Roman Catholicism , cult or not? Part II

[Chemnitz]

Well now that you have posted his "research" I think it is safe to say that at best his research is biased, at worse it is a blatant ignoring of context and good methodology. As in at least as St. Ambrose is concerned there is no question that by "spiritual" food he is refering to the spiritual benefits of Christ's body, not to a mode of presence as he makes it quite clear that he believes that it is Christ's body that is offered.

Here are a few more words by Ambrose concerning the Sacrament of the Altar.

Let us use the examples He gives, and by the example of
the Incarnation prove the truth of the mystery. Did the course of nature proceed as usual when the
Lord Jesus was born of Mary? If we look to the usual course, a woman ordinarily conceives after
connection with a man. And this body which we make is that which was born of the Virgin. Why
do you seek the order of nature in the Body of Christ, seeing that the Lord Jesus Himself was born
of a Virgin, not according to nature? It is the true Flesh of Christ which crucified and buried, this
is then truly the Sacrament of His Body.
54. The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: “This is My Body.”2898 Before the blessing of the heavenly
words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks
325
of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say,
Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what
the voice speaks.
52. We observe, then, that grace has more power than nature, and yet so far we have only spoken
of the grace of a prophet’s blessing. But if the blessing of man had such power as to change nature,
what are we to say of that divine consecration where the very words of the Lord and Saviour operate?
For that sacrament which you receive is made what it is by the word of Christ. But if the word of
Elijah had such power as to bring down fire from heaven, shall not the word of Christ have power
to change the nature of the elements? You read concerning the making of the whole world: “He
spake and they were made, He commanded and they were created.”2897 Shall not the word of Christ,
which was able to make out of nothing that which was not, be able to change things which already
are into what they were not? For it is not less to give a new nature to things than to change them.

“Taste and see that the Lord is good, blessed is the man that hopeth in Him.”2904 In that
sacrament is Christ, because it is the Body of Christ, it is therefore not bodily food but spiritual.

Yeah he did his research real well. Yeah right.

BTW you can check out St. Ambrose's writtings yourself at Christian Classics Ethereal Library a great resource for historical church writings.

 

[D28guy]

Chemnitz,

"Well now that you have posted his "research" I think it is safe to say that at best his research is biased, at worse it is a blatant ignoring of context and good methodology."

OF COURSE you are going to say that. You are a Catholic sympathiser.

The ostrich just keeps its head in the ground....

Mike

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
But at the time of the writing of Revelation, Rome was not the center of Catholicism, was it?

Rome was the center of political power, and the base from which persecution of all Christians was ordered. Nothing more, but certainly nothing less.

So, yes, Babylon is a Biblical metaphor for Rome, but Rome was not synonymous with the catholic Church.

You are right acccording to "Baptist history," and/or honest church history. At last we can get someone to concede to that point. Remember that this thread is about whether the RCC is a cult or not. It is the RCC that claims that Peter is the first Pope and claims that the Pope and the Catholic Church existed from the apostles from Rome onward. So from their version of history (or revision of history) my premise remains correct, even if in actual history it is wrong. From the Catholic point of view Rome is Babylon. The Pope of Rome was Peter, and there has been an unbroken succession of Popes ever since. Rome has ruled the world. Nero burned the city of Rome, played his fiddle all the while it burned, and then blamed it all on the Christians.
However, it was not until Constantine made so-called Christianity a stste-religion in the early 300's and the actual Catholic Church began. Christianity became paganized. This pagan form of Christianity became the Catholic Church. Because it was under the rule of the state it still persecuted those who were true believers. The time period between the death of the apostles (the end of the 1st century) to the beginning of the third century is not very great. In those intervening 200 years we had the beginnings of the formation of the Catholic Church which culminated under Constantine.
DHK

 

[tragic_pizza]

If it was Constantine's fault, though, why is it Rome and not Constantinople?

We agree that one of the worst things that has happened to Christianity is its legalization. While I'm not someone who thinks persecution is fun, I do see the phenomenal growth of Christianity in the middle east and China as an indication that our belief system works best under pressure.

You and I will likely never agree on Catholicism being a cult (in the modern usage of the word). There are a lot of theological reasons I can't be Catholic; similarly, there are theological reasons I can't be a Baptist. But I consider niether extreme a "cult."

 

[Chemnitz]

OF COURSE you are going to say that. You are a Catholic sympathiser.

The ostrich just keeps its head in the ground....

I say it not because my head is in the ground but because I have read Ambrose's work and I have to wonder if Mr. Wylie actually read it himself considering his gross misquote and misunderstanding.

 

[D28guy]

Chemnitz,

"Well now that you have posted his "research" I think it is safe to say that at best his research is biased, at worse it is a blatant ignoring of context and good methodology."

Ha ha!

That is the CLASSIC Catholic response.

(Oh oh, what do we do NOW??? I know! Descredit the source!

Yeah, thats it...lets slander the source, nobody will know and we will have disposed of the "problem". )

"As in at least as St. Ambrose is concerned there is no question that by "spiritual" food he is refering to the spiritual benefits of Christ's body, not to a mode of presence as he makes it quite clear that he believes that it is Christ's body that is offered."

Chemnitz, its not gonna work. I have presented scholorly work that spans...over 24 books...the entire history of the christian church from the 1st century to modern times. With exhaustive footnotes.

You now know the truth.

"I say it not because my head is in the ground but because I have read Ambrose's work and I have to wonder if Mr. Wylie actually read it himself considering his gross misquote and misunderstanding."

The Ostrich again...with its head in the ground.

Do you remember the old TV show Hogans Heros?

Schultz?

"I see nothing! I know nothing!"

The Catholic Church as a 2000 year history of massacering those who oppose them, forging documents, torture, selling the forgiviness of sins for a price, burning at the stake the chidren of God, and shuffling child molesters (Hush hush!) from parish to parish for decades, knowing full well they have doomed more children to molestation in order to protect the reputation of "Holy Mother Church".

And THIS is the organisation that you will believe over scholorly research such as what I posted?????

It numbs the mind.

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

OK, Mike, let's look at Wylie's sources, then.

Eusebius is contemporary (just about)and therefore his witness can be accepted. Same with Leo I and Gregory Nazianzen.

In fact they appear to be the only contemporary primary sources (apart from a rather vague reference to the Council of Nicaea). Most if not all of the others are post-Reformation and many, like Bennet, are firmly in the Reformation camp (apart from obviously the works of various Popes). Some, like Mosheim, are as blatantly biased and unreliable as Carroll. Then you have a couple (Cyprian and Clement) prior to the period under consideration.

But even the few contemporary souce documents cited do nothing to show the existence of Christian groups which were orthodox and evangelical in theology outside of the Catholic-Orthodox Church.

So, we are still waiting for that evidence, boys and girls.

 

[D28guy]

Matt,

"In fact they appear to be the only contemporary primary sources (apart from a rather vague reference to the Council of Nicaea). Most if not all of the others are post-Reformation and many, like Bennet, are firmly in the Reformation camp (apart from obviously the works of various Popes). Some, like Mosheim, are as blatantly biased and unreliable as Carroll. Then you have a couple (Cyprian and Clement) prior to the period under consideration.

But even the few contemporary souce documents cited do nothing to show the existence of Christian groups which were orthodox and evangelical in theology outside of the Catholic-Orthodox Church.

Right. (eyes rolling)

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

The point being, Mike, is that none of the sources cited contribute one way or the other to the issue under discussion: the non-primary/contemporary sources which claim the existence of these so-called Christian groups are to be discounted because they are non-contemporary, and the contemporary sources are silent on the issue of whether these groups existed and/ or were somehow Christian.

 

[Chemnitz]

Ha ha! [Laugh] That is the CLASSIC Catholic response. [thumbs]

(Oh oh, what do we do NOW??? I know! Descredit the source! [Smile] Yeah, thats it...lets slander the source, nobody will know and we will have disposed of the "problem". [Big Grin] )

quote:"As in at least as St. Ambrose is concerned there is no question that by "spiritual" food he is refering to the spiritual benefits of Christ's body, not to a mode of presence as he makes it quite clear that he believes that it is Christ's body that is offered."

Chemnitz, its not gonna work. I have presented scholorly work that spans...over 24 books...the entire history of the christian church from the 1st century to modern times. With exhaustive footnotes.

You now know the truth.

Yeah, I now know he is not a source to be trusted. You can not accuse me of putting my head in to the sand, when you do not appear to be willing to at least read the source Wylie missrepresented. Ambrose states quite clearly that he believes the bread is change into the body of Christ. Now does that sound like somebody who believes "and in the latter Christ was held to be present only figuratively." (Wylie) concerning the Lord's Supper? Wylie prooftexted Ambrose by pulling out an isolated statement and twisted it so that it would make it look like the symbolic interpretation of the LS existed even in the early church. Nevermind the fact that Ambrose is calling food for the soul not food for the body. If you don't believe me go back and read the sections of Ambrose's work that I posted earlier.

Just because he (Wylie) wrote a bunch of books doesn't mean he had much meaningful to say.

burning at the stake the chidren of God, and shuffling child molesters (Hush hush!) from parish to parish for decades, knowing full well they have doomed more children to molestation in order to protect the reputation of "Holy Mother Church".

Wondered how long it was going to take for you to start flinging that particular mud around.

 

[D28guy]

Chemnitz,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />burning at the stake the chidren of God, and shuffling child molesters (Hush hush!) from parish to parish for decades, knowing full well they have doomed more children to molestation in order to protect the reputation of "Holy Mother Church"."

Wondered how long it was going to take for you to start flinging that particular mud around.</font>[/QUOTE]Uh huh. And why my friend do you think I brought it up?

Because YOU GUYS 1st slandered the integrity of the one who's material I posted. The scholorly and heavily footnoted material.

And that is "Modus Operendi" for the Catholic Church and Catholic apologists.

Throw mud. Call names. Slander them. Do ANYTHING to discredit what they say, and divert attention away from what they have said or shared.


I posted it because in this case its relavent. YOU diverted the attention away from the what the scholorly material revealed and started the "smear campaign".

It is actually comically sad when Catholics and Catholic synpathisers attempt to discredit evangelical/protestant sources. Its just breathtaking.

Someone attempts to discredit an exceedingly reputable evangelical/protestant source...in effect calling them a horrific liar...but they choose to accept as trustworthy a group with a 2000 year track record of THIS...

The Catholic Church as a 2000 year history of massacering those who oppose them, forging documents, torture, selling the forgiviness of sins for a price, burning at the stake the children of God, and shuffling child molesters (Hush hush!) from parish to parish for decades, knowing full well they have doomed more children to molestation in order to protect the reputation of "Holy Mother Church".

Its relavent for me to bring it up, because YOU GUYS 1st brought up the trustwortiness of the scholorly and exhaustively footnoted material I posted.

Take a look at who you are trusting.

YOU actually believe that THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is going to tell you the truth?

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

Oh come on Mike! Saying someone's sources aren't primary is not on a par with accusing them of being child molesters!

All we have done is point out that Wylie has not adduced any germane primary source material. Now, unless you know something we don't, what on earth is wrong with that?

 

[Chemnitz]

I am going to take it from your empty mudslinging rhetoric you have no valid responses in regards to the primary source evidence concerning Ambrose's beliefs on Holy Communion.

Maybe you should actually read what Ambrose wrote and then compare it with the claims of Mr. Wylie.

Volumous writing and footnoting doesn't mean a thing when a person doesn't accurately represent the information in his main body of writing.

I am not trusting the Catholic Church, I am just going to the source documents that were cited by Mr Wylie in order to check if he gave an honest treatment.

Mudsling all you want but at least in this one instance Mr. Wylie got it wrong.

If you think Mr. Wylie is so great and wonderful, try honestly defending his conclusion, instead of flinging around the mud.

 

[nate]

Originally posted by D28guy:


Because YOU GUYS 1st slandered the integrity of the one who's material I posted. The scholorly and heavily footnoted material.

It is actually comically sad when Catholics and Catholic synpathisers attempt to discredit evangelical/protestant sources. Its just breathtaking.

Its relavent for me to bring it up, because YOU GUYS 1st brought up the trustwortiness of the scholorly and exhaustively footnoted material I posted.

YOU actually believe that THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is going to tell you the truth?

No I don't think they slandered those authors they simply pointed out that there is an extremely large amount of Anti-Catholic bias out there. We have very few evangelical/protestant books out there that deal with that time period that look through objective glasses.
In Christ,
Nate

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:

Volumous writing and footnoting doesn't mean a thing when a person doesn't accurately represent the information in his main body of writing.

Exactly.

 

[D28guy]

Chemnitz,

"I am going to take it from your empty mudslinging rhetoric you have no valid responses in regards to the primary source evidence concerning Ambrose's beliefs on Holy Communion."

You are free to take it any way you want.

You know the truth now, I have shown you. And there are multitudes of books just as scholorly and trustworty as what I posted from.

You can believe the truth, or you can turn a blind eye and believe the utter rubbish that Rome propagates and commands their people to believe.

May God bless you with the ability to "see" the truth.

Mike

 

[D28guy]

nate,

"No I don't think they slandered those authors they simply pointed out that there is an extremely large amount of Anti-Catholic bias out there. We have very few evangelical/protestant books out there that deal with that time period that look through objective glasses.
In Christ,
Nate

And I guess that those with "objective glasses" are the ones who buy...blindly...the utter nonsense and dishonest lies that Romes "spin meisters" so cunningly decieve its victims with?

The most objective people on the face of this planet are people who turn to the scriptures alone as their truth standard, use that truth standard as a guide to judge all *supposed* christian groups and teachings, and condemn that which contradicts in foundational areas...as Rome does in abundance.

The writer of the material is such a man, and he isnt the only one. There are scores and scores and scores of books and web-sites written and run by brothers and sisters whos love for those caught in the tenticles of Catholicism is so great that they cant help but TELL...THEM...THE...TRUTH.

"Have I become your enemy, for telling you the truth?"

-Paul the Apostle

God bless,

Mike

 

[Chemnitz]

Now if only they were telling the truth.

Look, Mike, either defend mr. Wylie concerning evidence from Ambrose that contradicts Wylie's conclusion or quit. Your empty rhetoric is only showing how shaky your position is, and making you look worse.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by D28guy:

You know the truth now, I have shown you. And there are multitudes of books just as scholorly and trustworty as what I posted from.

Wow...just as "scholory"(sic)...and "trustworthy" as the one you posted?? You mean the kind with extensive footnotes but which mischaracterize the primary sources? That's really not saying a whole lot, Mike.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Bro. James:
Most folks believe exactly what they want--regardless of the facts.


Bro. James [/QB]

So -- "Purgatory no matter what Scripture says?"

Indulgences "no matter what scripture says"

Mary sinless like Christ "no matter what scripture says"

Inquisition and extermination of those who oppose "no matter what scripture says"

Bible burning "no matter what scripture says"

Praying to the dead "no matter what scripture says".

I think you have correctly identified the model for the dark ages.

But why do some still want to return to that method?

In Christ,

Bob