Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
Mary Ann Collins
(A Former Catholic Nun)
Catholic apologists often quote the "Early Fathers" in support of Catholic doctrines, the papacy, and other Catholic claims. Who were these people?
There were many early Christian leaders, including priests, bishops, and scholars. There were a lot of these men, and they had a wide variety of opinions on religious matters. Their theological differences were as widely varied as those of theologians from different denominations are today.
Malachi Martin was a Catholic priest, an eminent theologian, and a professor at the Vatican's Pontifical Institute. His book "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church" describes the wide variety of beliefs of the Early Fathers (pages 11-28).
Because of this wide variety of beliefs, one person can find some Early Fathers to support one position, and another person can find other Early Fathers to support the opposite position.
But it's not a level playing field. Among all of those early Christian leaders, who decided which ones qualified to be called Early Fathers? The Catholic Church. Who decided which works should be copied and passed on to posterity? Copying was a slow, tedious job before the invention of the printing press. Who decided which writings were important enough to copy? The Catholic Church.
BigMack
The issue of the Chinese existed before there was a written language. The written language of China was developed precisely to create a common language where none had really existed before. Chinese spoke many languages and many dialects - which is unavoidable in a culture of that size. Even in Germany, a small country by comparison, what you are saying depends greatly upon who you are saying it to. High German is vulgar to low Germans and vice versa. The written language is no cure for the spoken, where in Chinese the oposite is true. The parallel is fitting only to the extent that the culture that had the largest base of advanced medical knowledge recognized at the time set the standard for what language would be used to discuss those things. It of necessity carried over into science. That by no means makes it common. For the time, it rather more tends to make it elite.
I haven't argued that Latin is bad or doesn't have a place. But I am saying that it was not the common spoken or written language. Day to day, cultures stuck to their own. When they dealt with others they dealt on the basis of what was necessary. And for centuries, that was Greek. Did the "Holy Roman Empire" try to force latin, I'm sure they did. Did it work? Well, the Empire was ultimately overrun, destroyed and what was left imploded due to fraud. The language died with the carcass it had been spoken by. Much as we know heiroglyphics did in Egypt. The difference is, there were still people who could understand Latin whether they could speak it or not. Heiroglyphics have taken a long time to be understood, and they still aren't fully understood. I have budge in my home and budge being something of an expert on the language has phrases that he hasn't a clue what to do with.
Now, where we depart is IMO in the notion that saying a language was common in higher learning means that it was the default and understood by all. That doesn't fly.
Thank you for finally admitting this. :)
I always thought it would be cool to go to a hotel based on the deckplans of the enterprise; but it would be so stinking big, it would have to be expensive as I'll get out to stay there. And I'd imagine it would have to be Highly dumbed down.
IMR-Thank you for finally admitting this. :)
IMR, was that comment kinda like when an RC tells biblewonk thanks so much for posting those beautiful prayers to Mary? (^g^) JH
Ask them to quote Aquinas strait faced on the issue of prostitution.. If one of the Apostles had taught such a thing, He'd have had a more stern rebuke than Peter ever got. They have to pick and choose on Him. And if you read what history says about the times that the church accepted those beliefs...
One of my points last night, was that Latin was promoted to where it finally became dominant right after the Bible canon was put together.
The two were roughly co-incident. Of course, the rise of latin as the common language probably took a couple centuries (then again, maybe it could be argued that the canon did too).
Are you saying that the church began saying mass in Latin so more people could understand it?
Seems right to me. Seriously, does there have to be a underhanded reason? It can certainly be argued that at some point (certainly prior to Vatican II) Latin ceased to be the common language but reamined the Church's language. The decision on the back end is more open to discussion than pretending that Rome forced Latin on the people so that only the clergy would understand. I'm not sure that the mass went to latin at the same time the Vulgate was translated. I was under the impression that that was a more gradual process. What do the Orthodox do?
Several point to make here Reggie.
1. The views of no one theologian, even Aquinas, may be held in preference to what the Church later establishes.
2. Just before his death, Thomas Aquinas made the following act of faith: "Neither do I wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written anything erroneous concerning this sacrament or other matters, I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church, in whose obedience I now pass from this life."
3. Even though Aquinas did not claim that Mary was sanctified from the moment of her conception, he did claim that she was sanctified before her birth,
4. To quote Saint Thomas Aquinas "We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial "
5. Since this dogma was not declared until after his death, Aquinas NEVER taught against the Magesterium.
So to say that Aquinas didn't believe in the Immaculate Conception but neglect to point out he did believe she was sanctified before her birth, is being deceitful.
This is an unsupported knard. Heresy was not so much a wrong belief as it was a belief that Catholicism didn't agree with. The word catholic is not recorded outside of frauds as a proper noun until the mid fifth Century when the first written example of a capitol C is used. That is whether you look at the latin or go back to the root languages of the religion. Try to find a translateable Capital U universal in a religious text that isn't a fraud and predates 438 and you will move the marker back. But, I've found nothing prior to that. The early church called themselves followers of Christ or "Christians". There was no need to change this. So when did a sect calling itself "Catholic" gather and name itself the "Catholic Church"?
Even many of the practices that the Catholic church has brought about are 100% foreign to the Apostles and Jesus. The rosery and the notion of praying fixed memorized prayers to a specific number of times to attain a prescribed end is in no way a christian notion. That came from elsewhere. Prayer is approaching a god with a petition, much as you would approach your mother with a request for a cookie. With respect to our God of Christianity, that means talking to Him with reverance for sure; but, as we would talk to others for He is living. And I would never in a thousand years approach you with a band of beads and say.
"excuse me, can you pass me that magazine"
"excuse me, can you pass me that magazine"
"excuse me, can you pass me that magazine"
"excuse me, can you pass me that magazine"
"excuse me, can you pass me that magazine"
"excuse me, can you pass me that magazine"
"excuse me, can you pass me that magazine"
"excuse me, can you pass me that magazine"
"excuse me, can you pass me that magazine"
... 53 times to get you to pass me a magazine. For one thing, you'd look at me, and rightly so, as though I were NUTS. If you did it to me, You'd be kindly asked to shut up on the second one, by the third I'd take the magazine back and by the sixth I'd be calling a preacher to have you examined for spiritual problems, that or I'd call the Cops and have you hauled off for being a public nuesance. But, this passes as piety among those that know how to gather people more than they know how to Follow the word of God on the subject.
That is but one example of a pagan absurdity that was dragged in and 'baptised' by the Roman Church. Then you look at things like the thoughts of Aquinas on prostitution that were embraced, according to history, by the Roman church. Add in the countless frauds, the pagan influences that Boniface IV adopted in 610, etc.
If it was the early church, it should look like the early church. It looks nothing like the early church. And if it truly were the early church, it's doing it's darndest to disguise itself as the world - the which I don't buy.
Cool. Dumb from a market point of view; but, cool idea. That's something you do with the retirement home IMO - or if you're Bill Gates LOL.
CHAPTER VII.--LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
CHAPTER VIII.--LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP.
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery [priests] as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
CHAPTER IX.--HONOUR THE BISHOP.
Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness[of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does[in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for ye are worthy. Ye have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ[shall refresh] you. Ye have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while ye endure all things, ye shall attain unto Him.
This PROVES the early Church, even during the life of the personal disciples of the apostles, was
1)Sacramental (The Holy Eucharist IS the Body of Christ) 2)Hierarchical 3)given authority by Christ Jesus 4)CATHOLIC
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.