Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Radio Replies First Volume Adventists
Celledoor.com ^ | 1938 | Fathers Rumble & Carty

Posted on 05/28/2009 2:26:09 AM PDT by GonzoII

Adventists

310. Whatever you say of other churches, you will never he able to prove that we Seventh Day Adventists are wrong while we remain true to the Bible.

If you were true to the Bible, no one could prove you wrong. But you are most unbiblical. Your very system leaves you without any real proof that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. It cannot say what is the real sense of all that is contained in the Bible. It concentrates upon a few misinterpreted texts, and ignores the whole trend of Scripture, although all Scripture is of equal value as God's Word. The Catholic Church alone can guarantee Scripture as the Word of God, and alone can guarantee its correct meaning.

Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0

http://www.celledoor.com/cpdv-ebe/


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic
KEYWORDS: radiorepliesvolone

Adventists

A group of six American Protestant sects which hold in common a belief in the near return of Christ in person, and differ from one another mainly in their understanding of several doctrines related to this common belief. They are, excepting the "Seventh Day Adventists" and the branch entitled "The Church of God" congregational in government.

The sects of Adventists are the outcome of a religious agitation begun by William Miller (1781-1849) in 1831, after a minute study of the prophecies of the Bible. Testing the mysterious pronouncements concerning the Messias by a method exclusively historical, he looked for the fulfillment of every prophecy in its obvious surface reading. Every prophecy which had not been literally accomplished in the first coming of Christ must needs be accomplished in His second coming. Christ, therefore, should return at the end of the world in the clouds of heaven to possess the land of Canaan, and to reign in an earthly triumph on the throne of David for a thousand years. Moreover, taking the 2,300 days of the Prophet Daniel for so many years, and computing from 457 B.C. -- that is, from the commencement of the seventy weeks before the first coming, Miller concluded that the world would come to an end, and Christ would return, in A.D. 1843. He gave wide circulation to his views and gained a considerable following in a few years. When the year 1843 had passed as any other, and the prediction had failed, Snow, one of his disciples, set himself to correct Miller's calculations, and in his turn announced the end of the world for 22 October, 1844. As the day drew near groups of Millerites here and there throughout the United States, putting aside all worldly occupations, awaited, in a fever of expectancy the promised coming of Christ, but were again doomed to disappointment. The faithful followers of Miller next met in conference at Albany, N.Y., in 1845, and professed their unshaken faith in the near personal coming of the Son of God. And this has remained the fundamental point of the Adventist creed. According to the official census of 1890, the Adventists had 60,491 communicants; at present they have about 100,000 adherents all told. The Adventist movement, inaugurated by Miller, has differentiated into the following independent bodies:--

Evangelical Adventists (the original stock)

They believe the dead are conscious after separation from the body, and will rise again; the just, first to reign with Christ on earth for the Millennium and, after the Judgment, in heaven for all eternity; the wicked to rise at the Day of Judgment to be condemned to hell forever. They may be said to have organized in 1845. They number 1,147 communicants.

Advent Christians

These believe that the dead lie in an unconscious state till Christ comes again, when all will arise; the just to receive everlasting life; the wicked to be annihilated; since immortality, once man's natural birthright, has been forfeited by sin and is now a supernatural gift had only through faith in Christ. The General Association was formed in 1881. The Advent Christians number 26,500.

Seventh Day Adventists

These hold to the observance of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath. They believe that the dead remain unconscious until Judgment, when the wicked will be destroyed. They attempt, in addition, a detailed interpretation of certain biblical prophecies, and believe the prophetic gift is still communicated, and was possessed latterly by Mrs. E.G. White in particular. They were formed into a body in 1845. They number 76,102 members. [Note: As of 2005, this number stood at 12 million.]

The Church of God

An offshoot of the Seventh Day Adventists. These dissidents refuse to accept the prophecies of Mrs. White, or the interpretation of the vision in Apocalypse 12:11-17, as applying to the United States. Otherwise they resemble the Seventh Day Adventists, They became an independent body in 1864-65. This church has 647 members.

Life and Advent Union

A movement which, begun in 1848 was compacted into an organized body in 1860. This church insists that the wicked will not rise again, but will remain in an endless sleep. It has a membership of 3,800.

Age-to-Come Adventists

These believe, besides the common Adventist doctrines, that the wicked will ultimately be destroyed, and that eternal life is given through Christ alone. They originated in 1851; the General Conference was organized in 1885. They number 1,872 in the United States.

Sources

Taylor, The Reign of Christ (Boston, 1889); Wellcome, History of the Second Advent Message (Yarmouth. Maine, IB74); McKinstrey, The World's Great Empires (Haverhill, Mass., 1881); Andrews, History of the Seventh and First Day (Battle Creek, Mich., 1873); White, The Great Controversy (Battle Creek, 1870); Smith, Thoughts on Daniel and Revelation (1882); Long, Kingdom of Heaven Upon Earth (1882); The End of The Ungodly (1886); Pile, The Doctrine of Conditional Immortality (Springfield, Mass); Brown, The Divine Key of Redemption (Springfield, Mass).

Source: Catholic Encyclopedia

1 posted on 05/28/2009 2:26:10 AM PDT by GonzoII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

Rev. Dr. Leslie Rumble, M.S.C.

"I was brought up as a Protestant, probably with more inherited prejudices than most non-Catholics of these days.  My parents were Anglican and taught me the Angelican faith. My 'broad-minded' protestant teachers taught me to dislike the Catholic Church intensely. I later tried Protestantism in various other forms, and it is some thirty years since, in God's providence, I became a Catholic. As for the 'open, free, sincere worship' of a Protestant Church, I tasted it, but for me it proved in the end to be not only open, but empty; it was altogether too free from God's prescriptions."

Eventually, Leslie became a priest of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart.

In 1928, Fr. Rumble began a one-hour 'Question Box' program on 2SM Sydney, N.S.W. radio on Sunday evenings that was heard all over Australia and New Zealand. For five years he answered questions on every subject imaginable that had been written to him from all over that part of the globe. His first show began with a classic introduction:

"Good evening, listeners all. For some time I have been promising to give a session dealing with questions of religion and morality, in which the listeners themselves should decide what is of interest to them. Such a session will commence next Sunday evening, and I invite you to send in any questions you wish on these subjects . . . So now I invite you, non-Catholics above all, to send in any questions you wish on religion, or morality, or the Catholic Church, and I shall explain exactly the Catholic position, and give the reasons for it. In fact I almost demand those questions. Many hard things have been said, and are still being said, about the Catholic Church, though no criminal, has been so abused, that she has a right to be heard. I do not ask that you give your name and address. A nom de plume will do. Call yourself Voltaire, Confucius, X.Y.Z., what you like, so long as you give indication enough to recognize your answer."

"By the summer of 1937, the first edition of Radio Replies was already in print in Australia, financed by Rt. Rev. Monsignor James Meany, P.P. - the director of Station 2SM of whom I am greatly indebted."

"I have often been mistaken, as most men at times. And it is precisely to make sure that I will not be mistaken in the supremely important matter of religion that I cling to a Church which cannot be mistaken, but must be right where I might be wrong. God knew that so many sincere men would make mistakes that He deliberately established an infallible Church to preserve them from error where it was most important that they should not go wrong."

Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty

I broadcast my radio program, the Catholic Radio Hour,  from St. Paul, Minnesota.

I was also carrying on as a Catholic Campaigner for Christ, the Apostolate to the man in the street through the medium of my trailer and loud-speaking system. In the distribution of pamphlets and books on the Catholic Faith, Radio Replies proved the most talked of book carried in my trailer display of Catholic literature. As many of us street preachers have learned, it is not so much what you say over the microphone in answer to questions from open air listeners, but what you get into their hands to read. The questions Fr. Rumble had to answer on the other side of the planet are same the questions I had to answer before friendly and hostile audiences throughout my summer campaign."

I realized that this priest in Australia was doing exactly the same work I was doing here in St. Paul. Because of the success of his book, plus the delay in getting copies from Sydney and the prohibitive cost of the book on this side of the universe, I got in contact with him to publish a cheap American edition.  

It doesn't take long for the imagination to start thinking about how much we could actually do. We began the Radio Replies Press Society Publishing Company, finished the American edition of what was to be the first volume of Radio Replies, recieved the necessary imprimatur, and Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen agreed to write a preface. About a year after the publication of the first edition in Australia, we had the American edition out and in people's hands.

The book turned into a phenomena. Letters began pouring into my office from every corner of the United States; Protestant Publishing Houses are requesting copies for distribution to Protestant Seminaries; a few Catholic Seminaries have adopted it as an official textbook - and I had still never met Dr. Rumble in person.

To keep a long story short, we finally got a chance to meet, published volumes two and three of Radio Replies, printed a set of ten booklets on subjects people most often asked about, and a few other pamphlets on subjects of interest to us.

Fr. Carty died on May 22, 1964 in Connecticut.

"Firstly, since God is the Author of all truth, nothing that is definitely true can every really contradict anything else that is definitely true. Secondly, the Catholic Church is definitely true. It therefore follows that no objection or difficulty, whether drawn from history, Scripture, science, or philosophy, can provide a valid argument against the truth of the Catholic religion."



Biographies compiled from the introductions to Radio Replies, volumes 1, 2 and 3.

Source: www.catholicauthors.com

2 posted on 05/28/2009 2:26:44 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fidelis; Atomic Vomit; MI; Salvation; mel
 Radio Replies

Radio Replies Ping

FReep-mail me to get on or off

“The Radio Replies Ping-List”

ON / OFF


3 posted on 05/28/2009 2:28:19 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

The Radio Replies Series: Volume One

Chapter One: God

Radio Replies Volume One: God’s Existence Known by Reason
Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of God
Radio Replies Volume One: Providence of God and Problem of Evil

Chapter Two: Man

Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of Man & Existence and Nature of the Soul
Radio Replies Volume One: Immortality of the Soul
Radio Replies Volume One: Destiny of the Soul & Freewill of Man

Chapter Three: Religion

Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of Religion & Necessity of Religion

Chapter Four: The Religion of the Bible

Radio Replies Volume One: Natural Religion & Revealed Religion
Radio Replies Volume One: Mysteries of Religion
Radio Replies Volume One: Miracles
Radio Replies Volume One: Value of the Gospels
Radio Replies Volume One: Inspiration of the Gospels
Radio Replies Volume One: Old Testament Difficulties [Part 1]
Radio Replies Volume One: Old Testament Difficulties [Part 2]
Radio Replies Volume One: Old Testament Difficulties [Part 3]
Radio Replies Volume One: New Testament Difficulties

Chapter Five: The Christian Faith

Radio Replies Volume One: The Religion of the Jews
Radio Replies Volume One: Truth of Christianity
Radio Replies Volume One: Nature and Necessity of Faith

Chapter Six: A Definite Christian Faith

Radio Replies Volume One: Conflicting Churches
Radio Replies Volume One: Are All One Church?
Radio Replies Volume One: Is One Religion As Good As Another?
Radio Replies Volume One: The Fallacy of Indifference

Chapter Seven: The Failure of Protestantism

Radio Replies Volume One: Protestantism Erroneous
Radio Replies Volume One: Luther
Radio Replies Volume One: Anglicanism
Radio Replies Volume One: Greek Orthodox Church
Radio Replies Volume One: Wesley

Radio Replies Volume One: Baptists
Radio Replies First Volume: Adventists

4 posted on 05/28/2009 2:29:30 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

What always got me about the Seventh Day Adventists is the following:

1) They came out of a clearly bogus religious movement in the nineteenth century (i.e. Miller’s Adventist movement in which he mistakenly picked the date of the end of the world - more than once!).

2) Seventh Day Adventism was founded - not by Christ - but by a woman: Ellen Gould White. And her writings have, historically, been put on a par with scripture by SDAers. Modern day SDAers may be moving away from this.

3) The SDA’s often rabid anti-Catholicism is simply nonsensical and often obsessed with numerology and “hidden symbols” (often imagine).


5 posted on 05/28/2009 2:53:11 AM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
"(i.e. Miller’s Adventist movement in which he mistakenly picked the date of the end of the world - more than once!)."

Unfulfilled prophecy is what debunks the Jehovah's also.

6 posted on 05/28/2009 2:59:04 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

True. What always gets me, however, is how people stay in the group even when it is clearly a sect with bad prophecies deeply attached to its name!


7 posted on 05/28/2009 3:02:43 AM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII; vladimir998; All
One thing should be noted:

The content of this material is from a radio show produced during the 1930s

The approach the Church has taken toward Christians not in communion with the Holy Father has changed dramatically since that time.

Relevant documents that outline this are as follows:

The relationship between the Church and other Christians is best summed up via the contents of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324


8 posted on 05/28/2009 3:43:14 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
The content of this material is from a radio show produced during the 1930s. The approach the Church has taken toward Christians not in communion with the Holy Father has changed dramatically since that time.

Thanks for posting this.

9 posted on 05/28/2009 5:53:57 AM PDT by Alex Murphy (Presbyterians often forget that John Knox had been a Sunday bowler.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; Alex Murphy
Thanks for the addition, Mark.

May I add that the content of the "way" the Faith is defended is what is most important here. As you know doctrine doesn't change.

The good Fathers were born in the 1800s. I hope we can continue to diologue with our separated brethren keeping that in mind.

I still consider "Radio Replies" a classic in Catholic apologetics.

10 posted on 05/28/2009 7:15:51 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII; Alex Murphy
May I add that the content of the "way" the Faith is defended is what is most important here. As you know doctrine doesn't change.

The good Fathers were born in the 1800s. I hope we can continue to diologue with our separated brethren keeping that in mind.

I still consider "Radio Replies" a classic in Catholic apologetics.

I think you bring up a critical point and one that has disturbed me, in candor.

If one recalls the time frame from which Radio Replies emerged, it can explain some of the frankness and lack of tact in the nature of the responses provided.

It was during this timeframe that a considerable amount of anti-Catholic rhetoric came to the forefront, particularly in this country. Much of this developed during the Presidential campaign of Al Smith in 1928, but had its roots in the publication of Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, originally published in book form in 1919.

While in Britain (and consequently Australia), the other fellow would surely have experienced the effects of the Popery Act, the Act of Settlement, the Disenfranchising Act, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and many others since the reformation (that basically boiled down to saying, "We won't kill you if you just be good, quiet little Catholics"). Even the so-called Catholic Relief Acts (1778, 1791, 1829, 1851, 1871) still had huge barriers placed in the way.

And of course, they'd both remember the American Protective Association, "Guy Fawkes Days" (which included burning the Pontiff in effigy), the positions of the Whigs and Ultra-Torries, and so on.

A strong degree of "in your face" from people in the position of authoritativeness was required back in the 1930s, as there was a large contingent of the populations of both the US and the British Empire who were not at all shy about being "in your face" toward Catholics in the first place (in other words, a particularly contentious day on Free Republic would be considered a mild day in some circles back then). Sure, in polite, educated circles, contention was avoided (thus the little ditty about it not being polite to discuss religion in public, along with sex and politics), but it would be naive to assume that we all got along, or anything resembling that, back in the day.

Having said all of the above, reading the articles from the modern mindset and without the historical context that I tried to briefly summarize above, they make challenging reading, due to their bluntness.

Myself, I could see these "Radio Replies" as being more of a handy resource for answering a diatribe posted by a non-Catholic than initiating a conversation. I've generally found that it is far more fruitful to be tactful until somebody else "pulls the trigger" and "goes nuclear."

For what it's worth.

11 posted on 05/28/2009 8:19:29 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Here's what I'd like to do with future posts from Radio Replies, with your permission.

I'll post in the "Body of Comment" section your great historical context of the Radio Replies as follows:

Historical Context of "Radio Replies"


By markomalley
If one recalls the time frame from which Radio Replies emerged, it can explain some of the frankness and lack of tact in the nature of the responses provided.

It was during this timeframe that a considerable amount of anti-Catholic rhetoric came to the forefront, particularly in this country. Much of this developed during the Presidential campaign of Al Smith in 1928, but had its roots in the publication of Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, originally published in book form in 1919.

While in Britain (and consequently Australia), the other fellow would surely have experienced the effects of the Popery Act, the Act of Settlement, the Disenfranchising Act, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and many others since the reformation (that basically boiled down to saying, "We won't kill you if you just be good, quiet little Catholics"). Even the so-called Catholic Relief Acts (1778, 1791, 1829, 1851, 1871) still had huge barriers placed in the way.

And of course, they'd both remember the American Protective Association, "Guy Fawkes Days" (which included burning the Pontiff in effigy), the positions of the Whigs and Ultra-Torries, and so on.

A strong degree of "in your face" from people in the position of authoritativeness was required back in the 1930s, as there was a large contingent of the populations of both the US and the British Empire who were not at all shy about being "in your face" toward Catholics in the first place (in other words, a particularly contentious day on Free Republic would be considered a mild day in some circles back then). Sure, in polite, educated circles, contention was avoided (thus the little ditty about it not being polite to discuss religion in public, along with sex and politics), but it would be naive to assume that we all got along, or anything resembling that, back in the day.

Having said all of the above, reading the articles from the modern mindset and without the historical context that I tried to briefly summarize above, they make challenging reading, due to their bluntness.

Is that alright?

12 posted on 05/28/2009 9:17:30 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
I think you bring up a critical point and one that has disturbed me, in candor. If one recalls the time frame from which Radio Replies emerged, it can explain some of the frankness and lack of tact in the nature of the responses provided.

It was during this timeframe that a considerable amount of anti-Catholic rhetoric came to the forefront, particularly in this country. Much of this developed during the Presidential campaign of Al Smith in 1928, but had its roots in the publication of Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, originally published in book form in 1919.

First, allow me to make one minor correction. Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons was first published in pamphlet form in 1853, and expanded to book form in 1858. As it was first published in Scotland, I wouldn't expect it to have made significant inroads into American Protestant subculture until later, which may account for your 1919 date.

You make a very interesting observation however. Consider that the more "successful" sects of 19th century restorationism were still on the rise at that time. IMO the bluntness of anti-Protestant media such as "Radio Replies" only dumped more fuel on the "anti-Catholic" fire that, as you rightly point out, was a common theme among the emerging restorationist mindset. Hislop's book, given that Hislop was a member of the recent Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) offshoot, would only serve to enflame the restorationists further, given Hislop's denomination's reputation for having well-educated ministers.

For the lurkers, Hislop's book is available online. Be warned that it is 300+ pages long, and deals with the alleged pagan origins of the Roman Catholic Church, a.k.a. "mystery Babylon" in Hislop's book.

From the introduction:

...Rome is in very deed the Babylon of the Apocalypse; that the essential character of her system, the grand objects of her worship, her festivals, her doctrine and discipline, her rites and ceremonies, her priesthood and their orders, have all been derived from ancient Babylon; and, finally, that the Pope himself is truly and properly the lineal representative of Belshazzar. In the warfare that has been waged against the domineering pretensions of Rome, it has too often been counted enough merely to meet and set aside her presumptuous boast, that she is the mother and mistress of all churches--the one Catholic Church, out of whose pale there is no salvation. If ever there was excuse for such a mode of dealing with her, that excuse will hold no longer. If the position I have laid down can be maintained, she must be stripped of the name of a Christian Church altogether; for if it was a Church of Christ that was convened on that night, when the pontiff-king of Babylon, in the midst of his thousand lords, "praised the gods of gold, and of silver, and of wood, and of stone" (Dan 5:4), then the Church of Rome is entitled to the name of a Christian Church; but not otherwise. This to some, no doubt, will appear a very startling position; but it is one which it is the object of this work to establish; and let the reader judge for himself, whether I do not bring ample evidence to substantiate my position.

13 posted on 05/28/2009 9:30:05 AM PDT by Alex Murphy (Presbyterians often forget that John Knox had been a Sunday bowler.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
Is that alright?

See my post #13, which corrects the publication date of The Two Babylons and provides an excerpt.

14 posted on 05/28/2009 9:32:07 AM PDT by Alex Murphy (Presbyterians often forget that John Knox had been a Sunday bowler.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy; GonzoII
First, allow me to make one minor correction. Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons was first published in pamphlet form in 1853, and expanded to book form in 1858. As it was first published in Scotland, I wouldn't expect it to have made significant inroads into American Protestant subculture until later, which may account for your 1919 date.

Well, OK, I initially got the information from this page on Amazon.

The Two Babylons was an anti-Catholic religious pamphlet produced initially by the Scottish theologian and Protestant Presbyterian Alexander Hislop in 1853. It was later expanded in 1858 and finally published as a book in 1919. Its central theme is its allegation that the Roman Catholic Church is a veiled continuation of the pagan religion of Babylon, the veiled paganism being the product of a millennia old conspiracy.

But upon further research, I see that this information is incorrect...but things are fairly inconclusive. This page shows a digitized book dated 1932 that is supposedly the fourth edition (1st Ed, 1916; 2d Ed, 1921; 3d Ed, 1926; 4th Ed, 1929). On the other hand, there is this digitized book, dated 1862, which is supposedly a third edition (with a second edition dated Dec 1857).

So you go figure...

Now, as to your statement, Consider that the more "successful" sects of 19th century restorationism were still on the rise at that time. IMO the bluntness of anti-Protestant media such as "Radio Replies" only dumped more fuel on the "anti-Catholic" fire that, as you rightly point out, was a common theme among the emerging restorationist mindset. Hislop's book, given that Hislop was a member of the recent Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) offshoot, would only serve to enflame the restorationists further, given Hislop's denomination's reputation for having well-educated ministers.

I think you summarize my point very nicely, although I would submit that the bias was not limited to "restorationist" sects, per se. This doctrine existed throughout Protestantism. Remember a couple of years ago when I started posting the anti-Papal portions of the founding documents from the traditional Protestant denominations? (e.g., Smalcald, Westminster, Savoy) These articles were not retracted until well into the 20th Century (and, in the case of some denominations that have further splintered since the Reformation, haven't been retracted to this date( I will be the first to state, however, that the degree to which these positions are actively taught is, especially in these days, minimal, particularly when one considers the very active nature of the Restorationist sects, so I would hate to make something like that a sticking point.

I bring the above up because it's apparent that many of the questions received and answered through these books appear to be, not only from Restorationist Protestants, but from Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, and Reformation Protestants, as well.

I think that it is fortunate, though, that both sides of the argument have stepped back from the brink in recent decades.

15 posted on 05/28/2009 10:58:31 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
Is that alright?

I'm flattered. I will try to clean up the text a bit for you sometime this evening, but if I haven't had a chance to do so, by all means feel free to use that.

Thanks.

16 posted on 05/28/2009 10:59:50 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

You wrote:

“As it was first published in Scotland, I wouldn’t expect it to have made significant inroads into American Protestant subculture until later, which may account for your 1919 date.”

No. Hislop’s book was known in America shortly after its ORIGINAL publication. Hislop found a ready made market for his garbage filled book here in the states. The 1919 date was probably mentioned because that is the most common old cover page of Hislop’s book posted on the internet. Check the wikipedia page for Hislop’s book and you’ll see what I mean.

The greatest problem with Hislop’s book is that it is COMPLETE RUBBISH. Even those who once believed in it, can come to see the truth of it in time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons#Criticism


17 posted on 05/28/2009 3:55:23 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII; informavoracious; larose; RJR_fan; Prospero; Conservative Vermont Vet; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment

Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

18 posted on 05/28/2009 4:54:49 PM PDT by narses (http://www.theobamadisaster.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
GonzoII,

OK, here's what I would call a "cleaned up" version (I appended the CCC quote to the end of the tract):

If one recalls the time frame from which Radio Replies emerged, it can explain some of the frankness and lack of tact in the nature of the responses provided.

It was during this timeframe that a considerable amount of anti-Catholic rhetoric came to the forefront, particularly in this country. Much of this developed during the Presidential campaign of Al Smith in 1928, but had its roots in the publication of Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, originally published in book form in 1919.

While in Britain (and consequently Australia), the other fellow would surely have experienced the effects of the Popery Act, the Act of Settlement, the Disenfranchising Act, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and many others since the reformation (that basically boiled down to saying, "We won't kill you if you just be good, quiet little Catholics"). Even the so-called Catholic Relief Acts (1778, 1791, 1829, 1851, 1871) still had huge barriers placed in the way.

And of course, they'd both remember the American Protective Association, "Guy Fawkes Days" (which included burning the Pontiff in effigy), the positions of the Whigs and Ultra-Torries, and so on.

A strong degree of "in your face" from people in the position of authoritativeness was required back in the 1930s, as there was a large contingent of the populations of both the US and the British Empire who were not at all shy about being "in your face" toward Catholics in the first place (in other words, a particularly contentious day on Free Republic would be considered a mild day in some circles back then). Sure, in polite, educated circles, contention was avoided (thus the little ditty about it not being polite to discuss religion in public, along with sex and politics), but it would be naive to assume that we all got along, or anything resembling that, back in the day.

Having said all of the above, reading the articles from the modern mindset and without the historical context that I tried to briefly summarize above, they make challenging reading, due to their bluntness.

The reader should also keep in mind that the official teaching of the Church takes a completely different tone, best summed up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324

What do you think of that? (If you are using Firefox, you could just highlight the above, right click on View Selection Source, and copy and paste the HTML straight into the thread as required)

19 posted on 05/28/2009 5:09:50 PM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
The greatest problem with Hislop’s book is that it is COMPLETE RUBBISH. Even those who once believed in it, can come to see the truth of it in time.

In fact, one of the most famous distillations of Hislop's "work" has removed his work from publication and has formally renounced it (Ralph Woodrow, author of Babylon Mystery Religion):

Message from Ralph Woodrow regarding the book BABYLON MYSTERY RELIGION

For a number of years my book BABYLON MYSTERY RELIGION was very popular, enjoyed a wide circulation, and was translated into various languages. To this day, we do not cease to receive orders and inquiries about it. Despite its popularity, several years ago we pulled it out of print and now offer a replacement book THE BABYLON CONNECTION?

Because misinformation about this decision persists on the Internet, and in other ways, the aim of this article is to set the record straight.

According to one rumor, “the Catholics” put so much pressure on me, I had a heart attack and almost died! Consequently, I “recanted” and wrote the other book. There is no truth to this!

Another rumor is that my motives were financial—my desire was to be popular and make more money. To the contrary, BABYLON MYSTERY RELIGION was extremely popular and provided more income to our ministry than all other books and offerings put together! We have faced much financial loss because of the decision to pull the book out of print.

Some letters we have received have been very warm, commending me for honesty and integrity, expressing appreciation for the clarification provided by the replacement book THE BABYLON CONNECTION? But other letters have been mean-spirited—that I am “stupid,” “scum,” “scared of the truth,” a “low down coward,” a “traitor to Christ,” following “a false god,” and am an “undercover Jesuit”! One even said, “I hope you die soon, I want you dead!”

It puzzles me how some can be so fanatical against one set of errors—or what they perceive to be errors—only to develop greater errors: becoming judgmental, hateful, and dishonest.

My original book had some valuable information in it. But it also contained certain teachings that were made popular in a book many years ago, THE TWO BABYLONS, by Alexander Hislop. This book claims that the very religion of ancient Babylon, under the leadership of Nimrod and his wife, was later disguised with Christian-sounding names, becoming the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, two “Babylons"—one ancient and one modern. Proof for this is sought by citing numerous similarities in paganism. The problem with this method is this: in many cases there is no connection.

Let’s suppose that on May 10th a man was stabbed to death in Seattle. There were strong reasons for believing a certain person did it. He had motive. He was physically strong. He owned a large knife. He had a criminal record. He was known to have a violent temper and had threatened the victim in the past. All of these things would point to him as the murderer, except for one thing: on May 10th he was not in Seattle—he was in Florida!

So is it with the claims about pagan origins. What may seem to have a connection, upon further investigation, has no connection at all!

By this method, one could take virtually anything and do the same—even the “golden arches” at McDonald’s! The Encyclopedia Americana (article: “Arch") says the use of arches was known in Babylon as early as 2020 B.C. Since Babylon was called “the golden city” (Isa. 14:4), can there be any doubt about the origin of the golden arches? As silly as this is, this is the type of proof that has been offered over and over about pagan origins.

By this method, atheists have long sought to discredit the Bible and Christianity altogether—not just the Roman Catholic Church.

By this method, one could condemn Protestant and evangelical denominations like the Assemblies of God, Baptist, Church of Christ, Lutheran, Methodist, Nazarene, etc. Basic things like prayer, and kneeling in prayer, would have to be rejected, because pagans knelt and prayed to their gods. Water baptism would have to be rejected, for pagans had numerous rites involving water, etc.

By this method, the BIBLE itself would need to be rejected as pagan. All of the following practices or beliefs mentioned in the Bible, were also known among pagans—raising hands in worship, taking off shoes on holy ground, a holy mountain, a holy place in a temple, offering sacrifices without blemish, a sacred ark, city of refuge, bringing forth water from a rock, laws written on stone, fire appearing on a person’s head, horses of fire, the offering of first fruits, tithes, etc.

By this method, the LORD himself would be pagan. The woman called Mystery Babylon had a cup in her hand; the Lord has a cup in his hand (Psa. 75:8). Pagan kings sat on thrones and wore crowns; the Lord sits on a throne and wears a crown (Rev. 1:4; 14:14). Pagans worshipped the sun; the Lord is the “Sun of righteousness” (Mal. 4:2). Pagan gods were likened to stars; the Lord is called “the bright and morning star” (Rev. 22:16). Pagan gods had temples dedicated to them; the Lord has a temple (Rev. 7:15). Pagan gods were pictured with wings; the Lord is pictured with wings (Psa. 91:4).

Here is a list of the some of the unsubstantiated claims that are made about the religion of ancient Babylon:

• The Babylonians went to a confessional and confessed sins to priests who wore black clergy garments.

• Their king, Nimrod, was born on December 25. Round decorations on Christmas trees and round communion wafers honored him as the Sun-god.

• Sun-worshippers went to their temples weekly, on Sunday, to worship the Sun-god.

• Nimrod’s wife was Semiramis, who claimed to be the Virgin Queen of Heaven, and was the mother of Tammuz.

• Tammuz was killed by a wild boar when he was age 40; so 40 days of Lent were set aside to honor his death.

• The Babylonians wept for him on “Good Friday.” They worshipped a cross-the initial letter of his name.

It is amazing how unsubstantiated teachings like these circulate—and are believed. One can go to any library, check any history book about ancient Babylon, none of these things will be found. They are not historically accurate, but are based on an arbitrary piecing together of bits and pieces of mythology.

Hislop, for example, taught that mythological persons like Adonis, Apollo, Bacchus, Cupid, Dagon, Hercules, Janus, Mars, Mithra, Moloch, Orion, Osiris, Pluto, Saturn, Vulcan, Zoraster, and many more, were all Nimrod! He then formed his own “history” of Nimrod! He did the same thing with Nimrod’s wife. So, according to his theory, Nimrod was a big, ugly, deformed black man. His wife, Semiramis—also known as Easter, he says—was a most beautiful white woman with blond hair and blue eyes, a backslider, inventor of soprano singing, the originator of priestly celibacy, the first to whom the unbloody mass was offered! This is not factual history—it is more in the category of tabloid sensationalism.

Some claim that round objects, such as round communion wafers, are symbols of the Sun-god. But they fail to mention that the very manna given by God was round! (Exod. 16:14). Some are ready to condemn all pillars and historical monuments as pagan. But they fail to take into account that the Lord himself appeared as a pillar of fire; and, in front of his temple, there were two large pillars (Exod. 13:21,22; 2 Chron. 3:17).

Because Babylon had a tower (Gen. 11:4), some suppose this must be why there are church buildings with towers or steeples: they are copying Babylon! A newspaper reporter in Columbus, Ohio, wrote to me about this. In that city, and numerous other places, this claim has been made. Let me say it quite clearly: No church ever included a steeple or tower on their house of worship to copy the tower of Babel! Why discredit thousands of born-again Christians by promoting ideas that have no connection? If a tower in itself is pagan, God would be pagan, for David described him as “my high tower” (2 Sam. 22:3; cf. Prov. 18:10).

No Christian who puts a bumper sticker with a fish symbol on the back of his car has ever done so to honor the fish-god Dagon. No congregation has ever put a cross on a church building for the purpose of honoring Tammuz. No Christian has ever gone to an Easter sunrise service to worship Baal. No Christian has ever worshipped a Christmas tree as an idol. Claims that imply “all these things started in Babylon,” are not only divisive and fruitless, they are untrue.

The concern about not wanting anything pagan in our lives can be likened to a ship crossing a vast ocean. This concern has taken us in the right direction, but as we come to a better understanding as to what is actually pagan and what is not, a correction of the course is necessary in our journey. This is not a going back, but a correction of the course as we follow “the shining light, that shines more and more unto the perfect day” (Prov. 4:18).

This is what I have sought to do in the book THE BABYLON CONNECTION? See the Order Form on this website for ordering information.


20 posted on 05/28/2009 5:20:07 PM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; GonzoII
I think you summarize my point very nicely, although I would submit that the bias was not limited to "restorationist" sects, per se. This doctrine existed throughout Protestantism.

And I would agree with you on that point. I would counter, however, that in restorationism the Catholic Church's existence takes on a much larger significance than it does in Reformed circles in two ways. For the restorationist, the Catholic Church embodies not just false doctrine, but is directly to blame for a "great apostasy." And secondly, the restorationist is deeply dispensational-premillennial in eschatology (as opposed to the amillennialist/postmillennialist Reformers, and the classic premillennial anabaptists). Not only is the Catholic Church to blame for the apostasy, it's the "great whore of Babylon" in a coming Tribulation, too! And IMO it was that view that was being advanced and popularized by pentecostals and restorationists at the turn of the century, going way beyond what the Westminster Confession's article 25 and other Reformed views taught, that the Catholic apologists were reacting to in the historical analysis you advanced.

Remember a couple of years ago when I started posting the anti-Papal portions of the founding documents from the traditional Protestant denominations? (e.g., Smalcald, Westminster, Savoy) These articles were not retracted until well into the 20th Century (and, in the case of some denominations that have further splintered since the Reformation, haven't been retracted to this date( I will be the first to state, however, that the degree to which these positions are actively taught is, especially in these days, minimal, particularly when one considers the very active nature of the Restorationist sects, so I would hate to make something like that a sticking point.

I agree - and that reinforces my point about Restorationist activites at the turn of last century.

I bring the above up because it's apparent that many of the questions received and answered through these books appear to be, not only from Restorationist Protestants, but from Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, and Reformation Protestants, as well.

Not neccesarewly. IMO it would be wrong to just gloss over the strong doctrinal differences (i.e. the Council of Trent) between Catholics and their "seperated brethren" in their "defective ecclesiastical communities", and between the "separated brethren" themselves.

To their discredit, of most Catholic apologetics (but not these articles) usually lump together the worst traits of each group, and then accuse/blame every "Protestant" group (Reformed, Anabaptist, Restorationist, Pentecostal, Evangelical, etc) of jointly believing in all of them. GonzoII's articles are the first I've seen that actually take the time to address individual groups of non-Catholic believers. Hopefully both sides will learn something from them.

Case in point - prior to reading these articles, I'd like to know if you thought that I myself, as a Protestant, believed in a "great apostasy" that removed the gospel from history until [pick a date], in the "trail of blood" maintaining a "pure church" through history, in a Catholic Pope being the Anti-Christ of the coming Great Tribulation?

I think that it is fortunate, though, that both sides of the argument have stepped back from the brink in recent decades.

GonzoII still posted these threads, didn't he? :D Seriously, I don't fault these threads in the slightest for being blunt. Not as long as those same Catholics don't rail against non-Catholics for being blunt in offering their side, too.

21 posted on 05/28/2009 8:33:50 PM PDT by Alex Murphy (Presbyterians often forget that John Knox had been a Sunday bowler.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy; GonzoII
I would counter, however, that in restorationism the Catholic Church's existence takes on a much larger significance than it does in Reformed circles in two ways. For the restorationist, the Catholic Church embodies not just false doctrine, but is directly to blame for a "great apostasy." And secondly, the restorationist is deeply dispensational-premillennial in eschatology (as opposed to the amillennialist/postmillennialist Reformers, and the classic premillennial anabaptists).

True, that. And I'm not really talking about active preaching, just a deep-in prejudice (and, in honesty, that existed on both sides to varying degrees in each). For example, in the town where I grew up, the populace was basically half Lutheran and half Catholic. The two groups mostly kept to themselves socially, particularly in the school environment...and there was always sort of an uneasy peace. But I understand from relatives down south that Catholics were regarded with far more hostility down south where there was a higher proportion of Baptists (in fact, in the area where my wife came from, there was still occasional violence, though the Klan stopped operating in that area years before).

But this undercurrent (to varying degrees) is what I'm talking about.

And IMO it was that view that was being advanced and popularized by pentecostals and restorationists at the turn of the century, going way beyond what the Westminster Confession's article 25 and other Reformed views taught, that the Catholic apologists were reacting to in the historical analysis you advanced.

You are right, for the most part. But I believe that the undercurrent I spoke of above would likely color many of the questions received by the good fathers, in any case.

Remember that a lot of folks were totally unfamiliar with Catholicism in that time.

To their discredit, of most Catholic apologetics (but not these articles) usually lump together the worst traits of each group, and then accuse/blame every "Protestant" group (Reformed, Anabaptist, Restorationist, Pentecostal, Evangelical, etc) of jointly believing in all of them. GonzoII's articles are the first I've seen that actually take the time to address individual groups of non-Catholic believers. Hopefully both sides will learn something from them.

That's true. Although I think that it would, in a written form, been more appropriate to specifically list those doctrines of each group in contradiction to the teachings of the Church and rebut them, forthrightly, one by one.

As is written in the Second Vatican Council Decree Unitatis Redintegratio (DECREE ON ECUMENISM):

9. We must get to know the outlook of our separated brethren. To achieve this purpose, study is of necessity required, and this must be pursued with a sense of realism and good will. Catholics, who already have a proper grounding, need to acquire a more adequate understanding of the respective doctrines of our separated brethren, their history, their spiritual and liturgical life, their religious psychology and general background…From such dialogue will emerge still more clearly what the situation of the Catholic Church really is. In this way too the outlook of our separated brethren will be better understood, and our own belief more aptly explained.

As you point out, all too many folks who identify themselves as "apologists" fall way short in this regard.

Case in point - prior to reading these articles, I'd like to know if you thought that I myself, as a Protestant, believed in a "great apostasy" that removed the gospel from history until [pick a date], in the "trail of blood" maintaining a "pure church" through history, in a Catholic Pope being the Anti-Christ of the coming Great Tribulation?

Alex, I think we've had this conversation before. Having said that, no, I don't believe that I have ever thought that about you. Although I am at a loss to place your exact denomination, I would say that, based on your postings, your theology comes out of a traditional reformed perspective, without the influence of Darby. As far as the Pope being the Anti-Christ, I don't know your attitude toward the 25th Article of the Westminster Confession is (although, if I would guess, I would suspect that you'd put it in a historical perspective considering the behavior of some of the popes in office during that period of history).

GonzoII still posted these threads, didn't he? :D Seriously, I don't fault these threads in the slightest for being blunt. Not as long as those same Catholics don't rail against non-Catholics for being blunt in offering their side, too.

I honestly don't know the motivation, though, considering GonzoII's posting history, I would suspect they are being posted as part of a "classic" work, much the same as other threads he's started. Myself, as I've indicated earlier, I don't really like the "in your face" stuff so much -- I don't think it contributes anything to a unity of faith that St. Paul spoke of, particularly in his first letter to the Corinthians. I think that it would be more appropriate to use "Catholic" sources to describe Catholicism, "Lutheran" sources to describe Lutheranism, and "Pentacostal" sources to describe "Pentacostalism." (That's not to say that you couldn't post something from a Catholic source and ask, "what's up with that?" or that I couldn't post a paper by a Reformed source and say, "this is wrong because...") My perspective is that we have a common enemy to deal with, regardless of our differences. If we're fighting each other, we'll be far less prepared to deal with our common enemy.

22 posted on 05/29/2009 3:22:01 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; Alex Murphy
"What do you think of that?"

Great, I was going to add your previous CCC references any way since they are also crucial.

The only change I'll make is to add the fact that The Two Babylons was also published in pamphlet form in 1853 based on the information provided by Alex. BTW Thanks Alex.

23 posted on 05/29/2009 6:41:37 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Ping to read your "Message from Ralph Woodrow regarding the book BABYLON MYSTERY RELIGION" later...
My original book [Babylon Mystery Religion] had some valuable information in it. But it also contained certain teachings that were made popular in a book many years ago, THE TWO BABYLONS, by Alexander Hislop. This book claims that the very religion of ancient Babylon, under the leadership of Nimrod and his wife, was later disguised with Christian-sounding names, becoming the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, two “Babylons"—one ancient and one modern. Proof for this is sought by citing numerous similarities in paganism. The problem with this method is this: in many cases there is no connection.

24 posted on 05/29/2009 7:04:00 AM PDT by Alex Murphy (Presbyterians often forget that John Knox had been a Sunday bowler.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; Alex Murphy
"I honestly don't know the motivation, though, considering GonzoII's posting history, I would suspect they are being posted as part of a "classic" work, much the same as other threads he's started."

I do like the older works. But that aside just based on the great quantity of questions and answers provided in these volumes, they cannot but answer some questions some people may have about the Catholic faith; Protestant, Catholic, lurker or other.

"Seriously, I don't fault these threads in the slightest for being blunt. Not as long as those same Catholics don't rail against non-Catholics for being blunt in offering their side, too."

Can't argue there.

Frankly, I'm just a "blunt-head"... culture, character, education?? Don't ask me.

25 posted on 05/29/2009 7:04:40 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
The problem with this method is this: in many cases there is no connection.

That, I think, is the biggest issue, with many of these conspiracy theories.

The one that I really love is the ones who try to connect the word "Easter" with pagan roots...condemning Catholicism for it. They don't connect the fact that the official language of the Church is Latin, not English, and that the Latin for Easter is Pascha (i.e., passover) (not to mention the fact that bunnies and eggs are not used outside of the Germanic-influenced countries (e.g., the countries that border the Med, the Iberian Peninsula, the Aegean, the near and middle eastern countries, etc. -- i.e., where Catholicism came from). So they condemn the whole holiday based upon Anglicizations of it used in this part of the world only.

26 posted on 05/29/2009 7:56:24 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson