Was the Bible forbidden in the Middle Ages, as some have claimed?

[Old_Scholar]

BrotherHrolf post 423

And let me remind you that while this is not an Academic forum, you are blythely passing references off as “scholarly”; telling other Catholics that their references are “biased”; and espousing such historical “garbage” as to send one’s head to twisting. I am not attacking you personally. I am questioning your methodology which would not stand in any college classroom of which I have been a part. I’m not sorry. I have an obligation to all those Catholic young people who frequent this forum to see that they get historically correct information.

Again, this is not a college classroom. At least I gave references. You claim to know so much but then refer me to where I can buy a book. Do you see any “bias” in that? And when did I say I was actually a Scholar? Have I not said before on this forum that I am a lay theologian? Do you believe that all those on this forum are young and do not know much about religion? From your statement, I gathered you were saying that. I have found some very knowledgeable people on these forums and have learned a great deal from them. Perhaps you should read it more.(By the way the definition of scholar is one who is a student or one who has won a scholarship. Check your dictionary.) I have claimed to be a student of the Bible many times on this forum.

You are saying that young Catholic people frequent this forum and then blame me for using the name “Old Scholar.” Where are all your references that prove what you are saying? Mine were certainly valid and even if you don’t agree with those who wrote them, the books have not been shown to be false.

I have bachelor’s degrees in both history and anthropology. I have a master’s degree in anthropology and lack but a year of work to earn a master’s degree in history. I can navigate my way through any library or reference material you care to throw my way. I have an index drawer full of reference from my thesis which was written before we had computers.

Well it’s nice you have degrees, but I don’t want to get into a matching contest of degrees, I suspect you may lose because you say you are still working on your masters and not yet a Phd. And by the way, maybe you should put “old’” in front of your name as you said you wrote your thesis prior to computers and I used my first one in 1968. If I remember correctly, it was an IBM 360 and took up an entire room but did not have the capability of a Commodore 64. That was 40 years ago—good luck on your masters…

About the Albigenses, I said: “The Albigensian “heresy” brought about the civilization, the literature, the national existence of the most opulent and enlightened part of the great European family. It is because of their oppression and persecution of the RCC that there is little on record of them.” That was a quote from John T. Christian, Romanism or Americanism, Which? volume 1, page 60-61.

That does not refer to a Renaissance, although that is the term you used. As you suggested I do, perhaps you could buy his book in order to check the reference.

Why don’t you give me the Roman Catholic version of what happened and what the Albigenses taught. Along with references of course.

We are discussing history, sir, not theology and yes, interpretations of history can be outdated. The histories of the American Civil War which were published in the South immediately after the War and going up to the Centennial years are now subject to commentary from historians of today. And guess what, they are biased and guess what, the two books you referenced are biased as well and not up to historical standards of today.

Now this one surprises me, coming from such a learned one. You are saying that as time goes along, history books are updated to fit the times…is that what you meant to say? It was you who complained about me giving a reference 75 years old. I’m sorry I couldn’t find a newer one for you.

Because, I’m not advocating drecht as history. You are. I have no need to cite RCC references. The references I cited were by secular historians which, had you bothered to investigate, you would have found that they are noted historians at secular universitities. I was extremely careful to show you, sir, that there ARE secular references out there that refute what you have said.

Oh, and BTW, for your information, citing an Internet article is not generally acceptable in Academe today. (My wife accepts them for Freshman essays because the kids haven’t learned how to use a library yet), I am more than willing to debate this entire thing with you,sir, but you had better climb down from your high-horse of condescendsion.

It is important to note, that you listed only links and to internet articles at that. You didn’t list anything to refute what I said, just links to information that I suppose refutes my position and in several cases, I must go buy a book to see what is there. Is that a proper way to have a dialog?

If you want to debate, at least list whatever it is you have that refutes what I say. Don’t just give a link, especially to an internet site, which you just said was not the thing to do.

As for the high horse, I can’t find the word you listed in the dictionary so I guess I don’t know what kind of horse I am on. Could you guide me to that one? I think you really meant condecension.

I really wish I had the time to debate you but I must warn you I would not do so unless you would list your references, word by word and then give me a way to check them. That’s the way this works.
Unfortunately we are in the process of remodeling our home and there will be many days in the next two weeks I have no computer access. I will be able to use my lap-top occasionally but not very often. After that time, then bring it on. If it doesn’t fit this thread, then you may start a new one or better yet, let me start one. I have a lot of questions…

 

[Old_Scholar]

Cats and dogs posted:

If obligatory abstention from marital sexual union is virtuous then yes they were virtuous. But for a sola-scriptura group they were definitely anti-Scripture on this one, least it is difficult to see how one should ‘go forth and multiply’ if celibacy within the marital union is the expected norm!

I feel certain you will be glad to list a reference for what you just said???

The CC is so vast its members inevitably consist of the good the bad and the indifferent. So too with most mainstream Protestant denoms and non-Christian religious groups. But Christ did say He came not for the virtuous but for the sick as the virtuous had no need of a phycian. This is the teachings of Christ. When I was required to go into a court of law, I refused to take an oath on the Bible as I believed it to an immoral abuse of the Church’s Holy Book.

It is universally accepted that to kill is wrong. The CC is particularly emphatic about this, hence such staunch defence of the unborn.

In my experience the Church does ot persecute but seek only to reconcile man to God. Social constructivism is not a religious obligation. But this is what successive Popes have been very vocal on the world stage about, critizing regimes who do not work for the common good.

Well it is difficult to see how we could celebrate the Mass without a Priest. Mass has been celebrated since the foundation of Christianity. By the end of the first century AD the Mass was already an established standard form of worship. Pope St Sixtus decreed as early as 115 that ‘only ordained Priests should touch the sacred vessels that contained the Sacred Elements’. He also introduced the Sanctus into the Mass. This also testifies to belief in the Real Presence from the first century.

As for a sola-scriptura group saying there is no need for the Sacraments, they clearly did not know their Bible that well, else they would have been aware of Lk 22:19; Jn 20:23; Js 5:14;Mt 19:6! These are among the passages of Scripture which teach about the Sacraments.

It is hardly surprising they angered the Pope when they taught that it was wrong for husband and wife to have marital sex.

But of greater depravity was their teachings that suicide was an ideal to aspire to, particularly encouraging parents to kill their children before killing themselves. Small wonder the Pope was angry at such obscenty.

Again, please furnish a reference…

This just does not deserve a response. It is pure fiction and historically incorrect.

It is interesting Cats and Dogs says 'there was no heresy to the Sciptures. Where in Sacred Scripture is it taught that ritual suicide is an ideal to aspire to? Where is it taught that parents should win God’s favour by performing human sacrifices?

I suggest that much of the demise of this group had more to do with them wiping themselves out as any act by an outside force.
A group which encourages simple folk to kill their children and then kill themselves is sick perverse and warped. Small wonder the CC acted and acted swiftly. It would not be the CC that I know love an cherish had it acted any differently.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Oh, pish, tosh! What are your credentials Hisalone? I’ve given mine. Let’s get our priorities straight, shall we. You have become the advocate for Old Scholar. How do I know you are not Old Scholar under a new name. Should I question the mods?

That would be against the rules as I understand them…

 

[brotherhrolf]

BrotherHrolf post 423

Again, this is not a college classroom. At least I gave references. You claim to know so much but then refer me to where I can buy a book. Do you see any “bias” in that? And when did I say I was actually a Scholar? Have I not said before on this forum that I am a lay theologian? Do you believe that all those on this forum are young and do not know much about religion? From your statement, I gathered you were saying that. I have found some very knowledgeable people on these forums and have learned a great deal from them. Perhaps you should read it more.(By the way the definition of scholar is one who is a student or one who has won a scholarship. Check your dictionary.) I have claimed to be a student of the Bible many times on this forum.

You are saying that young Catholic people frequent this forum and then blame me for using the name “Old Scholar.” Where are all your references that prove what you are saying? Mine were certainly valid and even if you don’t agree with those who wrote them, the books have not been shown to be false.

Well it’s nice you have degrees, but I don’t want to get into a matching contest of degrees, I suspect you may lose because you say you are still working on your masters and not yet a Phd. And by the way, maybe you should put “old’” in front of your name as you said you wrote your thesis prior to computers and I used my first one in 1968. If I remember correctly, it was an IBM 360 and took up an entire room but did not have the capability of a Commodore 64. That was 40 years ago—good luck on your masters…

About the Albigenses, I said: “The Albigensian “heresy” brought about the civilization, the literature, the national existence of the most opulent and enlightened part of the great European family. It is because of their oppression and persecution of the RCC that there is little on record of them.” That was a quote from John T. Christian, Romanism or Americanism, Which? volume 1, page 60-61.

That does not refer to a Renaissance, although that is the term you used. As you suggested I do, perhaps you could buy his book in order to check the reference.

Why don’t you give me the Roman Catholic version of what happened and what the Albigenses taught. Along with references of course.

Now this one surprises me, coming from such a learned one. You are saying that as time goes along, history books are updated to fit the times…is that what you meant to say? It was you who complained about me giving a reference 75 years old. I’m sorry I couldn’t find a newer one for you.

It is important to note, that you listed only links and to internet articles at that. You didn’t list anything to refute what I said, just links to information that I suppose refutes my position and in several cases, I must go buy a book to see what is there. Is that a proper way to have a dialog?

If you want to debate, at least list whatever it is you have that refutes what I say. Don’t just give a link, especially to an internet site, which you just said was not the thing to do.

As for the high horse, I can’t find the word you listed in the dictionary so I guess I don’t know what kind of horse I am on. Could you guide me to that one? I think you really meant condecension.

I really wish I had the time to debate you but I must warn you I would not do so unless you would list your references, word by word and then give me a way to check them. That’s the way this works.
Unfortunately we are in the process of remodeling our home and there will be many days in the next two weeks I have no computer access. I will be able to use my lap-top occasionally but not very often. After that time, then bring it on. If it doesn’t fit this thread, then you may start a new one or better yet, let me start one. I have a lot of questions…

Old Scholar - I have put my money where my mouth is and have ordered several books from Amazon which should arrive shortly. In the meantime I have been in contact with one of our oldest friends who happens to be an assistant professor of history at a local state university (whom I’m sure you’ll find some reason to pooh-pooh). He reminded me of something that I had forgotten…the connection between the Cathars and Manichism/Zorastrianism.

So, cool your heels and be patient. You will have your references in abundance and then some…and you are not going to like it. And, Hisalone, there are extant manuscripts from the Cathars, I’ve got the references to the manuscripts and am endeavoring to track them down to secular resources so that I won’t be accused of using outdated and biased Catholic references.

And I had a long conversation with my boss who is an ordained SBC minister with congregation. He is searching his text books to see what Baptist resources I might bring into play. I won’t give away my “hand” so to speak but what he had to say was really enlightening.

And PS, Old Scholar - short of sending you my books to prove my point how exactly am I supposed to give you references? Did you know I learned how to program that computer you referenced using the graphite panels and wires in high school? :tsktsk:

Pardon me, but that response was just so…lame.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Old Scholar - I have put my money where my mouth is and have ordered several books from Amazon which should arrive shortly. In the meantime I have been in contact with one of our oldest friends who happens to be an assistant professor of history at a local state university (whom I’m sure you’ll find some reason to pooh-pooh). He reminded me of something that I had forgotten…the connection between the Cathars and Manichism/Zorastrianism.

So, cool your heels and be patient. You will have your references in abundance and then some…and you are not going to like it. And, Hisalone, there are extant manuscripts from the Cathars, I’ve got the references to the manuscripts and am endeavoring to track them down to secular resources so that I won’t be accused of using outdated and biased Catholic references.

And I had a long conversation with my boss who is an ordained SBC minister with congregation. He is searching his text books to see what Baptist resources I might bring into play. I won’t give away my “hand” so to speak but what he had to say was really enlightening.

And PS, Old Scholar - short of sending you my books to prove my point how exactly am I supposed to give you references? Did you know I learned how to program that computer you referenced using the graphite panels and wires in high school? :tsktsk:

Pardon me, but that response was just so…lame.

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/mittelgrosse/medium-smiley-074.gif

 

[Claudius]

Claudius

I believe I did this on this thread but it could have been another thread on this forum so I will post the information again.

We won’t even go back to the early years, because the church carefully guarded the books and did not even want to allow anyone to have copies. However, the many Churches of Christ that existed outside the Catholic Church had many copies.

In 1229, the *Council of Toulouse *banned all copies of the Bible in the vulgar tongue. In Canon 1, they ordered bishops and priests to seek out and search all houses looking for such books. Then they destroyed the houses when books were found in accordance with Canon 6.

In Canon 14, they forbade the laity of possession of the books of the Old Testament and the New Testament.

The *Council of Tarragona *in 1234 ruled that no one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the romance language and if they did possess such books they were to turn them over to the local bishop within eight days so that they may be burned.

They commanded that no one translate the text of Holy Scripture into English or any other language as a book, booklet, or tract made in the time of John Wycliffe.

The *Council of Constance *in 1415 condemned the books of Wycliffe, dug up his bones 40 years after he was buried and burned them in a public display, then tossed them into a river.

In 1525, William Tyndale, who translated the New Testament, which was of course banned, was arrested, jailed for a year and then burned at the stake by the church.

This in no way says that the Catholic Church banned the Bible. Not at all, it did however make sure that only ACCURATE Bibles be avaliable and to prevent the worshiping of the Bible as many protestants have, committing idolotry.

Pope Pius IV had a list of forbidden books compiled and officially prohibited them in the Index of Trent (Indes Librorum Prohibitorum) of 1559.

I don not know where you got that but the list of Banned bookes published by Pope Pius IV that is accepted by all Achademia does not contain even one book from the Bible.

In it he said that all books condemned prior to 1515 by popes or ecumenical councils, even though they may not be on the list, were to be condemned.

You just proved yourself wrong with a myth.

In his rule II, he condemned all the books of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Hubmaier, Schwenckfeld and others who had translated the Bible and prohibited them. He said that all those books, without exception which deal with religion were banned. Any examined by Catholic theologians and approved by them would be allowed. He also said that any other translations of the Old Testament were to be read only by learned and pious men, as long as they elucidate the Vulgate, but would not be considered Sacred Scripture.

Again, the Catholic Church did not ban the Bible in any way.

His rule 4 stated that the reading of the Holy Bible in the vernacular is dangerous and must be done in accord with the counsel of the local priest. Permission in writing would allow Catholic translations of the book to be read. However any copies of other translations must be turned in to the church.

As it should be, the Church showing caution and not allowing bad Bibles on the market but only what can be trusted. This is exactly what I would expect from the true Church which is the Pillar and foundation of the Truth.

Rule 6 said that any other books in the vernacular dealing with controversies between Catholics and others of that time were not to be permitted but handled as the other heretical books.

Again, no banning of the Bible.

To look at a much later time period, in 1824, Pope Leo XII issued a *UBI PRIMIUM *that exhorted the church to try every means possible to keep their flock from “those deadly pastures” and to strictly observe the rules of the Congregation of the Index and convince them that to allow holy Bibles in the ordinary language would cause more harm than good.

Again, no banning of the Bible. We also need to remember that a Catholic in those days could go to Mass everyday and hear the entire bible preached to them, where as the Protestants were making up all manner of lies.

In 1844, Pope Gregory XVI issued an encyclical, *INTER PRAECIPUAS *complained that the common babbling old women and crazy old men and verbose sophists were reading the books in the common language and reminded his people of the prohibition of such books.

Again, no banning of the Bible. I may want a Bible written in Klingon but that does not mean the Church has to give me one.

Then in 1897, Pope Leo XIII prohibited non-Catholic Bibles again.

Non Catholic Bibles should be banned, they are not really bibles.

He stated: ”All versions of the Holy Bible, in any vernacular language, made by non-Catholics are prohibited; and especially those published by the Bible societies, which have been more that once condemned by the Roman Pontiffs, because in them the wise laws of the Church concerning the publication of the sacred books are entirely disregarded.”

Again we see that the Church has maintained and protected the Bible from the hands of the Protestants.

These documents are on many websites and available for anyone who wished to read them. The Catholic sites list them in their entirety.

Well yah, but you are using them to prove that the Church banned the Bible and it just is not true.

For anyone to say the Bible was not kept from the common man by the Roman Catholics would be to deny the truth. The record is there for anyone who wants to see it.

This is a false conclusion, since your own records above show that the Catholic Church was then and remains now the only source of the True Bible. The Catholic Church was the one to protect the Bible and it is only by the action of the Catholic Church that that Bible continues to exist to this day, the protestants wanted to do away with it entirely.

All Christians should now move forward and try to follow the guidelines we are given in the Bible. I personally believe that we now possess as good a translation of the Holy Bible as possible as God has guided it throughout the ages, in spite of some who may have attempted to change it.

Then you must agree that that Catholic Church is the only Church that does in fact follow the guidlines in the Bible and is the Church that did not allow the Bible to be changed by the Reformers.

We should not, however, forget the history of how we got here and all the other history of our religion.

No we definatly should not because the History of Christianity shows beyond all doubt that the Catholic Church is the One True Church.

 

[Old_Scholar]

This in no way says that the Catholic Church banned the Bible. Not at all, it did however make sure that only ACCURATE Bibles be avaliable and to prevent the worshiping of the Bible as many protestants have, committing idolotry.

I don not know where you got that but the list of Banned bookes published by Pope Pius IV that is accepted by all Achademia does not contain even one book from the Bible.

You just proved yourself wrong with a myth.

Again, the Catholic Church did not ban the Bible in any way.

As it should be, the Church showing caution and not allowing bad Bibles on the market but only what can be trusted. This is exactly what I would expect from the true Church which is the Pillar and foundation of the Truth.

Again, no banning of the Bible.

Again, no banning of the Bible. We also need to remember that a Catholic in those days could go to Mass everyday and hear the entire bible preached to them, where as the Protestants were making up all manner of lies.

Again, no banning of the Bible. I may want a Bible written in Klingon but that does not mean the Church has to give me one.

Non Catholic Bibles should be banned, they are not really bibles.

Again we see that the Church has maintained and protected the Bible from the hands of the Protestants.

Well yah, but you are using them to prove that the Church banned the Bible and it just is not true.

This is a false conclusion, since your own records above show that the Catholic Church was then and remains now the only source of the True Bible. The Catholic Church was the one to protect the Bible and it is only by the action of the Catholic Church that that Bible continues to exist to this day, the protestants wanted to do away with it entirely.

Then you must agree that that Catholic Church is the only Church that does in fact follow the guidlines in the Bible and is the Church that did not allow the Bible to be changed by the Reformers.

No we definatly should not because the History of Christianity shows beyond all doubt that the Catholic Church is the One True Church.

Beyond all doubt???

A little naive. The Greek Orthodox say they are the only true church, the Baptists say they are the only true church, the Church of God says it is the only true church, and several others also make the claim.

In order to be an apostolic church, the church must teach what the apostles taught. I think everyone would agree with that. So you have to find the church that does that…

In this post you say the RCC never banned any books and then say they only banned books that weren’t accurate and then say they only banned books that were approved by them…

Most on this thread have already agreed that they banned Bibles. To say that they only banned books that weren’t Catholic is naive. The Catholic Church was not the only church in apostolic days.

 

[brotherhrolf]

BrotherHrolf post 423

Again, this is not a college classroom. At least I gave references. You claim to know so much but then refer me to where I can buy a book. Do you see any “bias” in that? And when did I say I was actually a Scholar? Have I not said before on this forum that I am a lay theologian? Do you believe that all those on this forum are young and do not know much about religion? From your statement, I gathered you were saying that. I have found some very knowledgeable people on these forums and have learned a great deal from them. Perhaps you should read it more.(By the way the definition of scholar is one who is a student or one who has won a scholarship. Check your dictionary.) I have claimed to be a student of the Bible many times on this forum.

I treated you with honor. Your “references” were drecht and the only reason why I used Amazon was to give reference to books that are a) published and b) readily available outside of a university library. Both the two sources I cited and the two sources you cited are available on Amazon. Pish-tosh.

You come across these forums with a name like Old Scholar. You cite antiquated Baptists texts as “truth”. You pooh-pooh Catholic references and fail to see the huge irony in that. Hey, Bud, I am current in my reading. I read history texts for fun and I don’t have to rely upon some tract of 135 pages from some Baptist minister in the 20s as documentation. Pish-tosh.

You are saying that young Catholic people frequent this forum and then blame me for using the name “Old Scholar.” Where are all your references that prove what you are saying? Mine were certainly valid and even if you don’t agree with those who wrote them, the books have not been shown to be false.

I’m not saying anything of the sort. You are posting drecht and drecht needs to be challenged. I don’t want my sons to read your drecht. You blythely post anything you feel like as “historical evidence” and then when you are challenged…your words speak for themself.

Well it’s nice you have degrees, but I don’t want to get into a matching contest of degrees, I suspect you may lose because you say you are still working on your masters and not yet a Phd. And by the way, maybe you should put “old’” in front of your name as you said you wrote your thesis prior to computers and I used my first one in 1968. If I remember correctly, it was an IBM 360 and took up an entire room but did not have the capability of a Commodore 64. That was 40 years ago—good luck on your masters…

You are intimating that you have a PhD., sirrah! Did I not say I already have an MA in Anthropology. Should I take you apart using Anthropology? I can do that too. Your chicanery must come to an end. I did indeed learn in high school in 1968 learn how to program said computer. I wrote my thesis by hand and typed it by hand since I served as a yeoman in the United States Navy during Viet Nam and there is such a large part of me that wants to tell you an extremely coarse …

About the Albigenses, I said: “The Albigensian “heresy” brought about the civilization, the literature, the national existence of the most opulent and enlightened part of the great European family. It is because of their oppression and persecution of the RCC that there is little on record of them.” That was a quote from John T. Christian, Romanism or Americanism, Which? volume 1, page 60-61.

Crimeny! You can’t even get your own references straight. Did you or did you not quote from

1. Roy Mason, The Church Jesus Built, p. 132

So now you’re telling us that not only did you cite the wrong book, you plagarized!

That does not refer to a Renaissance, although that is the term you used. As you suggested I do, perhaps you could buy his book in order to check the reference.

Why don’t you give me the Roman Catholic version of what happened and what the Albigenses taught. Along with references of course.

I would have given you the whole thing for I am a person of honor.

Now this one surprises me, coming from such a learned one. You are saying that as time goes along, history books are updated to fit the times…is that what you meant to say? It was you who complained about me giving a reference 75 years old. I’m sorry I couldn’t find a newer one for you.

You allude that you have degrees above and beyond me. If you do, you disgrace all of us. No self-respecthing PhD in any subject would respond as you have. Cover your face in shame.

It is important to note, that you listed only links and to internet articles at that. You didn’t list anything to refute what I said, just links to information that I suppose refutes my position and in several cases, I must go buy a book to see what is there. Is that a proper way to have a dialog?

And you just once again blythley respond to the fact that is perfectly OK to cite books in your library but I can’t cite mine?

If you want to debate, at least list whatever it is you have that refutes what I say. Don’t just give a link, especially to an internet site, which you just said was not the thing to do.

As the poet Robbie Burns, said " Oh, the gift to see us, to see us as others see us."

As for the high horse, I can’t find the word you listed in the dictionary so I guess I don’t know what kind of horse I am on. Could you guide me to that one? I think you really meant condecension.

I really wish I had the time to debate you but I must warn you I would not do so unless you would list your references, word by word and then give me a way to check them. That’s the way this works.
Unfortunately we are in the process of remodeling our home and there will be many days in the next two weeks I have no computer access. I will be able to use my lap-top occasionally but not very often. After that time, then bring it on. If it doesn’t fit this thread, then you may start a new one or better yet, let me start one. I have a lot of questions…

I shake the dirt from my sandals and move on. (Oh Lord no, we Catholics don’t know scripture) It is clear you are not here for honest debate, only anti-Catholic rhetoric.

 

[ALotLessThumb]

Even downplaying the tone of the majority of works against them; since the majority of what we know about the Cathar (or the “Good Christians” as they liked to call themselves) is derived from their opponents, I’m still not sure any adequate connection could be made; or why anyone would want to link themselves to such a group.

Though not the “suicidal loving, unnatural fornicators” that they are often portrayed, they were a dualistic group (in most cases, though the strength of that duality varied, and I wonder if those who adopted Bogomilism and its subsequent off-shoots originally had another meaning for God than in the Western sense) that denied the Incarnation, and rejected the Old Testament. They preached reincarnation and they seprated their brethren from the elected, Parfaits and Parfaites. This isn’t the stuff Christianity is made of…

And perhaps the anti-clerical sentiment that attracted the majority of believers (those who weren’t the Elected necessarily) laid the groundwork for the Protestants, their asceticism, self-described “marriage to Christ” of the elect and belief of what I’d best describe as something similiar to Extreme Unction shows just how un-Protestant they were.

I find the group interesting because from everything I’ve read, they may be our latest example (of the little we know) of the remnants of the non-mainstream Christianity+other pre-Christian religions of the earlier centuries brought from the East, and most likely influential to Muhammed. Especially the Adoptionist/Docetic groups, perhaps with some practices that did actually pre-date the councils, and maybe at one point accepted in the Church. A remnant of Hellenism in the medieval age.

But nothing points to this being a “Christian underground church”, “preserving the Gospels” And it spread just around the time crusaders disillusioned were returning to Europe. These were average/pious souls who were disillusioned (remember crusaders were returning from the middle east at this point) with what they were experiencing, and became enamored with a different message.

 

[Lampo]

In this post you say the RCC…

On a sidebar - Why do you refer to the *entire *Catholic Church as the Roman Catholic Church? Why don’t you use the precise nomenclature the Church refers to herself or defines herself? That would be more accurate. I’d think it would give you a *little *more credence. When you say Roman Catholic Church, you are p(name removed by moderator)ointing only 1 of the 22 rites of the Catholic Church. If you were to say the Roman Church, you would be specifically talking about the Diocese of Rome. I figured you would know that it is much more accurate to say the Catholic Church when you are referring to the entire Church. If you notice in all of the official Vatican documents when the entire Church is referred, it is called the Catholic Church.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

The Greek Orthodox say they are the only true church, the Baptists say they are the only true church, the Church of God says it is the only true church, and several others also make the claim.

They don’t say they are “the only true church”, they say “they ARE a part of the one true Church”, if they do say that in reality.

The “invisible church” folks say that ANY Christian “group” who isn’t “obviously blasphemous” (defined by them of course) is a PART of the one true INVISIBLE church of Christ.

The “visible church” folks say that the other “visible church” folks who aren’t them are “separated bretheren” due to mistaken doctrine of some sort.

The Church (Catholic) considers all Christians to be a part of the Church in more or less full communion with her dependent on their doctrine (one of which is Apostolicity based on a direct “laying on of hands” from those laid hands on in succession from Jesus to the present Bishops).

In order to be an apostolic church, the church must teach what the apostles taught. I think everyone would agree with that. So you have to find the church that does that…

That is a partial definition of “Apostolicity”. Actual physical succession is another element to apostolicity.

In this post you say the RCC never banned any books and then say they only banned books that weren’t accurate and then say they only banned books that were approved by them…

Most on this thread have already agreed that they banned Bibles. To say that they only banned books that weren’t Catholic is naive. The Catholic Church was not the only church in apostolic days.

They banned bad books that some people at the time, and perhaps some now, call “bibles”, which they were not.

THE CHURCH was the only Christian Church at the time of the Apostles. That Church would eventually be called the Catholic Church, to distinguish it from the Non-catholic churches. These non-universal, non-catholic, churches taught other than correct doctrine as a defining feature of their identity.

The only universal Church was the universal Church, obviously, by definition, and the word for universal used by the people at the time was “catholic”, regardless of that words CAPITALIZATION.

 

[Madaglan]

They don’t say they are “the only true church”, they say “they ARE a part of the one true Church”, if they do say that in reality.

The Greek Orthodox Church is one Church of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Properly, the Greek Orthodox are not part of the Eastern Orthodox Church, since they have their own local Churches, each which manifests in herself the fullness of the Church. But I’m writing of a different understanding of Church than is held by most Western Catholics, which see individual churches as part of the greater whole: a confederation of churches under the Pope.

 

[Old_Scholar]

On a sidebar - Why do you refer to the *entire *Catholic Church as the Roman Catholic Church? Why don’t you use the precise nomenclature the Church refers to herself or defines herself? That would be more accurate. I’d think it would give you a *little *more credence. When you say Roman Catholic Church, you are p(name removed by moderator)ointing only 1 of the 22 rites of the Catholic Church. If you were to say the Roman Church, you would be specifically talking about the Diocese of Rome. I figured you would know that it is much more accurate to say the Catholic Church when you are referring to the entire Church. If you notice in all of the official Vatican documents when the entire Church is referred, it is called the Catholic Church.

I believe the Lutherans and others also consider themselves Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church is the one that recognized the Pope; not those Catholics who do not. The word Catholic is defined as the Universal Church and there is where the problem lies.

Does the Orthodox not call themselves Catholic? They don’t recognize the pope. If I am using the term in error then I am sorry but I have always considered anyone who recognized the pope as church authority is a member of the Roman Catholic church. Since there was no pope until the 5th century, the early church was Catholic but not Roman Catholic.

 

[Old_Scholar]

They don’t say they are “the only true church”, they say “they ARE a part of the one true Church”, if they do say that in reality.

The “invisible church” folks say that ANY Christian “group” who isn’t “obviously blasphemous” (defined by them of course) is a PART of the one true INVISIBLE church of Christ.

The “visible church” folks say that the other “visible church” folks who aren’t them are “separated bretheren” due to mistaken doctrine of some sort.

The Church (Catholic) considers all Christians to be a part of the Church in more or less full communion with her dependent on their doctrine (one of which is Apostolicity based on a direct “laying on of hands” from those laid hands on in succession from Jesus to the present Bishops).

That is a partial definition of “Apostolicity”. Actual physical succession is another element to apostolicity.

They banned bad books that some people at the time, and perhaps some now, call “bibles”, which they were not.

THE CHURCH was the only Christian Church at the time of the Apostles. That Church would eventually be called the Catholic Church, to distinguish it from the Non-catholic churches. These non-universal, non-catholic, churches taught other than correct doctrine as a defining feature of their identity.

The only universal Church was the universal Church, obviously, by definition, and the word for universal used by the people at the time was “catholic”, regardless of that words CAPITALIZATION.

I do not accept that there is an “invisible church.”

I believe you will find Roman Catholic Church documents that say that if a church is not in communion with them, then it is not a legitimate church and in order to achieve salvation, you must be a member of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Lampo]

I believe the Lutherans and others also consider themselves Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church is the one that recognized the Pope; not those Catholics who do not. The word Catholic is defined as the Universal Church and there is where the problem lies.

Does the Orthodox not call themselves Catholic? They don’t recognize the pope. If I am using the term in error then I am sorry but I have always considered anyone who recognized the pope as church authority is a member of the Roman Catholic church. Since there was no pope until the 5th century, the early church was Catholic but not Roman Catholic.

Oh my! You are definitely using the term in error. My in-laws are Lutheran and they definitely do not consider themselves Catholic. They consider themselves Lutheran. I must go for now, but will address this later.

 

[Old_Scholar]

The Greek Orthodox Church is one Church of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Properly, the Greek Orthodox are not part of the Eastern Orthodox Church, since they have their own local Churches, each which manifests in herself the fullness of the Church. But I’m writing of a different understanding of Church than is held by most Western Catholics, which see individual churches as part of the greater whole: a confederation of churches under the Pope.

You are correct to a certain extent. There is a Greek Eastern Orthodox Church, and there is a Greek Eastern Orthodox Church in America.

None of the Orthodox Churchs are in communion with the RCC. They do say they are Catholic however. That is why I use the term to differientate from those Catholics who do not accept papal authority.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Oh my! You are definitely using the term in error. My in-laws are Lutheran and they definitely do not consider themselves Catholic. They consider themselves Lutheran. I must go for now, but will address this later.

Ask them if they recite the Apostles Creed in church…

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

*The word “catholic” refers not to the Roman Catholic Church, but to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

This is the way it is printed, and recited, in our Lutheran Church. Ask them also if they don’t use the Book of Concord as the basis for their belief.

 

[wanner47]

Ask them if they recite the Apostles Creed in church…

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

*The word “catholic” refers not to the Roman Catholic Church, but to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

This is the way it is printed, and recited, in our Lutheran Church. Ask them also if they don’t use the Book of Concord as the basis for their belief.

You are correct, but Lutherans wouldn’t call themselves Catholic or say that they were Catholic. They would say they were a part of the catholic (little “c” catholic) church, meaning the universal church. But they wouldn’t say, “I am a Catholic.” They would say, “I am a Lutheran, and the Lutheran church is part of the catholic church.”

I was in the ELCA for 22 years, btw.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I do not accept that there is an “invisible church.”

I believe you will find Roman Catholic Church documents that say that if a church is not in communion with them, then it is not a legitimate church and in order to achieve salvation, you must be a member of the Roman Catholic Church.

As you said, somewhere, above, I think, the Catholic Church, aka “The Church”, recognizes only one Church (qua Church that Christ Built, as it were) but many churches (qua congregations of various sizes and locations).

See: “Church” in the CCC.

As to the “outside the Church” problem: (CCC-846)
" Outside the Church there is no salvation":

• 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: —*— Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
• 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: —*— Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
• 848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men. "

 

[Madaglan]

You are correct to a certain extent. There is a Greek Eastern Orthodox Church, and there is a Greek Eastern Orthodox Church in America.

None of the Orthodox Churchs are in communion with the RCC. They do say they are Catholic however. That is why I use the term to differientate from those Catholics who do not accept papal authority.

The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America is an eparchy of the Ecumenical Patriarch, interestingly enough. I was thinking of The Church of Greece. Perhaps I should have been more precise in my terminology.