Posted on 11/18/2002 7:33:28 PM PST by Land of the Irish
Those darn Jesuits destroyed the evidence. You're on to us Reggie.
Oh no, the art of killing dissenters and burning their literature was in practice hundreds of years before the Jesuits were invented.
Just for the fun of it let's examine the Zenit article for objectivity.
Ranks of Catholics Grew by 38% Over Last 22 Years
VATICAN CITY, MAY 6, 2002 (Zenit.org).-
The number of Catholics in the world has grown by 38% in the years of John Paul II´s pontificate, according to the latest Statistical Yearbook of the Church.
According to the yearbook, published by the Libreria Editrice Vaticana, the number of people baptized in the Catholic Church worldwide from 1978 to 2000 increased to 1.045 billion from 757 million.
38% Growth in 22 years.
WOW! What a successful reign for JP II.
Let's compare with world population growth for the same period to see just how successful we really are.
TOTAL WORLD POPULATION
1978 4,305,403,287
2000 6,080,141,683
Hmmmmmmm, do I remember my algebra?
((6,080,141,683 - 4,305,403,287) / 4,305,403,287) = 41%
There must be something wrong???? World population grew by 41% during the same period. According to these numbers the Catholic Church grew at a negative rate.
The Zenit article couldn't have been deliberately misleading, could it?
Find a better example of a "puff piece". The only ones you will find are those that lie about certain elements that are "necessary for survival".And,many of those are definitely written by a group of folks with an agenda.Other than those,Catholics are pretty realistic in reporting what is happening;however, the reasons they have for the information they release is more often related to what they intend to accomplish.The actions they want to take and the relief they "promise" often are dishonestor,or,at least disingenuous. Often their remedies are not very Catholic.
Yes. Thanks for illustrating my point.
I figured you might reference the Waldenses and Anabaptist groups. If you read their real history you may be surprised at what they taught and when they actually did appear in history. Those links you provided are spurious. For instance:
Another name given to the Primitive Churches in the 4th Century was "Ana-Baptist." Ana-Baptists were known throughout the dark ages by many names, such as Donatists, Paulicans, Waldenses and Lollards.
This is pure hogwash. Here’s a quote from an Anabaptist website:
“A much less harmless theory but one that is also without historical support is that of Apostolic succession. According the this theory there has been a continuity of organization in small groups outside the Catholic church from A.D. 30 to 1525. Actually these non-Catholic groups differed widely from each other; all held some heretical views and in many cases had no connection with each other. Finally, there have been those who thought that the Mennonite Church was of Waldensian origin. Actually the Waldenses disappeared in Switzerland a century before the rise of the Anabaptist movement. “
From your Waldenses link. The true Waldenses and Albigenses were no Reformers of the Papism. They disclaimed all connection and kindredship with the church of Rome-denounced her ministers and ordinances as those of darkness; and roundly asserted that the church of Christ was never included within her precincts or befouled with her abominations.
A refutation from a fundamentalist Protestant site called Pillar of Truth
“ In 1179, the Waldenses sent a delegation to the Third Lateran Council to obtain official approval for their movement, known as The Poor (of Lyon). An English friar named Walter Mapes who evaluated them wrote, "We saw Waldensian men in the Roman Council held by Pope Alexander the Third. They were simple and unlearned, and were thus called from the name of their founder, Valdo, who was a citizen of Lyons on the Rhone. They presented to the Pope a book written in the old Provencal language, in which there were texts and comments of the Psalms, and of many books of the Old and New Testament" (De Nugis Curialium). Furthermore, the Waldenses, in a statement to the bishop of Albano, affirmed their belief in transubstantiation, prayers for the dead, and infant baptism.(7) and additional evidence is seen in a poem entitled Noble Lesson, a Waldense writing that affirms the Catholic teaching on the sacrament of penance:
"To make our confession sincerely, without any defect: and to do penance during the present life: to fast, to give alms, and to pray with a fervent heart; indeed, through these things the soul finds salvation."
“It becomes clear that the early Waldenses considered themselves to be Catholic in theology and the movement to establish the "Poor of Lyons" as a Catholic order was considered; the only proposition that the pope denied was the unauthorized preaching of Waldo and his followers. As late as 1508 the Waldense Confession of Faith still contained all 7 of the Catholic sacraments including infant baptism, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and priestly absolution from sin “
I purposely used non Catholic sources so you wouldn’t claim I was being biased. Why can’t you Protestants get your stories straight?
You may be well advised to get some of your facts straight.
Of course there was no Protestant Church by that name in early Church history. There was also no capital C Catholic by that name in early Church history.
I agree the largest, most visible, and most powerful Church was the Catholic Church which resulted from the time of Constantine. So what? There also were smaller "splinter" groups which managed to survive despite a concerted effort by means of murder, suppression, and book burning.
It is a man made story that the RCC of today is a direct, unchanged, descendant of the early Christian Church. Direct descendant, yes. Unchanged, no.
All Christian Churches have the same right to claim direct descendancy from the Early Church.
BTW, have you ever seem me claim to be a Protestant?
What?
You may be well advised to get some of your facts straight.
My facts are straight. You may wish to reconsider yours. For example:
I agree the largest, most visible, and most powerful Church was the Catholic Church which resulted from the time of Constantine. So what?
The Catholic Church was founded by Christ and had been around 300 years before Constantine. Constantine was the first Roman Emperor to recognize the Church and stopped persecuting it. Where do you get your history from?
There also were smaller "splinter" groups which managed to survive despite a concerted effort by means of murder, suppression, and book burning.
There have always been heretical groups throughout the history of the Church. Which ones do you claim were Christian that the Catholic Church labeled heretical?
It is a man made story that the RCC of today is a direct, unchanged, descendant of the early Christian Church. Direct descendant, yes. Unchanged, no.
The Catholic Church IS the early Christian Church. The doctrine we have today is the same that was delivered by Christ to the Apostles. The Church has declared dogmatic truths to combat heresy or to settle controversy however, all dogmatic declarations of the Church are from Apostolic teachings.
All Christian Churches have the same right to claim direct descendancy from the Early Church.
You can claim anything you want. Christ established ONE Church and gave Peter the keys to it. There is one One Lord, one faith, one baptism. Protestant Churches have NO link to the early Church. The only common link they have is to Martin Luther.
BTW, have you ever seem me claim to be a Protestant?
You don't have to make that claim. By your actions and your beliefs you are one.
The Catholic Church IS the early Christian Church. The doctrine we have today is the same that was delivered by Christ to the Apostles. The Church has declared dogmatic truths to combat heresy or to settle controversy however, all dogmatic declarations of the Church are from Apostolic teachings.
Which Apostle taught the Immaculate Conception?
Which Apostle taught Papal Infallibility?
Whic Apostle taught Perpetual Virginity?
Which Apostle taught the Bodily Assumption?
===================================================================================
(OR) BTW, have you ever seem me claim to be a Protestant?
You don't have to make that claim. By your actions and your beliefs you are one.
Does your "infallibility" confer upon you the right to decide what I am? Must I, from now and evermore, accept the label?
I am anti death penalty. Does that make me a Liberal?
I am Pro Life. Does that make me a Conservative Republican?
You’re dodging my question regarding Constantine. What’s your source that the Catholic Church resulted from him?
Which Apostle taught the Immaculate Conception?, Which Apostle taught Papal Infallibility?, Whic Apostle taught Perpetual Virginity?, Which Apostle taught the Bodily Assumption?
All of them
Does your "infallibility" confer upon you the right to decide what I am? Must I, from now and evermore, accept the label?
If it makes you feel better I'll refer to you as a non Catholic Christian. You aren’t denying there is such a thing as a Protestant are you?
You’re dodging my question regarding Constantine. What’s your source that the Catholic Church resulted from him?
I'm not dodging your question at all, you are dodging mine. When did the big C come about? When did this big C gain power and wealth? Said in different words, how much power and influence did the big C have prior to Constantine?
=====================================================================================
(OR) Which Apostle taught the Immaculate Conception?, Which Apostle taught Papal Infallibility?, Whic Apostle taught Perpetual Virginity?, Which Apostle taught the Bodily Assumption?
All of them
In that event you will have no problem in providing documentation. I'll wait patiently.
Reggie what a lame argument. Prior to Constantine the Church had been persecuted for 300 years. Public worship was forbidden, you could be killed for being a Christian , Mass was said in private homes. When Constantine recognized the Church all that stopped. Constantine is a Christian hero and you make him out to be some sort of villain. Who cares when the capital C came about? It’s a strawman argument.
In that event you will have no problem in providing documentation. I'll wait patiently.
Excellent. Patience is a virtue. Maybe someday you will figure it out.
Prior to Constantine the Christian Church had been persecuted for 300 years and after Constantine the Roman Church became the persecutor for 1,400 years, more or less.
Constantine a Christian hero???? When did he ever become a Christian, his convenient "deathbed" baptism notwithstanding?
No, Constantine could never be considered a villain to the Church of Rome, the Church which became rich and powerful with his aid, and, of course, a series of forged documents purporting to have originated from Constantine. BR> =================================================================================
(OR) In that event you will have no problem in providing documentation. I'll wait patiently.
Excellent. Patience is a virtue. Maybe someday you will figure it out.
What is it I must figure out? Could it be that you expect me to accept your broad generalizations and statements of "fact" without one shred of proof?
Have no concern, I have figured it out.
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.