The Protestant's Virgin

[Cubsfan]

Semper Fi:

A festival of the birth of the Unconquered Sun (or Dies Natalis Solis Invicti) was celebrated in the Roman Empire around the time of the winter solstice, when the duration of daylight begins to increase—a “rebirth” of the sun. It is conjectured by some to have originated with the Sol Invictus cult of the “unconquered sun”, and to have been promoted by Emperor Aurelian (270-275 CE) as a means of linking this rebirth with the perpetual renewal of the Roman Empire, even though sun-worship was not Rome’s official religion. Others conjecture that it was instituted and promoted by Aurelius as a pagan rival to the Christian celebration of Christmas.

Reference: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festival_of_the_birth_of_the_Unconquered_Sun

More than likely the early Romans took this date from Christians, not the other way around.

Sorry, but I can’t help notice that you utilized CE versus the correct AD or Anno Domini. I find it very offensive that ANYONE uses CE versus AD.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Cubsfan:

Sorry, but I can’t help notice that you utilized CE versus the correct AD or Anno Domini. I find it very offensive that ANYONE uses CE versus AD.

What are you talking about? I didn’t utilize anything except an article on Wikipedia. My point is, is that none of the so called pagan holidays that allegedly resemble Christian ones were around until Christianity so most scholars will agree that the ancient Romans probably took their dates from Christians to celebrate as an alternative to the rising Christian religion.

 

[Shlemele]

Mickey:

Have we always been right? Yes. The Holy Spirit does not lie. However, the father of lies and division made some leeway back in—oh, say about 1517

So your saying that the Catholic Church was ok to sell indulgences, that the internment and forced servitude of the indegionous poeples of the Americas (maninly by the Jesuit settlers in modern mexico and California), and the exicutions of many Protestants during and after the reformation was right? If the Catholic church had no faults during that time ther would have been no need for the Reformation or the Counter-reformation) also known as the Counter-Reformation) afterwards. Some on the have tried to say that this is simply historical facts and not church docterine. Well I’m sorry but Church-sponsored exicutions is not a sign that all is well in the church. The Catholic church has made HUGE strides since then, but the fact remains that the actions of the church can not be cast asside and swept under the rug.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Shlemele:

So your saying that the Catholic Church was ok to sell indulgences, that the internment and forced servitude of the indegionous poeples of the Americas (maninly by the Jesuit settlers in modern mexico and California), and the exicutions of many Protestants during and after the reformation was right? If the Catholic church had no faults during that time ther would have been no need for the Reformation or the Counter-reformation) also known as the Counter-Reformation) afterwards. Some on the have tried to say that this is simply historical facts and not church docterine. Well I’m sorry but Church-sponsored exicutions is not a sign that all is well in the church. The Catholic church has made HUGE strides since then, but the fact remains that the actions of the church can not be cast asside and swept under the rug.

Selling indulgences is not a doctrine of the Church, therefore the people that sold indulgences were wrong (if they really were selling them) but people being wrong does not make the Church wrong. More than likely, if there was anything bad happening when the Priest was giving indulgences (i.e. selling them), they would probably be pointless. Again, the Spaniards acting under no authority of the Church enslaved the indigenous populations. That’s like blaming all people of European descent for slavery. The logic you’re purporting just doesn’t work and any honest person would admit that. Also, I think you have to go have a look at newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm ← this in order to fully understand what an indulgence is. An indulgence is only sparing one from temporal punishment, it isn’t giving (selling) them eternal life. That’s like saying that when we give a donation at Mass, that we’re paying for Eucharist. Doesn’t add up.

 

[Shlemele]

RyanL, if I read your post correctly you are saying that unless I take the Eucharist (not available outside the Catholic church) (step 3) and spend my life afraid God will take salvation from me (step 4) I will go to hell. Steps 1,2, and 5 I Pray to be able to live up to and strive to every day (not easy in my line of work). The problem I have with your post is that it assumes that if you want to get to heaven you have to follow a set of rules. While I have no problem following the law of God I believe this is the wrong motivation. Legalism was the lie of the Pharisees, Jesus promoted a relationship. I follow my parents advise because I honor and love them, not because I am afraid of being sent to my room ( I’m 26 and married but it is good analogy, worked better in high school though). I believe nothing in world can separate us from the love of God. Can we reject Christ, yes I believe we can loose our salvation but living in fear that if I don’t say the right prayer and go to the right services is bondage to the law. Freedom in Christ is knowing we should live by these rules for our own fulfillment and happiness. Let us conceder the parable of the prodigal son. Even tough the son lived in sin, essentially told the father he was dead to him (in asking for his inheritance) and squandering his wealth the father was more interested in celebrating the return of his son than telling him how wrong he was. How would God treat us any different? He longs for those who have left him to return. A sinner shouldn’t be received with a manual to follow and a set of rules to follow lest he be kicked out, he should be celebrated as a returned son!

I have a friend who recounted a well-loved priest who has since moved on from my home town. He took one Sunday and went over the dogma of the Catholic church and every other Christian church in the city. After pointing out the differences and similarities in each church he ended in pointing out that the church holds to faith in God, repentance of sin, and baptism so this group will see heaven. I also know that the church conceders protestants and Anabaptists brother separated but still saved. Take what resources you will, I’ll go with the priests on this that their understanding of Catholic doctrine is better than that of most lay persons.

 

[Shlemele]

Semper Fi:

Again, the Spaniards acting under no authority of the Church enslaved the indigenous populations.

Being that the indigenous peoples of California built and served the Jesuit missionaries (they would be punished for leaving by mutilation). I think the church knew full well what was going on. The other Europeans did commit violence against them too but as far as slavery goes the missions were all built using Indian labor.
Semper Fi:

the people that sold indulgences were wrong (if they really were selling them) but people being wrong does not make the Church wrong.

The practice of the sale of indulgences was a big money maker for the church. The papacy didn’t have a problem with it (Luther first tried to get the Pope to stop it and only split after his correspondence was ignored. If it were an isolated case I would agree with you, what you would have is a few priests caught in a lie to an uneducated people. Since the Pope did nothing it seem like acceptance so therefore I have to assume that this was not isolated as you suggest but rather accepted by the Pope and part of that eras theology.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Shlemele:

Being that the indigenous peoples of California built and served the Jesuit missionaries (they would be punished for leaving by mutilation). I think the church knew full well what was going on. The other Europeans did commit violence against them too but as far as slavery goes the missions were all built using Indian labor.

Yeah, back then we had instant communication like we do today. No doubt that the Pope knew what one faction of the Church was doing. California is thousands of miles away from Rome, and even if the Pope knew about it, tell me exactly what he could have done if he was not right there to prevent it?

Shlemele:

The practice of the sale of indulgences was a big money maker for the church. The papacy didn’t have a problem with it (Luther first tried to get the Pope to stop it and only split after his correspondence was ignored. If it were an isolated case I would agree with you, what you would have is a few priests caught in a lie to an uneducated people. Since the Pope did nothing it seem like acceptance so therefore I have to assume that this was not isolated as you suggest but rather accepted by the Pope and part of that eras theology.

Myth 6: A person can buy indulgences.

The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, “in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions” (Catholic Encyclopedia). This act proved the Church’s seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences.

Myth 7: A person used to be able to buy indulgences.

One never could “buy” indulgences. The financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms—indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “*t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded.”

Being able to explain these seven myths will be a large step in helping others to understand indulgences. But, there are still questions to be asked:

Reference: catholic.com/library/Myths_About_Indulgences.asp

Basically, Luther would take anything he needed in order so that he could split away from the Church and go his own route. He took this spin and put it up there to see if it would fly, and guess what? It’s still working today! *

 

[Shlemele]

martien Luthor never wanted to seperate from the church, his writings support that. He wanted reform rather than division, it was others in the movement tiat finally got him to agree to split. Although the church did reform it was too little too late. The date you supply is 50 years after the start of the Reformation. Again too littel too late.

As far as indiginous poeples go I’ll concede it was proabably somthing the Pope didn’t know about but someone knew about but the ignorance of the Pope doesn’t mean that the action was aceptable. If he was concerned though about the souls of the indiginous peoples though don’t you think he would have made a statement as to their care? Again no way we can know but it goes to intent. I can’t prove he knew but you can’t prove he cared.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Shlemele:

martien Luthor never wanted to seperate from the church, his writings support that. He wanted reform rather than division, it was others in the movement tiat finally got him to agree to split. Although the church did reform it was too little too late. The date you supply is 50 years after the start of the Reformation. Again too littel too late.

As far as indiginous poeples go I’ll concede it was proabably somthing the Pope didn’t know about but someone knew about but the ignorance of the Pope doesn’t mean that the action was aceptable. If he was concerned though about the souls of the indiginous peoples though don’t you think he would have made a statement as to their care? Again no way we can know but it goes to intent. I can’t prove he knew but you can’t prove he cared.

Luther had a really bad understanding of his faith (one so bad I still have no idea why anyone would accept his theologies), he actually believed that indulgences would grant one eternal life when they never did. Also, how is giving money to the Church or to the poor (a commandment Christ instituted) EVER bad? One good action deserves another.

 

[Shlemele]

Also, how is giving money to the Church or to the poor (a commandment Christ instituted) EVER bad?

The monies mentioned in most historic texts were being collevted for one church leader to buy off another, give me a sec to find the reference. Church is one thing, to line the pockets of church leaders is QUITE another.

Pope Leo X badly needed funds for the building of St Peter’s in Rome. Archbishop Albert of Hohenzollern was badly in debt because he had borrowed money to buy the archbishoprics of Mainz and Magdeburg and the bishopric of Halberstadt. The Pope and Albert agreed that both their needs could be met by the sale of indulgences in Alberts domains. They would split the proceeds fifty-fifty.

Going to find some references on this tomorow if I have time (3am here and I’m falling asleap) I hav never seen in Luthors writings where he states that indulgences get one into heaven (he would have said they don’t do anything but mislead) He did note though that you set a bad precidence by stating that sins can be “erased” by money. Donations are one thing, buying your way out of pergatory is another.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Shlemele:

Pope Leo X badly needed funds for the building of St Peter’s in Rome. Archbishop Albert of Hohenzollern was badly in debt because he had borrowed money to buy the archbishoprics of Mainz and Magdeburg and the bishopric of Halberstadt. The Pope and Albert agreed that both their needs could be met by the sale of indulgences in Alberts domains. They would split the proceeds fifty-fifty.

I already know about that. But again, what is wrong with giving monies to build a Church for the exclusive worship of God alone? Should not people contribute to help build THEIR Church?

 

[Mickey]

Shlemele:

So your saying that the Catholic Church was ok to sell indulgences, that the internment and forced servitude of the indegionous poeples of the Americas (maninly by the Jesuit settlers in modern mexico and California), and the exicutions of many Protestants during and after the reformation was right? If the Catholic church had no faults during that time ther would have been no need for the Reformation or the Counter-reformation) also known as the Counter-Reformation) afterwards. Some on the have tried to say that this is simply historical facts and not church docterine. Well I’m sorry but Church-sponsored exicutions is not a sign that all is well in the church. The Catholic church has made HUGE strides since then, but the fact remains that the actions of the church can not be cast asside and swept under the rug.

People sin. Doctrine does not. There were plenty of executions to go around on all sides.

Once you start coming to conclusions about the Church that Christ founded, based on the individual sins of those people who have belonged to that Church throughout history, you are travelling down a dark and dusty road.

 

[Axion]

Shlemele:

So your saying that the Catholic Church was ok to sell indulgences, that the internment and forced servitude of the indegionous poeples of the Americas (maninly by the Jesuit settlers in modern mexico and California).

Excuse me?

You’ll have to produce solid references and citations for these accusations.

The Jesuits protected the South American Indians from the slavers. Missions in California and Mexico were run by the Franciscans not the Jesuits. The Franciscans set out to convert the native peoples. The protestants didn’t bother with conversion. After the protestant dominated US took over in 1846 virtually all the Indians of California were **exterminated ** within 60 years, with bounties set for their scalps

 

[scylla]

There is a reason that Mexicans predominantly have a distinct difference of appearance compared to people from the United States in general.

This is because the Indians were exterminated and segregated from the population in the United States, compared to Mexico where there was a converting of the population and a mixing of peoples.

Both sides did treat indigenous people in a negative way, but you can see an extreme difference between the United States and Mexico.

I wouldn’t accuse the Church without looking at the treatment of indigenous people by Protestants.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Shlemele:

So your saying that the Catholic Church was ok to sell indulgences, that the internment and forced servitude of the indegionous poeples of the Americas (maninly by the Jesuit settlers in modern mexico and California)

Actually, Axion has it correct. The Fransiscans settled in California were trying to protect the natives from the protestant doctrine of the time which treated them as sub-human and didn’t believe that they had to treat them as brothers under God’s laws. The first Mission in California was setup by Blessed Padre Junipero Serra. The man came over to the New World from Spain and originally taught in a university in Mexico City. He then went to California to setup a mission to protect the natives from the protestants which were colonizing the New World.

 

[Ricardo_Gomez]

Shlemele:

So your saying that the Catholic Church was ok to sell indulgences, that the internment and forced servitude of the indegionous poeples of the Americas (maninly by the Jesuit settlers in modern mexico and California), and the exicutions of many Protestants during and after the reformation was right? If the Catholic church had no faults during that time ther would have been no need for the Reformation or the Counter-reformation) also known as the Counter-Reformation) afterwards. Some on the have tried to say that this is simply historical facts and not church docterine. Well I’m sorry but Church-sponsored exicutions is not a sign that all is well in the church. The Catholic church has made HUGE strides since then, but the fact remains that the actions of the church can not be cast asside and swept under the rug.

 

[Shlemele]

Semper Fi:

Actually, Axion has it correct. The Fransiscans settled in California were trying to protect the natives from the protestant doctrine of the time which treated them as sub-human and didn’t believe that they had to treat them as brothers under God’s laws. The first Mission in California was setup by Blessed Padre Junipero Serra. The man came over to the New World from Spain and originally taught in a university in Mexico City. He then went to California to setup a mission to protect the natives from the protestants which were colonizing the New World.

The Cherokee indians in the south would be a controdicion to this statement. Many were taken as full citiezens and the Cherokee nation was seen as a sovern nation within the state. It was a presadential order, not one of any protestant church that ordered the Trail of tears. If not for an execuitive decision by Andrew Jackson they would have stayed on land owned by the Cherokee nation.

 

[WynCatholic]

Shlemele:

Being that the indigenous peoples of California built and served the Jesuit missionaries (they would be punished for leaving by mutilation).

Source??? Didn’t I see something about this in one of those “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” episodes?

 

[Shlemele]

WynCatholic:

Source??? Didn’t I see something about this in one of those “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” episodes?

sigh no that would be good enough for most, but I live in Cali. I have been to the missions, seen the quarters for the Indians and seen the branding Irons used for the first offence. An indian who ran away from a mission would first recieve a brand, then have a more severe punishment, usualy lashings, then after a third attempt depended on the mission. The mission was San Juan Bautista if memory serves.

I’ll bow out of this thread with that. It’s obvious most would rather poke fun that engage in debate.

 

[Peace-bwu]

Semper Fi:

What are you talking about? I didn’t utilize anything except an article on Wikipedia. My point is, is that none of the so called pagan holidays that allegedly resemble Christian ones were around until Christianity so most scholars will agree that the ancient Romans probably took their dates from Christians to celebrate as an alternative to the rising Christian religion.

this seems way off topic… from the original thread start. I am sure there are many threads on this topic you can add to.