporate older philosophers like Anselm and Thomas Aquinas?

You know i Love TA...not to be confused with ..... nope not going there!:thumbs:

PS: & Bonaventure

 

[chadman]

Better stated than my feebele attempts

Not this time Dr. Walter - actually your response gave more detail and granularity to the question. You actually considered time, place and culture in your response, which is far more accurate when discussing historical belief systems. Impressive sir.

Although a Baptist myself, I noticed the Concise History of the Baptist's response did the same thing you accuse Rome of doing. They lumped all the Paulicans together in one broad sweeping brush.

But here is my problem with groups like this (Paulicans, etc).

They started out as you admit ( I assume there is some evidence for this) with Manichean beliefs - not even getting the essence of who Jesus was. This is pretty gross heresy. That isn't what bothers me personally.

What really bothers me is that starting from a position of gross heretical error - they were groping. They didn't have any 'deposit' of faith given or taught to them. They were inventing new doctrines. They were not only schismatic, but heretical. They didn't even have a complete cannon of Scripture. They were piece mealing, making things up as they went, hoping they were right.

Truth may have been stumbled upon through history - but these guys didn't recieve it from anybody in my mind.

Edit - They didn't like Rome or heirarchy - good for them. But who among us doesn't always like the boss? New Gospels? No thanks. Stick to hating Rome.

 

[Matt Black]

Agreed. :thumbs:

 

[DHK]

They started out as you admit ( I assume there is some evidence for this) with Manichean beliefs - not even getting the essence of who Jesus was. This is pretty gross heresy. That isn't what bothers me personally.

Where is your evidence for this?
As Orchard states, and gives plenty of reference material for it:

The Paulicians sincerely condemned the memory and opinions of the Manichean sect, and complained of the injustice which impressed that invidious name on the simple followers of Paul and Christ.

That doesn't mean they once believed Manichean beliefs; it means they never believed it, but were falsely accused of it, and were constantly battling that false accusation. They called it "an injustice."

 

[Dr. Walter]

They started out as you admit ( I assume there is some evidence for this) with Manichean beliefs - not even getting the essence of who Jesus was. This is pretty gross heresy. That isn't what bothers me personally.

What really bothers me is that starting from a position of gross heretical error - they were groping. They didn't have any 'deposit' of faith given or taught to them. They were inventing new doctrines. They were not only schismatic, but heretical. They didn't even have a complete cannon of Scripture. They were piece mealing, making things up as they went, hoping they were right.

They did not start out as manichean. From the seventh century they repudiated that charge and it was noted by Rome and recorded by Gibbons. They continued to repudiate that charge. "The Key of Truth" comes from about tenth or eleventh century from one isolated geographical area whereas the Paulicians were spread out all over Europe in the precise places where they were called Catharists by some and later Waldenses by others. The Waldenses deny that their name originates from Peter Waldo but rather from the term that has reference to the high mountain valleys where they took refuge from Roman persecutors "vallenses." Their early pre-reformation confessions of faith repudiate any idea of Manicheanism and embrace the evangelical gospel and repudiate infant baptism. Later one specific group of Waldenses living in France were converted over to Presbyterianism and adopted infant baptism while the greater portion of Waldenses integrated under another degrading title "Anabaptists" where there are clear records of former Waldense ministers called Anabaptist ministers.

All of these groups (Paulicians, Catharists, Waldenses, Anabaptists) claimed historical succession from the apostolic churches. All of them equally claimed to have been persecuted by Rome and their beliefs intentionally perverted by Rome in order to bring them under the death penalty of secular but ecclesiastical laws.

Some have objected to my use of the term "room." However, take into consideration the obvious pagan characteristics of the Roman Catholic Church, their history of butchery, their union with secular state, their obvious false teachings in regard to essentials to the gospel and their admission and confession by recent popes of their former treacheries in killing other professed saints and I believe there is more than sufficient "room" to take the word of the persecuted and distorted over the word of the persecutors and distorters.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

[/B]That doesn't mean they once believed Manichean beliefs; it means they never believed it, but were falsely accused of it, and were constantly battling that false accusation. They called it "an injustice."

That doesn't prove positive for Dr. Walter's or your position.

The Paulicians sincerely condemned the memory and opinions of the Manichean sect, and complained of the injustice which impressed that invidious name on the simple followers of Paul and Christ.

It basically shows that the Paulicans did not like the correlation to Manichean beliefs. It doesn't disprove that their beliefs began as a similiar nature. Further the author makes an assumption to which he has no evidence. Primarily

impressed that invidious name on the simple followers of Paul and Christ.

That these believers had a "deposit from Paul" by his disciples. Thats a pretty big leap for no documentation regarding that topic. Note there is no record of their succession and they flourished around 600 AD. So how does the author connect the dots of the Paulicans from 600 AD to Christ? Certainly there are documents showing their involvment in determining which books of Scripture should be selected or have considered their views regarding the trinity. Something would suffice.