Protestants, when did the Catholic Church go bad?

[LittleSoldier]

I realise this, but the previous poster didnt even know that the duck existed… quack!

I didn’t know about an alleged sacred duck supposedly infused with the Holy Spirit…and I won’t believe it is dogma until I see an official infallible teaching from the Catholic Church.

However - I am very, very, very aware of the Ducks. We won the Rose Bowl this year for the first time in 92 years!!

 

[LittleSoldier]

Fighting Islamofascist terrorism is anything but bizarre and superstitious. You really need to study the history of the Middle East and in particular who started the conflict generally known as the Crusades.

Thank you for posting that link. I loved it! I’ve never seen a video quite like that; so simple and yet so informative. (I have to admit I like the part where Christianity takes over the New World and a lot of the Old).

I also have to admit that I did not know much about the Crusades. I didn’t know the Crusades were to fight Islam terrorism. The map and its changes show a bit of what happened. I want to learn more.

Thank you.

 

[christosdavid]

And Church dogma states that a “sacred duck” **will **lead Catholics on a crusade?

Please provide Catholic Church dogma which states that the faithful shall worship (or even have belief in) a sacred duck (or goose) which is infused with the Holy Spirit.

no need to be confused, its not in the future tense, the first crusade already happened. Before the main force of knights and regular soliders were deployed to the holy land there was what is called the “peasants crusade” which was “organised” through the preaching of peter the hermit.

It was in the initial stages of this european leg of their journey that they followed (past tense) a duck through the streets that was supposedly infused with the holy spirit…

the unfortunate excercise ended up wiping out 60,000 poorly lead catholic peasants

 

[christosdavid]

Well, to be honest, it’s not really good enough. You didn’t even answer my question. I’m not sure what “cred” or “[your] High Distinction” means, but context is extremely important, as is the way Hebrew was used in whatever document was used in order to determine what should be placed in the bible by the Catholic Church. Gender titles can be tricky. God Himself has no gender although He is referred to as “He.” And there are those who argue that in English, “he” is gender neutral in some cases but not in others - what about the Hebrew used in that document?

It’s really beyond the scope of this thread and would probably make a good topic for a dissertation. To fully explain it here would require a tome. IMHO.

I mean no disrespect to you. I know a little about education and the most important thing I learned in college (B.S., B.A., M.A., R.E.H.S., accepted into medical school, planned on a Ph.D. but was badly injured and am now disabled) is that I am remarkably ignorant and often wish for the faith of a child.

ok, I started by saying that I studied Hebrew language and translation for 5 years, I then pointed out that the masculine pronoun and 3rd person verb indicator was also masculine, then tried to give you oppurtunity to understand that this knowledge wasnt self-taught or assessed.

My Master of Theology was done through a Catholic Institute so I know that Jerome whilst a legend of his time is only one player in this drama and that peer critique and review through universities all over the world, including Rome, acknowledge the Hebrew text which I have translated.

You may recognise that there are other fields which we all know we have no particular knowledge of but Im sure if you were asked to perform a diagnosis in your field that you would not hesitate to be certain of your academic knowledge and training.

 

[christosdavid]

Why don’t you start one? But please remember this is a Catholic forum and as such, most members are probably aware that Jesus founded the Catholic Church (and was not incompetent or lying or joking when He did so).

A catholic Church is the goal. But I have a hard time believing that Satanists and some pagans belong to what you term the “CHURCH OF GOD.” Are you including them?

you should be able to see i’ve identified as a Christian. I attend a Catholic church and receive catholic sacraments… as for satanists being in the church - Jesus told the parable of wheat and chaff, sheep and goats. I’m pretty sure not every baptised catholic has gone to heaven. Augustine would say the God had not granted them the grace of perseverance.

I’m glad I know Catholicism better than the dogma driven ideology you are trying to espouse

 

[christosdavid]

I suggest for another thread what protestants actually like about the CC - this is very divisive for the CHURCH OF GOD which we all belong to…

I like the peace and serenity when I enter the church and feel the peace of God as I kneel and pray

 

[cajunhillbilly]

I like the liturgy and the Eucharist. That is why currently I consider myself Anglican. I also believe that I am a member of the one holy catholic and apostolic church, though you would consider me a “seperated” brother.

 

[Contarini]

actually, its demonstrating that the faith and practise of the CC at the time was, to say the least,** bizarre and superstitious **

First of all, you have given no shred of evidence for your duck story. I want to know who told this story and how they knew about it before I will even talk about what it might say about medieval Catholicism. Secondly, when we talk about medieval Catholicism we are talking about an entire society with all kinds of diverse expressions of faith. (The idea that medieval Catholicism was monolithic is one of the silliest myths believed by Protestants and secularists.)

• which is where the CC went “bad” as per the thread.

So given that the most cursory acquaintance of the “elite” theology (the views held by church leaders and influential theologians) of the time would tell you that they would be very dismissive of any such “duck following,” what you are essentially saying is that the Catholic Church went bad through not being more repressive toward popular, lay-lead expressions of Christianity? Not the typical Protestant critique, certainly.

But the leaders of the Catholic Church did in fact “listen” to your advice before the fact–that’s why they established the Inquisition!

besides, if one were to ask where protestants went wrong, televangelists would be high on the list…

Not on mine. How would you repress them without persecution? As long as religion is diverse, vibrant, and relatively free, it will produce some bizarre and indefensible manifestations. Protestantism as a whole is not represented by televangelists. I’m a lot more concerned about what my colleague Tom Bergler calls the “juvenilization of American Christianity,” just to give one example. Unlike televangelism, youth-group approaches to church renewal have widespread approval in American Christianity and are pretty pervasive in all denominations.

Similarly, I’m a lot less concerned about the possibility that some peasants followed a duck than I am about the fact that the Catholic Church came to think the way to stop people following ducks was to establish a court using Roman law (including torture) to get them to toe the line.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

OK, I found this on the duck/goose story. As you can see from the link, it’s not clear how many people actually followed the goose (in Guibert’s account it seems to be a pretty limited business), and these stories are being told by educated chroniclers who pour scorn on the deluded, uneducated people who would believe such nonsense.

Essentially, this is equivalent to listening to some learned evangelical dismiss the follies of some of the crazier sections of Pentecostal/charismatic Christianity and saying “see how bizarre and superstitious evangelical Christianity is?”

Edwin

 

[JustaServant]

OK, I found this on the duck/goose story. As you can see from the link, it’s not clear how many people actually followed the goose (in Guibert’s account it seems to be a pretty limited business), and these stories are being told by educated chroniclers who pour scorn on the deluded, uneducated people who would believe such nonsense.

Essentially, this is equivalent to listening to some learned evangelical dismiss the follies of some of the crazier sections of Pentecostal/charismatic Christianity and saying “see how bizarre and superstitious evangelical Christianity is?”

Edwin

It feeds into the notion that the Medeviel world was filled with a poor, uneducated, superstitious population. Which is a very narrow view of history designed to make a modern philisophical point.
If the idea is the CC went ‘bad’ in the Middle Ages, its up to the person making that point to prove it.
The goose or duck story is just silly, IMHO.

 

[johnnyjones]

To be Protestant you must believe that for FIFTEEN HUNDRED YEARS God let the Christian church wander aimlessly in false doctrine. Doctrines were tested, proved and reproved. Yes, bad people arose, many suffered, but evil actions by individuals who corrupted the truth in the church does not change what the truth is. Because people are bad and go against the truth does not make “truth” itself bad, it just makes the individuals bad.

In the 16th century (“reformation”) people were bad and continued to be bad. Going against the FIFTEEN HUNDRED YEAR old doctrines of the church only created more division and splinter groups who can hardly agree on scripture passages. The real wandering and what went “bad” was just this.

 

[christosdavid]

To be Protestant you must believe that for FIFTEEN HUNDRED YEARS God let the Christian church wander aimlessly in false doctrine. Doctrines were tested, proved and reproved. Yes, bad people arose, many suffered, but evil actions by individuals who corrupted the truth in the church does not change what the truth is. Because people are bad and go against the truth does not make “truth” itself bad, it just makes the individuals bad.

In the 16th century (“reformation”) people were bad and continued to be bad. Going against the FIFTEEN HUNDRED YEAR old doctrines of the church only created more division and splinter groups who can hardly agree on scripture passages. The real wandering and what went “bad” was just this.

surely that is just as large a sweeping statement, aimlessly is too strong for most forms of protestantism. As noted earlier in this thread Calvin held that the elect of all ages were saved by Christ, even during the period now known as the middle ages.

The truth eh? And how much of it should be published to these poor, ignorant, misguided peasants… Just ask Erasmus in his published debate with Luther… Erasmus commented that even if something is true (like election for example) it shouldn’t necessarily be taught (Freedom of the Will).

One thing that can be said for the historic protestants is that they believe that all church members should receive a theological education in the gospel.

One wonders if the church didnt “let down” thoses poor misguided peasants when they were whipped into a frenzy by peter the hermit and marched to their deaths…

A defense of the CC that doesnt acknowledge truth has no place in the defense of Jesus, HE is the truth!

 

[christosdavid]

OK, I found this on the duck/goose story. As you can see from the link, it’s not clear how many people actually followed the goose (in Guibert’s account it seems to be a pretty limited business), and these stories are being told by educated chroniclers who pour scorn on the deluded, uneducated people who would believe such nonsense.

Essentially, this is equivalent to listening to some learned evangelical dismiss the follies of some of the crazier sections of Pentecostal/charismatic Christianity and saying “see how bizarre and superstitious evangelical Christianity is?”

Edwin

my goodness, it was true after all… Wikipedia deserves a bit more credit…

plenty of people heap scorn on charismatic/Pentecostals for snake handling, falling over and the kind of enthusiastic frenzy we see here. It can also be very bizarre and superstitious, but that isnt this thread - that would come under traditional Catholicism vs. Charismatics (plenty here at CAF)

 

[Contarini]

To be Protestant you must believe that for FIFTEEN HUNDRED YEARS God let the Christian church wander aimlessly in false doctrine

No, that isn’t what you must believe to be Protestant. I don’t see how you think you get to decide what Protestants “must believe,” when you obviously aren’t Protestant. How about actually listening to what Protestants do believe?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

my goodness, it was true after all… Wikipedia deserves a bit more credit…

It’s true that some medieval chroniclers report the story, precisely in order to express scorn for the foolish common people and their stupid Crusade. It seems likely to me that somebody did follow a goose somewhere, but if you look at the sources you see that one of them makes it sound like a very limited incident, and I suspect that the source that makes it sound more general is wildly exaggerating. Of course, it’s hard to prove this one way or the other.

plenty of people heap scorn on charismatic/Pentecostals for snake handling, falling over and the kind of enthusiastic frenzy we see here.

Yes, indeed. And those who generalize about all charismatics/Pentecostals are wrong. But you’re doing something much worse than that. You’re generalizing about the medieval Church, when it’s quite clear from the very sources your story depends on that the folks who had power in the medieval Church condemned this kind of folk Christianity quite harshly. It’s much worse than blaming one group of Pentecostals for what another group does. It’s like blaming John Piper for what Pentecostals do.

Edwin

 

[christosdavid]

It’s true that some medieval chroniclers report the story, precisely in order to express scorn for the foolish common people and their stupid Crusade. It seems likely to me that somebody did follow a goose somewhere, but if you look at the sources you see that one of them makes it sound like a very limited incident, and I suspect that the source that makes it sound more general is wildly exaggerating. Of course, it’s hard to prove this one way or the other.

Yes, indeed. And those who generalize about all charismatics/Pentecostals are wrong. But you’re doing something much worse than that. You’re generalizing about the medieval Church, when it’s quite clear from the very sources your story depends on that the folks who had power in the medieval Church condemned this kind of folk Christianity quite harshly. It’s much worse than blaming one group of Pentecostals for what another group does. It’s like blaming John Piper for what Pentecostals do.

Edwin

As far as I know the event of following the duck only happened once (there may also have been a goat) and only reflects on the level of teaching to lay people given at the time.

Theologically trained people, no matter when they lived, have a greater likelihood of avoiding such obvious blunders, but to say it says nothing would also be a mistake…

the tendency becomes clearer when we throw false relics and suchlike into the mix, even the educated elector of Saxony had a “museum” of relics that supposedly included pieces of the true cross, a feather from the Holy Spirit as well as mothers milk from Mary…

 

[Contarini]

As far as I know the event of following the duck only happened once (there may also have been a goat) and only reflects on the level of teaching to lay people given at the time.

I see. And how do you make lay people listen without massive levels of coercion (which were in fact used later, both before and after the Reformation, always with only imperfect success)? I repeat: you seem to be saying that the medieval Church wasn’t coercive enough. That or you have an extremely naive view (clearly contradicted by the state of Christianity in the modern Western world) of how much you can make sure people don’t “misunderstand” without coercion.

Theologically trained people, no matter when they lived, have a greater likelihood of avoiding such obvious blunders, but to say it says nothing would also be a mistake

Yes, it says that there was a good deal of freedom in the Middle Ages for lay people to come up with their own creative takes on Christianity.

the tendency becomes clearer when we throw false relics and suchlike into the mix, even the educated elector of Saxony had a “museum” of relics that supposedly included pieces of the true cross, a feather from the Holy Spirit as well as mothers milk from Mary…

Feather from the Holy Spirit? You really seem to have birds on the brain. That one I’m not sure about–the cross and Mary’s milk certainly were supposed to be among the elector’s relics.

Note that you have jumped more than 400 years. But you are certainly on stronger ground, since the collection of relics was approved. And you’re right that both examples show a tendency toward a very literal, concrete approach to the Faith. You can label this superstitious if you want to. I certainly question whether the Elector really had bits of the Cross or drops of milk from Mary. But I can’t see how pious notions of this sort, even if mistaken, are signs of the Church having “gone bad.”

Can you point to the time when Christianity or the Biblical religion that preceded it was “non-superstitious” (by your definition) and explain how and when it changed?

Was Christianity non-superstitious when people touched handkerchiefs to Paul’s body and put sick people in the streets so Peter’s shadow would fall on them?

Was Christianity (or apocalyptic Second Temple Judaism) non-superstitious when Jesus healed blind people with spittle?

Was Old Testament religion non-superstitious when Elisha’s dead body brought another corpse back to life? When Moses won battles by holding up his hands, and had to be propped up in order to do so (ruling out a spiritualizing of the physical gesture as a mere symbol of prayer or whatever)? When the Israelites put blood on the doorposts of their houses to ward off the death of their firstborn sons? When God talked to Moses out of a bush (surely an even odder vehicle, ontologically, than a goose, if less comical)?

To me it looks very much as if what you call “superstition” goes all the way back.

Edwin

 

[christosdavid]

I see. And how do you make lay people listen without massive levels of coercion (which were in fact used later, both before and after the Reformation, always with only imperfect success)? I repeat: you seem to be saying that the medieval Church wasn’t coercive enough. That or you have an extremely naive view (clearly contradicted by the state of Christianity in the modern Western world) of how much you can make sure people don’t “misunderstand” without coercion.

Yes, it says that there was a good deal of freedom in the Middle Ages for lay people to come up with their own creative takes on Christianity.

Feather from the Holy Spirit? You really seem to have birds on the brain. That one I’m not sure about–the cross and Mary’s milk certainly were supposed to be among the elector’s relics.

Note that you have jumped more than 400 years. But you are certainly on stronger ground, since the collection of relics was approved. And you’re right that both examples show a tendency toward a very literal, concrete approach to the Faith. You can label this superstitious if you want to. I certainly question whether the Elector really had bits of the Cross or drops of milk from Mary. But I can’t see how pious notions of this sort, even if mistaken, are signs of the Church having “gone bad.”

Can you point to the time when Christianity or the Biblical religion that preceded it was “non-superstitious” (by your definition) and explain how and when it changed?

Was Christianity non-superstitious when people touched handkerchiefs to Paul’s body and put sick people in the streets so Peter’s shadow would fall on them?

Was Christianity (or apocalyptic Second Temple Judaism) non-superstitious when Jesus healed blind people with spittle?

Was Old Testament religion non-superstitious when Elisha’s dead body brought another corpse back to life? When Moses won battles by holding up his hands, and had to be propped up in order to do so (ruling out a spiritualizing of the physical gesture as a mere symbol of prayer or whatever)? When the Israelites put blood on the doorposts of their houses to ward off the death of their firstborn sons? When God talked to Moses out of a bush (surely an even odder vehicle, ontologically, than a goose, if less comical)?

To me it looks very much as if what you call “superstition” goes all the way back.

Edwin

As you say, its all catalogued so you can check if you have the energy.

All the earliest apologists for Christianity were at great pains to demonstrate to the Roman government that we shouldnt be labeled as a superstitio

My apologies for jumping 400 years, it was merely to demonstrate that educated people were “sucked in” along with peasants.

What you are labeling superstition in the NT and OT, I would call faith, founded on revelation from God… is that what pious observance of fake relics is???

 

[johnnyjones]

surely that is just as large a sweeping statement, aimlessly is too strong for most forms of protestantism. As noted earlier in this thread Calvin held that the elect of all ages were saved by Christ, even during the period now known as the middle ages.

The truth eh? And how much of it should be published to these poor, ignorant, misguided peasants… Just ask Erasmus in his published debate with Luther… Erasmus commented that even if something is true (like election for example) it shouldn’t necessarily be taught (Freedom of the Will).

One thing that can be said for the historic protestants is that they believe that all church members should receive a theological education in the gospel.

One wonders if the church didnt “let down” thoses poor misguided peasants when they were whipped into a frenzy by peter the hermit and marched to their deaths…

A defense of the CC that doesnt acknowledge truth has no place in the defense of Jesus, HE is the truth!

What part of “people suffered” didn’t you get. People acting horrible is not the truth. The corrupt people of the Catholic church “let them down”. If Jesus is the truth (and he is) what is his church, untrue? None are righteous, not one.Yet those filled with the Holy Spirit wrote the bible, so people through God could perpetuate truth. If you tell me those church fathers didn’t belong to the first church-the Catholic church, then your into fundamentalist speculation.

 

[Contarini]

As you say, its all catalogued so you can check if you have the energy.

I don’t know what that means. It sounds as if you are saying that I ought to be documenting your claims for you, which is a demand commonly made on these forums but one I find puzzling and a little insulting. Perhaps I misunderstand you.

All the earliest apologists for Christianity were at great pains to demonstrate to the Roman government that we shouldnt be labeled as a superstitio

Yes. What did superstitio mean? The best source is Plutarch. Fundamentally his argument seems to be that superstitious people believe that “the gods exist and are evil,” and thus fear them as arbitrary and tyrannical. In other words, superstitious people place the gods outside moral laws. Pagan intellectuals did worry that Christianity was superstitious in this sense–Wilken thinks that the movement within Christianity toward belief in creation ex nihilo had something to do with this. And, of course, the Christians who insisted that Christianity wasn’t superstitious were the Christian intellectual elite, and their representations don’t always match what the Christian “masses” (insofar as there were already masses) believed. Compare, for instance, Justin Martyr or Origen with the Shepherd of Hermas or the Acts of Paul and Thekla. (Or, for a really disturbing example of superstition in Plutarch’s sense, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.)

What you are labeling superstition in the NT and OT, I would call faith, founded on revelation from God… is that what pious observance of fake relics is???

Yes, certainly. For one thing, you are assuming they were fake. That’s likely but not certain–not something I’d base any conclusions on.

For another, whether the relics were real or not, belief in their power was certainly founded on divine revelation–leaving Christian tradition aside, on the Biblical examples I have mentioned above. (And even if they were wrong in thinking that the relics were literally those of the Cross, they may not have been wrong in thinking that God worked miracles and gave spiritual blessings through them. You assume that they were wrong–but your assumption seems to me to be founded in modern Enlightenment rationalism more than in orthodox Christian faith.) You appear to be arguing that we should make “exceptions” for these specific instances because God has specifically endorsed them in Scripture. But the people who touched handkerchiefs to Paul’s body don’t seem to have had any special revelation that it was OK–not that Acts tells us anyway. They were acting out of the assumptions found in their culture–assumptions that continued to prevail in Christianity until relatively modern times (and that do still prevail in many sectors of Christianity), and which lay behind what you are disparaging as “superstition” when it occurs outside the NT.

God bless,

Edwin