The Holy Roman Catholic Church...

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Matt you didn't mention any of the reformers cited in my post.

Is it your claim that Wesley did not read from the works of the reformers?

Is it your claim that that the writings of Catholic reformers did not influence Wesley at all?

Is it your claim that Welsey would not have been born and trained as a Catholic EVEN without the Catholic reformers having set the stage for him?

Is it your claim that even without Wycliff the reformation would have started anyway and England would have broken away without any Catholic reformers exposing the errors of the RCC and perparing the people to re-think their loyalty to Rome?

In Christ,

Bob

Wesley was more influenced by the German Pietists. Even without Wycliff, the 'King's Matter' would have still propelled Henry VIII into breach with Rome. And Charles Parham influenced by Catholicism? Come on!

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[BobRyan]

Other errors by Augustine

In spite of these abiding values, Augustine brought some errors into the stream of Christian thought. He helped to develop the doctrine of purgatory with all its attendant evils. He so emphasized the value of the two sacraments that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration and sacramental grace were logical outcomes of his views. His interpretation of the Millennium as the era between the Incarnation and Second Advent of Christ in which the church would conquer the world led to the Roman emphasis on the Church of Rome as the universal church destined to bring all within its fold and to the idea of postmillennialism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Matt said --
Even without Wycliff, the 'King's Matter' would have still propelled Henry VIII into breach with Rome

Your claim that Henry in England could have withstood Papal power EVEN WITHOUT the help of the Catholic Reformers is form of turning a blind eye to history.

You have forgotten the lesson learned by Henry IV of Germany.

The growth of papal power was gradual. The popes took the place of the Roman emperors as the rulers of Italy and later during the time of Charlemagne assumed the power of crowning the kings of Europe. As the power of the pope increased, it met with resistance on the part of many kings and princes. Bitter controversies occurred. One of the most notable of these took place between Henry IV of Germany and Pope Gregory VII, or Hildebrand. Among other acts of discipline which he directed toward Henry’s councellors who had been guilty of simony. Henry IV, feeling keenly the threat of his own power, called together the bishops of the Holy Roman Empire and compelled them to depose Gregory as pope. The pope then exercised his power and absolved all of Henry’s subjects from allegiance to him. Since the pope had great power over the people, Henry was left without a kingdom. In order to be forgiven by the pope and reinstated as king, Henry was forced to lay aside his royal garments and make a journey over the Alps in the dead of winter and approach the pope in his palace at Canossa. After being forced to stand outside the castle for three days, with his bare feet in the snow, he was admitted into the pope’s presence on bended knees.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2104/papal_power.html

Without popular support for breaking with Rome - the kings had little power.

Such was the power of the Papacy.

Such was the power of the Catholic reformers.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

You also forget the power of Renaissance monarchs - much accrued since 1077 - and the loss of Papal power since then, most notably with the 'Babylonian Captivity' in Avignon 1309-77 and the subsequent Great Scism of 1378-1417. The world of Christendom had changed greatly between 1077 and 1534...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Logan]

Bob:

I was just trying to point out the fact that the Roman Catholic experts on history "already" admit to this documented historic problem of paganism and the RCC.

The so called "experts" have their own agendas. I suggest you look past people's own opinion's and get the facts.

As for Augustine, he may of held some views that were'nt accurate. But when you have all of the early Christian writers, Christians that died a painful death rather than deny Christ, agreeing on and teaching the same doctrines (many which are being disputed right here on the board) I don't see how any sincere Christian can not hold some value to what these men have to say. Some of these men where taught by the Apostles themselves and have a clear understanding of the context of some disputed Scripture verses.

 

[DHK]

Greetings Logan,
Longtime, no 'hear.'
Don't you think it would be fair to say that when referring to the church fathers, it all depends upon whose perspective you take. I have learned that you can make the church fathers say just about any thing you want. Baptists will use them to verify their position as much as Catholics will. For example Tertullian became a Monatanist near the end of his life and changed his views on baptism among many other things. Catholics condemn the Montanist movement and discredit it as much as possible. In reality it was a movement of holiness and purity. It was a call to rid the church of the corruption and the depths of sin to which it had sunk. It was a call to repent from sin and repent toward God. There certainly is nothing wrong with that message. In his message Montanus emphasized the ministry of the Holy Spirit, but I don't believe in an unscriptural way. I believe that it was blown out of proportion by his enemies, and perhaps by a couple of women who were out of order and got carried away with their emotions. But why do people focus on the minor details, rather than on the major doctrines of this movement; the exceptions rather than the rule of this movement? The answer is ovbviously just to discredit it. Tertullian became a Montanist because of the corruuption he saw in the church. His latter beliefs were more in line with the Baptists than were his former beliefs. So you can pick and choose what part of Tertullian's writings to defend your position with.

Origen is often used, and yet Origen was a heretik, the father of Arianism. He was eventually condemned as a heretik by the church. I wish I had the list of heresies that he believed in. Carson once posted them here, but I failed to copy and paste them.

Iraeneus had some odd beliefs such as Christ living to the ripe old age of 80. If he believed that what other strange doctrines did he hold? How much can his writings be trusted?

One of the other early church fathers (I can't recall which offhand) introduced the heresy of purgatory--never heretorfore believed by any of the Apostles or early believers, and completley unsupported by Scripture.

So our position all along is to "prove all things" but prove them from the Word of God, and not from fallible men who hold to some very strange doctrines in some cases, if not heretical in other cases.
DHK

 

[Doubting Thomas]

DHK: In his message Montanus emphasized the ministry of the Holy Spirit, but I don't believe in an unscriptural way.

Ummm....Montanus said that he himself was the Paraclete ("I am the Paraclete"). There has also been an inscription discovered on an excavated house reading: "Flavius, grandsire of the household. In the name of the Father and the Son and of the Lord Montanus. What he promised he performed."

I might think twice before listing Montanus/Montanists in a geneology of some alleged proto-Baptists. (OTOH, I'm sure some here will chalk up what I've posted to mere catholic propaganda...)

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:

I might think twice before listing Montanus/Montanists in a geneology of some alleged proto-Baptists. (OTOH, I'm sure some here will chalk up what I've posted to mere catholic propaganda...)

That they can. Reliable sources say otherwise. The Baptist history forum in the past has had some good information on the Montanists. I also have some good information on them. It is just a matter of digging it out.
DHK

 

[Logan]

Greetings DHK,

It's been awhile...I hope all is well with you and your family.

I think you can choose bits and pieces on certain topics and twist some sayings of the fathers, yes, on that I agree. But I don't think you can twist their sayings on certain doctrinal matters such as the Eucharist. One can search long and hard and not find one father saying that the Eucharist is not the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ. This was a common and unanimous belief up until a short time after the reformation.

For sake of argument,if it was indeed a heresy as I suppose is the view you hold, then it defies logic that there is not one single writer condemning it as such. Every other heresy that popped up, whether it be Jesus is not God or some other Gnostic view, there were literally dozens of Church fathers condeming the heretics and stating the Church's view.

The only ones I could find condemning Christ' Eucharistic teaching are the Jews, Gnostics and a few other pagan sects.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
You also forget the power of Renaissance monarchs - much accrued since 1077 - and the loss of Papal power since then, most notably with the 'Babylonian Captivity' in Avignon 1309-77 and the subsequent Great Scism of 1378-1417. The world of Christendom had changed greatly between 1077 and 1534...

Matt

The Papacy did not really reach its fully persecuting strength until it swung into action with its favorite toy - the "inquisition".

Since my quotes are of Catholic experts confessing to the crimes and failings of their own church - I tend to believe them. A more objective source on than - would be hard to come by.

Vatican Hosts Inquisition Symposium

By CANDICE HUGHES

.c The Associated Press

VATICAN CITY (AP) – The Vatican assembled a blue-ribbon panel of scholars Thursday to examine the Inquisition and declared its readiness to submit the church's darkest institution to the judgment of history.

The three-day symposium is part of the Roman Catholic Church's countdown to 2000. Pope John Paul II wants the church to begin the new millennium with a clear conscience, which means facing up to past sins.

For many people, the Inquisition is one of the church's worst transgressions. For centuries, ecclesiastical ``thought police'' tried, tortured and burned people at the stake for heresy and other crimes.

``The church cannot cross the threshold of the new millennium without pressing its children to purify themselves in repentance for their errors, infidelity, incoherence,'' Cardinal Roger Etchegaray said, opening the conference.

The inquisitors went after Protestants, Jews, Muslims and presumed heretics. They persecuted scientists like Galileo. They banned the Bible in anything but Latin, which few ordinary people could read.

The Inquisition began in the 13th century and lasted into the 19th. An index of banned books endured even longer, until 1966. And it was 1992 before the church rehabilitated Galileo, condemned for saying the Earth wasn't the center of the universe.

The symposium, which gathers experts from inside and outside the church, is the Vatican's first critical look at the church's record of repression.

Among other things, it will give scholars a chance to compare notes on what they've found in the secret Vatican archives on the Inquisition, which the Holy See only recently opened.

``The church is not afraid to submit its past to the judgment of history,'' said Etchegaray, a Frenchman who leads the Vatican's Commission on the Grand Jubilee.

Closed to the public and press, the symposium is not expected to produce any definitive statement from the Vatican on the Inquisition. That is expected in 2000 as part of the grand ``mea culpa'' at the start of Christianity's third millennium.

The great question is whether the pontiff will ask forgiveness for the sins of the church's members, as it did with the Holocaust, or for the sins of the church itself. Unlike the Holocaust, the Inquisition was a church initiative authorized by the popes themselves.

Etchegaray on Thursday swept aside the idea that it can be seen a series of local campaigns whose excesses might be blamed on secular authorities. There was only one Inquisition, he said, and it was undeniably an ecclesiastical institution.

The pontiff may give a hint as to his thinking on Saturday, when he meets with participants in the conference.

About 50 scholars from Europe, the United States and Latin America are taking part.

AP-NY-10-29-98 1403EST



Catholic Church says must own up for Inquisition

By Alessandra Galloni

VATICAN CITY, Oct 29 (Reuters) - The Vatican on Thursday said it had to take responsibility for one of the darkest eras in Roman Catholic church history and not lay blame for the Inquisition on civil prosecutors.

Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, head of the Vatican's main committee for the year 2000, opened a three-day symposium on the Inquisition saying it was time to re-examine the work of the special court the church set up in 1233 to curb heresy.

Etchegaray said some scholars claimed there were several inquisitions: one in Rome, which worked directly under the Holy See's control, and others in Spain and in Portugal which were often aided by the local civil courts.

``We cannot ignore the fact that this (attempt to distinguish between inquisitions) has allowed some to make apologetic arguments and lay responsibility for what Iberian tribunals did onto civil authorities,'' he said.

``The fact that the Spanish and Portuguese crowns...had powers of intervention...on inquisitory tribunals does not change the ecclesiastical character of the institution,'' he said.

Pope Gregory IX created the Inquisition to help curb heresy, but church officials soon began to count on civil authorities to fine, imprison and even torture heretics.

One of the Inquisition's best known victims was the astronomer Galileo, condemned for claiming the earth revolved around the sun.

The Inquisition reached its height in the 16th century to counter the Reformation. The department later became the Holy Office and its successor now is called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which controls the orthodoxy of Catholic teaching.

Some of the conclusions of the international symposium, which ends on Saturday, could be included in a major document in which the church is expected to ask forgiveness for its past errors as part of celebrations for the year 2000.

The church ``cannot pass into the new millennium without urging its sons to purify themselves, through penitence, of its errors, its infidelities and its incoherences...,'' Father Georges Cottier, a top Vatican theologian and head of the theological commission for the year 2000, told the symposium.

Etchegaray said the conference could also draw on examples that scholars had been able to examine since January, when the Vatican opened secret files.

The archives also opened the infamous Index of Forbidden Books which Roman Catholics were not allowed to read or possess on pain of excommunication. Even the bible was on the blacklist.

Pope John Paul has said in several documents and speeches that the Church needs to assume responsibility for the Inquisition, which was responsible for the forced conversion of Jews as well as the torture and killing of heretics.

While there may have been mitigating historical factors for the behaviour of some Catholics, the Pope has said this did not prevent the church from expressing regret for the wrongs of its members in some periods of history.

He initiated the procedure that led to the rehabilitation of Galileo, completed in 1992.

19:01 10-29-98

They "seem to think" that they held some power during the dark ages.

Henry IV seems to have "gotten the point".

The history "is in".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[D28guy]

Last daze...

"Neither can we find ONE example of the Church of scripture being literally thousands of separatist ecclesial governments that do not share one ecclesial body, that have endless schismatic divisions, that share no united teaching for all churches,"

Hello.

1st of all, surely you dont buy this utter nonsense of "30,000 protestant denominations" do you? If so, I have some wonderful information that will help you with that.

2nd, surely you dont believe the Catholic Church is actually "unified" do you? If you do, I can help you with that as well.

Also, there is only one body of Christ on earth. Not many...one. The divisions are something God told us about, and helped us in how to deal with them when He said in Romans 14...

"Let your brother be convinced in his own mind...who are you to judge your brother...to his own master he will stand or fall, and God will make him stand"

Why are you bewildered about something God told us to expect?

And finally, with no hiearchial monstrosity attempting to tell us what to believe, we in the evangelical world are unified regarding the foundational doctrines. With no centralised governing authority telling us what we must believe, we have no problem identiying cults and "isms" as being what they are.

God bless,

Mike

 

[Doubting Thomas]

D28: And finally, with no hiearchial monstrosity attempting to tell us what to believe, we in the evangelical world are unified regarding the foundational doctrines. With no centralised governing authority telling us what we must believe, we have no problem identiying cults and "isms" as being what they are.

Mike, I'm curious:

(1)What groups (denominations/sects/what-have-you) do you believe comprises the "evangelical world"? What criteria do you use in identifying them as such?

(2)What are the "foundational doctrines" regarding which everyone in this "evangelical world" are allegedly unified? Could you list them for me? Thanks.

 

[D28guy]

Doubting Thomas...

"(1)What groups (denominations/sects/what-have-you) do you believe comprises the "evangelical world"? What criteria do you use in identifying them as such?"

I didnt have any specific groups in mind.

(2)What are the "foundational doctrines" regarding which everyone in this "evangelical world" are allegedly unified? Could you list them for me? Thanks.

Its a bit unusual for someone to actually ask that they be listed, since that is usually not necesarry, but...

Probably a good group would be...

All people are sinners, spiritually dead, and will be judged according to their works, found guilty and condemned

Jesus Christ is our only hope, and is the way, the truth, and the life, and no man comes to the Father but by Him.

Salvation is not possible apart from Christ.

We must be born again.

Our justification before God is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

The scriptures are our only truth standard, source of authority doctrinally, and contains our moral instruction.

And it would probably be a good idea to include the nature of God. 3 distinct persons, one God. Some people like the word trinity a lot regarding that. I'm not wild about the word trinity, but the "trinitarian" view is biblical. Jesus was 100% man, and 100% God.

Hope that helps you some. If you are Catholic you are probably very much into those creeds, so this should be right down your alley I would hope.

(Except of course for the truth of justification through faith alone and the scriptures alone truth. Those probably sort of discombobulate you, unfortunetly)

God bless,

Mike

 

[jcf]

Originally posted by D28guy:


And it would probably be a good idea to include the nature of God. 3 distinct persons, one God. Some people like the word trinity a lot regarding that. I'm not wild about the word trinity, but the "trinitarian" view is biblical. Jesus was 100% man, and 100% God.
God bless,

Mike

Hi Mike,

According to the Scriptures, Jesus is 100% man who was anointed of God. Acts 10:38 "how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.

Jesus is the Messiah, the anointed one which was spoken about in the Old Testament who YAHWEH used to speak His words. Deuteronomy 18:18 `I (YAHWEH) will raise up for them a Prophet like you (Moses) from among their brethren, and will put My words in His (Jesus) mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him.

Jesus was anointed without limit so He could do and speak the will of the Father. John 3:34 God sent Jesus. Jesus speaks the words of God, because God (YAHWEH) gave him the Spirit without limit.

YAHWEH is the only one who has immortality and who cannot be seen. 1 Timothy 1:17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

YAHWEH is eternal and self exsisting, Jesus had a birth and a death but now has been given, by His Father, this same self exsisting, immortal life has His Father and as we will have in the resurrection. John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

Jesus is the expressed image of His Father in the same way Adam was made in the image of His Father. 2 Corinthians 4:4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

Jesus has lost His Sonship and Messiahship in this man made co-eternal, co-equal three face God which was formed not by the Apostle's creed but rather by the Nicene Creed of fallen man. Romans 1:22-23 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God (YAHWEH) into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

[ February 18, 2005, 05:32 AM: Message edited by: jcf ]

 

[Matt Black]

Two problems with the above, Mike:

1. Scripture is the only standard of truth. That's fine as far as it goes, but whose interpretation do you pick from the smorgasbord and on what basis?

2. You allude to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Trinitarian dogma and the Definition of Chalcedon, which I 100% agree with - but both of those are explicitly extra-Scriptural (although both can be reasonably but not inevitably inferred form Scripture) - so much for the 'sola' bit!

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[wopik]

The catholic church isn't just called "catholic" / "universal" for no reason:

the pagan religions formed a single catholic faith at Rome.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by wopik:
The catholic church isn't just called "catholic" / "universal" for no reason:

the pagan religions formed a single catholic faith at Rome.

Interesting take.

[personal attack edited] but very interesting. I'd like to learn how you arrived at this conclusion.

[ February 18, 2005, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

[D28guy]

jcf,

this man made co-eternal, co-equal three face God which was formed not by the Apostle's creed but rather by the Nicene Creed of fallen man.

I'm not a creed person. I pay no attention to them. It is the scriptures we are to feed on, not reciting creeds...which sometimes proclaim everything except the gospel.

The truth of the triune nature of God comes straight from the scriptures, even though the word trinity does not. Its for that reason that I almost never use the word trinity

God bless,

Mike

 

[D28guy]

Matt Black,

1. Scripture is the only standard of truth. That's fine as far as it goes, but whose interpretation do you pick from the smorgasbord and on what basis?

The Holy Spirits interpretation.

We are never told to find a group we like the best, and then let them tell us what we believe. Thats cultic. We are called to search and feed on the scriptures with the Holy Spirit as our guide, interpreter, and teacher. I consider the teaching from the pastor and other brothers and sisters at our church. I consider the teaching found in good books by teachers from many persuasions of christian thought. I listen to and consider the teaching found in lots of different radio and TV broadcasts. And I recieve literature and consider what is found in it from many different groups and denominations.

Evangelical, charismatic, pentecostal, fundamentalist, moderate, etc. It makes no difference to me, as long as they hold to justification through faith alone and hold to the scriptures alone as their truth authority.

But I never...under any circumstances...blindly accept anything because so and so teaches it.

2. You allude to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Trinitarian dogma and the Definition of Chalcedon, which I 100% agree with..."

If I did it was purely accidental.

I dont believe I have ever in my life read a "Nicene-Constantinople" anything, or any kind of the "Chalcedon" creed or teaching.

I dont get into creeds at all.

- but both of those are explicitly extra-Scriptural (although both can be reasonably but not inevitably inferred form Scripture) - so much for the 'sola' bit!

Nope. The "sola" stands! Thats where I go for my truth. Even regarding the books and literature I read and recieve. Its only the scriptural truth found in them that I seek to heed.

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by D28guy:
Matt Black,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />1. Scripture is the only standard of truth. That's fine as far as it goes, but whose interpretation do you pick from the smorgasbord and on what basis?

The Holy Spirits interpretation. </font>[/QUOTE]Problem is, there are many different groups who come up with conflicting interpretations but they claim theirs is the "Holy Spirit's interpretation". Does the Holy Spirit contradict Himself?