C
Church_Militant
Guest
Catholic Church.Or you could have been well and truly deceived away from the Catholic faith. I know I was. The people didn’t even know it but that’s precisely what they did.
Was the Bible forbidden in the Middle Ages, as some have claimed?
- Status
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Because the Church of Christ is much more than just Rome. The Church is a community of believers which extend much further than that.
Here is a historical prespective of the Catholic Church:
history-world.org/roman_catholicism.htm
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I also like to add that the Catholic Church is the early Church because the first Pope is Peter.
There are those who contend that Peter couldn’t have been the bishop of Rome because he was never in Rome. This of course runs contrary to the testimony of the Early Fathers.
Dionysius of Corinth
You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time (Letter to Soter of Rome [inter A.D. 166 -174] as recorded by Eusebius).
Irenaeus
Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter (Against Heresies 3:1:1 [A.D. 189]).
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the Gospel and even sealed it with their blood (Against Marcion 4:5:1 [inter A.D. 207-212]).
Eusebius
The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42 [A.D. 303]).
When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed. Having composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had requested it (Ecclesiastical History 6:14:1 [A.D. 325]).
Peter of Alexandria
Peter, the first chosen of the Apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome (Canonical Letter, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).
Lactantius
When Nero was already reigning Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero, he noticed that not only at Rome but everywhere great multitudes were daily abandoning the worship of idols, and, condemning their old ways, were going over to the new religion. Being that he was a detestable and pernicious tyrant, he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter, he fixed to a cross; and Paul, he slew (The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5 [inter A.D. 316-320]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
[Simon Magus] so deceived the City of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him, and wrote beneath it in the language of the Romans Simoni Deo Sancto, which is translated To the Holy God Simon. While the error was extending itself Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church; and they set the error aright… for Peter was there, he that carries about the keys of heaven (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).
There are those who contend that Peter couldn’t have been the bishop of Rome because he was never in Rome. This of course runs contrary to the testimony of the Early Fathers.
Dionysius of Corinth
You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time (Letter to Soter of Rome [inter A.D. 166 -174] as recorded by Eusebius).
Irenaeus
Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter (Against Heresies 3:1:1 [A.D. 189]).
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the Gospel and even sealed it with their blood (Against Marcion 4:5:1 [inter A.D. 207-212]).
Eusebius
The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42 [A.D. 303]).
When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed. Having composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had requested it (Ecclesiastical History 6:14:1 [A.D. 325]).
Peter of Alexandria
Peter, the first chosen of the Apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome (Canonical Letter, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).
Lactantius
When Nero was already reigning Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero, he noticed that not only at Rome but everywhere great multitudes were daily abandoning the worship of idols, and, condemning their old ways, were going over to the new religion. Being that he was a detestable and pernicious tyrant, he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter, he fixed to a cross; and Paul, he slew (The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5 [inter A.D. 316-320]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
[Simon Magus] so deceived the City of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him, and wrote beneath it in the language of the Romans Simoni Deo Sancto, which is translated To the Holy God Simon. While the error was extending itself Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church; and they set the error aright… for Peter was there, he that carries about the keys of heaven (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
Ask a simple question and you get simplistic answers. Was the Bible forbidden in the Middle Ages? No. Am I incapable of remembering the number of times I have seen this question asked in religious tracts? No. You do realize that these same religious tracts “glorify” the Albigensians/Cathars because they “translated” the Bible or Wycliff because he “translated” the Bible (funny how Alfred the Great never gets mentioned for his efforts in translation to old English). Simple answers. Buzz words. Slogans.
Old Scholar - your disdain for scholarship saddens me. It reminds me of that lamentable period of time in American history when the “Know Nothing” Party was in action against Catholic immigration from Europe. Simple answers. Buzz words. Slogans. The Irish depicted in editorial cartoons of the period as monkeys.
People are doing their level headed best to explain to you why your question should be answered “no” and you restort to ridiculing scholarship. You asked your question expecting simplistic answers. You argue things like Scripture never says St.Peter was in Rome (No, and he is not buried under the main altar of St. Peter’s either). Of course Scripture never says that St. Thomas was in India or that St. James went to Hispania but that pesky thing we Catholics have called “tradition” and “sacred tradition” does.
You mention these Councils and degrees in which ostensibly Scripture was banned in the Middle Ages. Surely, if this were the case, the overwhelming majority of us would know about it. The only time I have seen such things uttered are in protestant tracts in which the Cathars, Wycliff, etc. are honored because they “translated” the Bible. Bumper sticker: “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.” Ignore what the Cathars and Wycliff actually taught; the only thing that matters is that they were proto-protestants and fought the Magesterium and we all know that the Magesterium banned the Bible - despite the utter truth that the vast majority of people in the Middle Ages COULD NOT READ.
Can you please respect that one simple statement? Can you also please respect the stained glass windows of the Middle Ages which were there to provide a visual clue to the people who could not read?
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
If you are being so bold as to deny what I posted with the references, then it is incumbent upon you to show where I am wrong. Show me the quotes that don’t say what I posted…Prove the Roman Catholic Church did not have a concerted effort to keep the common man from reading the Bible…
And then please show me where I said I held Cathars and Albigensians in high honor…?
T
teadough
Guest
I am confused. Are you saying the Catholic Church is becoming liberal?
in regards to what church you belong to you said
You are the one that stated that your church is the church of the early christians so for the purpose of this forum it is extremely relevant to your fellow christians. Also, it puts you on fair playing field
C
cfrancis
Guest
That’s odd…you’re the one who claims it wasn’t until Revelation that “Babylon” was used as code for “Rome.” Are you now changing the terms of your argument to fit the situation?
Which Church was the first to translate the Bible into the vernacular? As you are the “Old Scholar” this shouldn’t be too tough for you!
I believe you teach the canon of Scripture - which, as you know and admit, is not found in Scripture. Do you then apply the same logic to the canon?
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
**The Council of Tarragona of 1234, in its second canon, ruled that:
“No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned lest, be he a cleric or a layman, he be suspected until he is cleared of all suspicion.”
“It is dangerous, as St. Jerome declares, to translate the text of Holy Scriptures out of one idiom into another, since it is not easy in translations to preserve exactly the same meaning in all things. We therefore command and ordain that henceforth no one translate the text of Holy Scripture into English or any other language as a book, booklet, or tract, of this kind lately made in the time of the said John Wyclif or since, or that hereafter may be made, either in part or wholly, either publicly or privately, under pain of excommunication, until such translation shall have been approved and allowed by the Provincial Council. He who shall act otherwise let him be punished as an abettor of heresy and error.”**
OK, Old Scholar here we go. Just how many copies of “the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance Language” do you think there were? And if they were, be they in Catelan or Languedoc, don’t you think they were Cathar/Albigensian translations. (Six hundred pound gorilla steps out - Do you know what the Cathars/Albigensians preached? You accept this? Simply because they “translated” the Bible?)
Whichever site you copied these quotes from messed up really badly. Wycliff came some 100+ years after the Cathars/Albegensians so you have a really mean historical paradox to deal with. (Six hundred pound gorilla steps out again - Do you know what Wycliff and the Lollards preached? You accept this? Simply because they “translated” the Bible?)
**
Given St. Jerome’s statement (which you posted) and in light of the 600 pound gorilla knuckle walking in your midst, tell me Old Scholar - do you accept what the Cathars/Albegensians and Lollards taught? This is a critical point to my argument and I would appreciate a straight answer.
“No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned lest, be he a cleric or a layman, he be suspected until he is cleared of all suspicion.”
“It is dangerous, as St. Jerome declares, to translate the text of Holy Scriptures out of one idiom into another, since it is not easy in translations to preserve exactly the same meaning in all things. We therefore command and ordain that henceforth no one translate the text of Holy Scripture into English or any other language as a book, booklet, or tract, of this kind lately made in the time of the said John Wyclif or since, or that hereafter may be made, either in part or wholly, either publicly or privately, under pain of excommunication, until such translation shall have been approved and allowed by the Provincial Council. He who shall act otherwise let him be punished as an abettor of heresy and error.”**
OK, Old Scholar here we go. Just how many copies of “the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance Language” do you think there were? And if they were, be they in Catelan or Languedoc, don’t you think they were Cathar/Albigensian translations. (Six hundred pound gorilla steps out - Do you know what the Cathars/Albigensians preached? You accept this? Simply because they “translated” the Bible?)
Whichever site you copied these quotes from messed up really badly. Wycliff came some 100+ years after the Cathars/Albegensians so you have a really mean historical paradox to deal with. (Six hundred pound gorilla steps out again - Do you know what Wycliff and the Lollards preached? You accept this? Simply because they “translated” the Bible?)
**
**
Given St. Jerome’s statement (which you posted) and in light of the 600 pound gorilla knuckle walking in your midst, tell me Old Scholar - do you accept what the Cathars/Albegensians and Lollards taught? This is a critical point to my argument and I would appreciate a straight answer.
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
**
Last time I looked, the year 1559 was included in the late Renaissance and not the Middle Ages. Of course, yes, I know, scholarship is not what it used to be.
**
I see the word “books”. Don’t see the word Bible. By this time there were books. Hmmm, must mean books not the Bible.
**
Translations. Hmm, the Magesterium is questioning translations. (That 600 pound gorilla once again steps out) Can we say Cathar, Albegensian, Lollard?
Unless I miss my guess, the Vulgate translated by St. Jerome was OK. What was in question was the translations of the others. There’s that pesky Magesterium sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong or did it?
**
Last time I looked, the year 1559 was included in the late Renaissance and not the Middle Ages. Of course, yes, I know, scholarship is not what it used to be.
**
**
I see the word “books”. Don’t see the word Bible. By this time there were books. Hmmm, must mean books not the Bible.
**
**
Translations. Hmm, the Magesterium is questioning translations. (That 600 pound gorilla once again steps out) Can we say Cathar, Albegensian, Lollard?
Unless I miss my guess, the Vulgate translated by St. Jerome was OK. What was in question was the translations of the others. There’s that pesky Magesterium sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong or did it?
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
Mannyfit75
**
Well you said something I could certainly agree with. Do I detect an epistemological paradigm shift, especially since you posted the historical prespective of the Catholic Curch as you did.
I have taken the liberty of changing your words to red to show that your epistemics are improving.
Do you not see the irony in that?**
**
**
Well you said something I could certainly agree with. Do I detect an epistemological paradigm shift, especially since you posted the historical prespective of the Catholic Curch as you did.
I have taken the liberty of changing your words to red to show that your epistemics are improving.
**Now the significance of this is that you posted a history from a Roman Catholic Source, and it agrees with what I have been posting on this thread ever since it started.
Do you not see the irony in that?**
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
Because of space limitations, I am answering this in the next post…
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
Mannyfit75continued
**It would seem natural that the fathers would make such a claim; written so long after the fact and after the church had already claimed a primacy for Peter that can not be proven by Scripture. Notice that none of them give any real facts to support their writings. Where are the writings of the apostles that lived when Peter did? And where are the writings of those who followed and knew Peter that say he was there? How about Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas,
So you claim that Peter was in Rome for 25 years…
Well he was in Jerusalem at about 40 A.D. because Acts places him there. Then we are told he was at Antioch, this is is Pisidia in Syria, north of Damascus and then we are told he was in Jerusalem in approximately 51 A.D. for the council. Then Peter writes from Babylon in 60 A.D.
Scripture doesn’t give us even a hint that Peter was ever in Rome, or that he even thought of going there. In 51 A.D., a decision was made that Paul would preach to the gentiles and Peter to the Jews. In case you don’t realize it, Rome was a gentile city and the small churches there were all gentiles.
We also have Paul’s writings from Rome that never mention Peter and his writing TO** Rome that do not address Peter, yet he addresses practically everyone he knows there. It is not likely Peter was ever in Rome, it was Paul’s territory.
Shouldn’t we believe those closest to Paul and Peter and what they wrote? Clement wrote about both Peter and Paul and the fact that they were both martyred. Clement says:
Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.?
That’s all Clement has to say about Peter, and his death. He says he died a martyr. He does not say where or by whom.
But when he writes of Paul, Clement says, in the same paragraph:
Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned.? After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects.?
He is saying Paul preached in the East and West, he did not say that about Peter. He says Paul died in the West, he does not say that about Peter. He says Paul was martyred by the Prefects. He does not say that about Peter. We all know the prefects were the Roman governors. Clement says explicitly that Paul was killed but makes no mention of how Peter died. He says he was martyred but that does not necessarily mean death. I personally do believe he was killed then but the fact is that Clement does not tell us that but he does tell us Paul died by martyrdom.
We have writings of Ignatius who died a horrible martyrdom by the Romans but when he mentions Peter and Paul, he does not mention where they died. He says:
I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were Apostles; I am but a condemned man:? they were free, while I am, even until now, a servant.?
If those who knew Peter and Paul didn’t tell us more about them, how can we believe what writers hundreds of years later said? They had already begun the process of trying to link the episcopate of the church back to Peter and had a very good reason to try and place him in Rome.
I mentioned this in another thread on this forum, but if Peter had been in Rome, would not the Scriptures have said something about it? Why do the Scriptures totally ignore the primacy claimed for Peter, and in fact deny such primacy, and never put him in Rome?
It’s really a simple answer. He was never there and did not hold anything special other than the rest of the apostles.
**It would seem natural that the fathers would make such a claim; written so long after the fact and after the church had already claimed a primacy for Peter that can not be proven by Scripture. Notice that none of them give any real facts to support their writings. Where are the writings of the apostles that lived when Peter did? And where are the writings of those who followed and knew Peter that say he was there? How about Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas,
So you claim that Peter was in Rome for 25 years…
Well he was in Jerusalem at about 40 A.D. because Acts places him there. Then we are told he was at Antioch, this is is Pisidia in Syria, north of Damascus and then we are told he was in Jerusalem in approximately 51 A.D. for the council. Then Peter writes from Babylon in 60 A.D.
Scripture doesn’t give us even a hint that Peter was ever in Rome, or that he even thought of going there. In 51 A.D., a decision was made that Paul would preach to the gentiles and Peter to the Jews. In case you don’t realize it, Rome was a gentile city and the small churches there were all gentiles.
We also have Paul’s writings from Rome that never mention Peter and his writing TO** Rome that do not address Peter, yet he addresses practically everyone he knows there. It is not likely Peter was ever in Rome, it was Paul’s territory.
Shouldn’t we believe those closest to Paul and Peter and what they wrote? Clement wrote about both Peter and Paul and the fact that they were both martyred. Clement says:
Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.?
That’s all Clement has to say about Peter, and his death. He says he died a martyr. He does not say where or by whom.
But when he writes of Paul, Clement says, in the same paragraph:
Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned.? After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects.?
He is saying Paul preached in the East and West, he did not say that about Peter. He says Paul died in the West, he does not say that about Peter. He says Paul was martyred by the Prefects. He does not say that about Peter. We all know the prefects were the Roman governors. Clement says explicitly that Paul was killed but makes no mention of how Peter died. He says he was martyred but that does not necessarily mean death. I personally do believe he was killed then but the fact is that Clement does not tell us that but he does tell us Paul died by martyrdom.
We have writings of Ignatius who died a horrible martyrdom by the Romans but when he mentions Peter and Paul, he does not mention where they died. He says:
I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were Apostles; I am but a condemned man:? they were free, while I am, even until now, a servant.?
If those who knew Peter and Paul didn’t tell us more about them, how can we believe what writers hundreds of years later said? They had already begun the process of trying to link the episcopate of the church back to Peter and had a very good reason to try and place him in Rome.
I mentioned this in another thread on this forum, but if Peter had been in Rome, would not the Scriptures have said something about it? Why do the Scriptures totally ignore the primacy claimed for Peter, and in fact deny such primacy, and never put him in Rome?
It’s really a simple answer. He was never there and did not hold anything special other than the rest of the apostles.
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
Strange…that quote doesn’t mention Babylon.
It wasn’t a church, it was the Jewish people and it was called the LXX.
You must be thinking of another thread.
C
cfrancis
Guest
You originally asked:
While your reply is cute, evading the question in its context is disingenuous.
You originally declared:
I replied:
To which you replied:
Now, is it or is it not your position that “Babylon” in Revelation is code for “Rome”?
You originally challenged:To which I asked:
You stated:
While your reply is cute, evading the question in its context is disingenuous.
It now appears your idea of what is the “Bible” is more flexible than I ever imagined.
You originally declared:To determine how evenly you apply your logic, I asked:
You replied:
Nope - you made the statement in this thread - do you apply your logic equally or not?
Z
Zooey
Guest
[SIGN]Bestsmileys.com
http://bestsmileys.com/nono/3.gifYou cannot seriously mean this…
OK, you do mean it?
*]How about you run on out & catch a http://bestsmileys.com/biting/1.gif goose, pull a feather out of its, ummm, its derriere, whittle it to a point,then
*]whomp up ahttp://bestsmileys.com/cooking/10.gif batch of ink from all the various chemical components thereof, and then
*]go back outside &http://bestsmileys.com/violent/17.gif kill the goat, prepare its hide, and then
*]sit down by the “light” of a smallish pool ofhttp://bestsmileys.com/fire/1.gif burning oil in a wee pan, and
*]proceed to http://bestsmileys.com/writer/1.gifwrite out a [legible!!] copy of the Bible by hand.
I will meet you back here, in a few years, to discuss the experience. I will even pop for the special magnifying & lighting equipment you will need, by that time, to even see the bluidy computer screen, after all thehttp://bestsmileys.com/eyes/10.gif of those years…
Brother Hrolf is a calligrapher, laddie. You have fond dreams of such “simplicity”, but ye have** no** sense of what is truly involved.You have none at all.
G
GKC
Guest
As I often suggest, to start: HENRY VIII by J. J. Scarisbrick. The standard bio, supplanting Pollard’s and going well beyond it.
And (you’re bound to recommend it) Duffy’s THE STRIPPING OF THE ALTARS.
And lots more.
Oh, and Elizabeth had a moderate interest in religion. But her main interest was in how it would affect her kingdom. The Elizabethan compromise was her solution. Anglicans live within it until this day (well, until about 30 years ago, anyway).
GKC
Anglicanus Catholicus
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
My dear Lady Z - I couldn’t have said it better myself. That 600 pound gorilla is at it again suggesting now that writing with a quill is the same as writing with a Bic.
As an aside, I don’t think that brother Old Scholar has any idea about how geese feel when getting their left flight feathers plucked (I’m right handed and have to use the left feather). Or the effects of Titivulus in the medieval scriptorium. Nope. It’s that clean white handy dandy view of history which ignores the warts and dirt and every other thing our ancestors had to endure.
Oh how much better off we would all be if the Magesterium hadn’t stuck its nose into sola scriptura.
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
GKC, are you over in the Old Country or elsewhere? Michael Wood has this really, really interesting program about Shakespeare on the US PBS station. Normally, we get them after y’all have seen them. Shakespeare and Catholicism.
My patron saint, BTW, is St. Dunstan of Cantwaraburh. Gotta love a monk (later Archbishop) who can grab the nose of Satan with his blacksmith tongs. How many remember that his name was cried at Hastings as a battle cry? This dual nature of being Saxon and, at the same time, being a Celt and Irish is confusing to say the least. To be of English ancestry and Catholic to boot is every bit as outrageous as being Scot and Catholic to boot I’ve got 'em both.
It’s not a case of either/or but a case of both/and. DW’s folks were Scot/English yeoman stock in Catholic south Louisiana. DW’s momma converted to Catholicism
Old Scholar - you didn’t start this thread. I live amongst protestants. My city doesn’t even have a Catholic church although I am 25 miles from the Catholic cathedral in Baton Rouge and 75 miles from St. Louis Cathedral in New Orleans. I have the “been there; done that” badge of all Catholics who move to protestant lands. I had to console my two sons who tried to go “trick or treating” on our street 16 years ago. I live in an overwhelmingly protestant area. I can see a “sola scriptura” argument coming from way out of left field. I also have to say that I am a Catholic who lived and worked in Baton Rouge when Jimmy Swaggert was at his apogee.
I’m not making this up. The very first book I got my hands on was Karl Keating’s Catholicsim and Fundamentalism. I’m not making that up nor am I “sucking up”. I had Jimmy Swaggert proponents blasting me to my face. I had a co-worker (a professional) who brought in Lorrain Boetner’s Roman Catholicism.
There are others here on this forum who can address the scripture stuff. I am not one of them. I saw enough in Boettner and in the “gar-bage” that brother Jimmy put out that my calling was history. My apologetics are history.
G
GKC
Guest
Ave, Frater,
“GKC, are you over in the Old Country or elsewhere? Michael Wood has this really, really interesting program about Shakespeare on the US PBS station. Normally, we get them after y’all have seen them. Shakespeare and Catholicism”.
No, sir. I’m about 1000 miles east (sort of) of you, surrounded by around 20,000 books, the fruits of my hobby (or my folly). Though, truth to tell, I’m separated from about 95% of them now, in the midst of a slow motion move.
Such a program would interest me greatly. Tonight, it’s dinosaurs; I’d take the Bard.
It is ironic that, a couple of years ago, I was engaged in an exchange somewhat like this, involving both the idea of forbidding the Bible (Toulouse, Trent), and of the Albigensians. My opposite side was, of all things, just what I am, a Continuing Anglican. My position was not quite yours, on the Bible reading, but near enough. And on the Albigensians, I had no trouble showing that they were less a heresy than another religion entirely.
You and I might differ on this or that in history, but I think we do read it.
Pax.
GKC
Anglicanus Catholicus
“GKC, are you over in the Old Country or elsewhere? Michael Wood has this really, really interesting program about Shakespeare on the US PBS station. Normally, we get them after y’all have seen them. Shakespeare and Catholicism”.
No, sir. I’m about 1000 miles east (sort of) of you, surrounded by around 20,000 books, the fruits of my hobby (or my folly). Though, truth to tell, I’m separated from about 95% of them now, in the midst of a slow motion move.
Such a program would interest me greatly. Tonight, it’s dinosaurs; I’d take the Bard.
It is ironic that, a couple of years ago, I was engaged in an exchange somewhat like this, involving both the idea of forbidding the Bible (Toulouse, Trent), and of the Albigensians. My opposite side was, of all things, just what I am, a Continuing Anglican. My position was not quite yours, on the Bible reading, but near enough. And on the Albigensians, I had no trouble showing that they were less a heresy than another religion entirely.
You and I might differ on this or that in history, but I think we do read it.
Pax.
GKC
Anglicanus Catholicus
G
GKC
Guest
Dup. post
- Status