Who is My Brother?

[Eden_of_Mind]

Eden:

In light of the fact that I feel DUPED by certain anti-Catholic sites into believing that the Malleus Maleficarum was ordered, approved and used by the Church when in fact the thing was CONDEMNED by the Church, I have to wonder how much more I am accepting as “fact” from anti-Catholic sites that is not true.

No, I understand. If the Malleus is not legitimate, then I’m saddened that more people have not been careful (or perhaps honest in some cases) about it… and that, obviously, includes myself. I need to be more careful.

Here’s a problem, however… whom to believe? I expect that websites that are seriously anti-Catholic are biased but, to be fair, I expect that seriously pro-Catholic sites are biased also. It’s rather hard to keep oneself from this… and hard for me to know whom to trust.

Again, I chose to go ahead and use information from a site that was run by a conspiracy theorist (Abraham Lincoln) because he was often quoting solid resources (encyclopedias, historians like Philip Schaff), even, at times, a Catholic resource. I realize, of course, that he can still take things out of context but, because much of it was simple fact about bulls, councils, etc., many would find it a helpful collection of many quotes all assembled together. There would still need to be done a good deal of background checking and the like… but a forum where posts are only allowed to extend to 5000 words simply doesn’t allow for room to do all this.

I’m just sorry that, ultimately, I don’t know which of these websites on the Maleficarum to trust, even those you used to correct the information about it. Wikipedia simply is not a reliable resource and I have admit that I have a difficult time trusting the seriousness of a guy who begins his webpage with a rather juvenile “NOT!!!” as an introduction to his dissenting point of view.

Perhaps we should both agree to look into the matter at greater length in more scholarly material. Perhaps the truth is somewhere in between “everything on these websites is a lie” and “everything about them reveals a true conspiracy.”

I encourage you to continue to explore the Church’s teachings and history. As far as Medieval history is concerned, I would balance your readings by examining the Catholic side of the story. . . . Here is a start:

hometown.aol.com/philvaz/articles/num25.htm

members.aol.com/philvaz/articles/num37.htm

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ247.HTM

catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0027.html

catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/1112-96/article2.html

I’ll definitely look at all of these. Thanks for the list.

Blech! I feel so dirty and violated! (That’s not directed at you Eden of Mind. It’s directed at those hideous anti-Catholic sites.)

I understand. I don’t like conspiracy sites any more than anyone else. That’s why I did not lead anyone to the conspiracy views but used pages with useful quotations… Sigh. There’s so little of quality that is readily accessible to everyone on the internet, other than the sort of thing most people won’t bother to take the time to research because it is so involved. I have some access to professional journals which, obviously, I wouldn’t be able to link to for the sake of allowing you and everyone else to check them for yourselves and I don’t think that’s fair in a quick discussion board exchange where a person needs to be able to access information quickly and clearly.

Well, I do think that, using proper discernment, the pages listing concise quotes from encyclopedias and solid resources was a good link, even if the ideas of the man who runs it are not helpful themselves.

Thank you for all your help, Eden.

 

[Mickey]

CorneliusBottom:

Honestly, Mickey, I don’t know how to respond to that. Maybe you think we called Jack Chick to plan our day out

It seems that way sometimes.

CorneliusBottom:

That’s just too… Presbyterian.

What have you got against the presbyterians?

CorneliusBottom:

Mickey, I would like you to show me examples of my circular reasoning

Read Eom’s posts and you will see the circular strawmen for yourself! :whacky:

CorneliusBottom:

As for the idea that I’m really Mr. Mind in disguise, I’m sure the forum administrators can peep at our IP addresses and put your conspiratorial worries to rest.

I was kidding Cornelius. Sheesh!

CorneliusBottom:

Excuse me, sir, but if you review my posts, I think you’ll see that I did no such thing. I have not proposed any accusations at all. I have simply paraphrased Eden of Mind’s posts.

And EOM’s posts are politely veiled accusations.

CorneliusBottom:

Well, I actually had a post ready to go that would make my own commitments quite clearly defined for you, but after seeing Eden of Mind’s attempt to keep us on the straight-and-narrow (so to speak), I’m now disinclined to do so. Your final sentence, however, I will answer. I was baptized as an infant in the Roman Catholic Church. You may have figured out that I am not, now, a Roman Catholic.

I already guessed that you were RC at one time. I have a very strong feeling that you are now reformed baptist. The reformed baptists are the most hostile to the Catholic Church. Those rb’s who have visited this forum usually start out very polite but progressively show their disdain for the Catholic Church. I hope you are different Cornelius. :yup:

CorneliusBottom:

The question asked here is whether Rome fails her own test for being the Church (that is, whether she bears the marks of the True Church).

But that is the whole point. Jesus founded the Catholic Church and the Holy Spirit protects it. You and EOM have begun your own interrogation. This is unfortunate.

CorneliusBottom:

I wonder if you would be offended if I offer to pray for your own infirmity.

Absolutely not Cornelius! Thank you! Your prayers will be beneficial to me.

 

[Mickey]

Church Militant:

If this is true then there is no such thing here on Earth since all…every single version and denomination (and non-denom) has failed in this capacity.

Furthermore “Foxe’s Book of (ahem) Martyrs” is hideously one sided and biased. I’ve read it, but I’ve also read the accounts of the Catholics who have suffered as badly or worse at that miserable time in history.

I think this is a huge waste of time as “Eden of Mind” simply refuses to accept any evidence except his own or that which agrees with his. This is fruitless…and just like trying to prove to someone that you’re a good person. You can’t. Because every time you cite your evidence…they simply raise the bar again and say…“it’s not enough”.

Yes CM. This is the circularity I have been trying to bring to light.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

I want to apologize to all readers of this discussion and, because of recent exchanges, I no longer feel I understand the proper use of the Malleus Maleficarum. This was, in fact, the first time I’ve ever discussed this subject with Roman Catholics. I’m very glad I did. Thank you all for your efforts and your help.

Before using the Malleus as a resource, I searched for any mention of it on both the Catholic Answers website and the Catholic Encyclopedia online, in order to make sure I was not using something that had already been clearly and resoundingly refuted. A search on Catholic Answers turned up nothing and I found nothing on the CE website which gave that impression. In the entirety of the massive Encyclopedia, only two references to the Malleus surfaced. The first I checked led me to believe that the work was representative, did not contain anything “new” (meaning it was not particularly extraordinary for its time). What is more, it later became a very influential work, no condemnations of it were ever mentioned in the CE and nothing was mentioned about censoring the work or the man, Heinrich Kramer, who penned it. Even the aspect of forgery was downplayed and left ambiguous. The second CE reference actually treated the Malleus as a resource on certain mental disorders of that day.

Then, Eden provided me with a Wikipedia article. I’ve already explained why Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information (as its articles can be edited at any time by any reader). It was the second reference that Eden provided which seemed a good deal more solid, written by a recognized historian, Jenny Gibbons. That sole reference is enough to make me cautious and feel that the use of the Malleum is suspect until I understand just what historical relationship it bears to the Roman Catholic church, direct or indirect.

My only problem is that, if we are taking Mrs. Gibbons as a historical authority, she also has this to say:

“The Inquisition was an order of the Catholic Church, authorized to seek out and destroy religious dissent and unorthodox beliefs (heresy). Formed in the 13th century, it was part of the Church’s increasingly violent suppression of religious discussion. In 1022 the Church began killing heretics, usually by burning them at the stake. Crusades began in the late 11th century, and were accompanied by pogroms against the Jews. The Inquisition appears in the 13th century, and in the early 14th the Church starts to call Crusades against heretics inside Europe, like the Cathars. This trend continued until the Reformation, when the Protestant churches defected from the Catholic Church.

The Witch trials were quite different. . . . The Inquisition did very little Witch hunting. Before the 14th century, the Inquisition was specifically forbidden from investigating charges of Witchcraft (Witches were “victims of Pagan superstitions”, not heretics who sought to undermine the Church’s teachings). From around 1300 - 1500 they did kill Witches, but not very many. . . . By 1500 the Inquisition turned its attention to early Protestant groups. During the height of the Burning Times (1550-1650) the Inquisition only existed in two countries: Spain and Italy, both of which had low death tolls. The Spanish Inquisition in fact had the best acquital record, killing far less than 1% of all accused Witches!"

summerlands.com/crossroads/remembrance/library.htm

Though “the image of the malevolent, Witch hunting Inquisitor” is somewhat fraudulent, Mrs. Gibbons does not tone down an ecclesiastical history in which a rather ruthless program to stamp out “heretics” was employed. All this is cited confidently, as though it were well-known and solidly supported by the evidence. The “Witch trials” on the other hand, “were quite different.”

Perhaps Eden would not agree with Mrs. Gibbons’ scholarship at this point but this is exactly my difficulty. The statement above reveals, in an informal summary at least, what Mrs. Gibbons thinks about much of the history of persecution received at the hands of a historic church (not simply individuals), even before the first Inquisition. Even if Mrs. Gibbons is right only on a fraction of the things she mentions, Rome would not look good.

But is she? Is she right about any of it? If not, why should I accept her description of the history of the Malleus Maleficarum when even Roman Catholic resources do not cite her information? I’m not trying to base another argument upon that document but I am confused about the facts that surround it. And, just as confusing and even frustrating as the Malleus has turned out to be, I am equally frustrated by the use of such resources as Jenny Gibbons who are then thrown into the wastebasket everywhere else (at least, everywhere that proves uncomfortable or inconvenient). Isn’t this a rather biased and arbitrarily selective use of her scholarship?

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

In conclusion, I am still left without answers because of the misleading facts I’ve been given. The * is condemned by the Inquisition in Cologne, but not until three years after it was submitted to the faculty for approval and published. The work was never used by the Roman Catholic church itself and Kramer is condemned by that same Inquisition. Yet, the man supposedly “condemned” was apparently honored by Rome:

In 1495, the Master General of the Order, Fr. Joaquin de Torres, O.P., summoned Kramer to Venice in order that he might give public lectures, disputations which attracted crowded audiences, and which were honoured by the presence and patronage of the Patriarch of Venice. . . . On 31 January, 1500, Alexander VI appointed him as Nuncio and Inquisitor of Bohemia and Moravia, in which provinces he was deputed and empowered to proceed against the Waldenses and Picards, as well as against the adherents of the witch-society. He wrote and preached with great fervour until the end. He died in Bohemia in 1505.

malleusmaleficarum.org/mm00b.html

It is certain that the Malleum Maleficarum was not destroyed nor even censored by the Roman church (as other works had been). In fact, it was so popular that it was freely published and reprinted in 30 editions for over a hundred years. The Catholic Encyclopedia states that there was little that was even new in the book, repeating as it did certain views held earlier, and it would later be used, in spite of its initial criticism, as a textbook for witch hunting for centuries in civil courts. Throughout all of this, Rome said not a word of vilification against the distribution and use of this horrifying work. What does all this mean? Personally, I do not know, but I do not think that the picture that has been drawn of the influence of this work or its implications is precisely accurate and fair.

Nevertheless, I have learned to be more careful when I use something of this sort and I encourage others to caution as well. The key, I believe, to the answer to my questions so far is to be found, primarily, in the decrees of councils and Popes on this subject from the 11th through the 17th centuries.*

 

[esr]

This thread has really affected me and I have been thinking about EOM’s claims a lot lately. But all of this arguing about the facts leaves my head spinning. So, last night this thought popped in my head. Let’s assume that EOM is correct in his accusation that the Catholic Church did allow the murder of heretics. We know that God has promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against his Church. What if God allowed his Church to kill the heretics in order to preserve his Church? Which, by the way, has happpend because the Catholic Church is still here. God’s ways are not our ways all the time and his knowledge is way beyond ours. Who are we to second guess Him?

I would like to hear EOM’s response. I would also like to hear EOM’s response to the question that has been asked of him repeatedly; which is, if the Catholic Church is not the true Church, what is? I think you owe us that answer.

 

[mercygate]

CorneliusBottom:

I think you would be hard-pressed to show that Thomas Cranmer fits your category.

Regrettably, much as I admire and am sympathetic to Cranmer, and personally pray almost daily his Prayer of Humble Access – one of the most beautiful prayers ever written – there is no way that my most pitiable, gifted, troubled, Cranmer can be exonerated of heresy. After all, he did write:

**“And as for the pope, I refuse him as Christ’s enemy, and Antichrist, with all his false doctrine.” **

Eden of Mind and Cornelius, I know you think your effort to discredit the authenticity of the Church is meritorious, but if the Catholic Church is not the true Church, then there IS no true Church AT ALL. Did Jesus Christ promise to build a Church on earth? Did he promise to be with it all days? Did he send the Holy Spirit to “guide it into all truth?” If he did none of those things, then he is a liar. If he did those things, and If the Catholic Church is NOT that Church, what is? To deny that there is such a thing as a visible Church is to deny the word of Christ. To use the fight against heresy as a whipping boy is handy but since there is plenty of bloodshed on all sides, you cannot – by the presumed ineligibility of the Catholic Church to be the true Church – thereby build a case that one of the Protestant factions must therefore be Christ’s true Church.

Given the history of bloodshed on all sides and considering the cultural norms of the times, your definition of the “true church” based solely on the criterion of non-violence does not hold up. The single criterion of non-violence would leave only the Mennonites standing. So without three of the four marks of the Church: One, Catholic and Apostolic, and using the criterion of non-violence as your measure of Holiness, do the the Mennonites constitute the One True Church?

 

[Mickey]

mercygate:

Regrettably, much as I admire and am sympathetic to Cranmer, and personally pray almost daily his Prayer of Humble Access – one of the most beautiful prayers ever written – there is no way that my most pitiable, gifted, troubled, Cranmer can be exonerated of heresy. After all, he did write:

**“And as for the pope, I refuse him as Christ’s enemy, and Antichrist, with all his false doctrine.” **

Eden of Mind and Cornelius, I know you think your effort to discredit the authenticity of the Church is meritorious, but if the Catholic Church is not the true Church, then there IS no true Church AT ALL. Did Jesus Christ promise to build a Church on earth? Did he promise to be with it all days? Did he send the Holy Spirit to “guide it into all truth?” If he did none of those things, then he is a liar. If he did those things, and If the Catholic Church is NOT that Church, what is? To deny that there is such a thing as a visible Church is to deny the word of Christ. To use the fight against heresy as a whipping boy is handy but since there is plenty of bloodshed on all sides, you cannot – by the presumed ineligibility of the Catholic Church to be the true Church – thereby build a case that one of the Protestant factions must therefore be Christ’s true Church.

Given the history of bloodshed on all sides and considering the cultural norms of the times, your definition of the “true church” based solely on the criterion of non-violence does not hold up. The single criterion of non-violence would leave only the Mennonites standing. So without three of the four marks of the Church: One, Catholic and Apostolic, and using the criterion of non-violence as your measure of Holiness, do the the Mennonites constitute the One True Church?

I hope you are prepared for many long-winded circular responses!
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/a05/18_8_4.gif

 

[Mickey]

mercygate:

Given the history of bloodshed on all sides and considering the cultural norms of the times, your definition of the “true church” based solely on the criterion of non-violence does not hold up. The single criterion of non-violence would leave only the Mennonites standing. So without three of the four marks of the Church: One, Catholic and Apostolic, and using the criterion of non-violence as your measure of Holiness, do the the Mennonites constitute the One True Church?

I hope you are prepared for a response that is torturously long, pseudo-polite, quasi-intellectual, and circularly-argumentative. But still manages to bash the Catholic Church! :banghead:

 

[Eden]

Well what I have learned from all of this is that the Reformation Protestants created a “Black Legend” about the Inquisition in Spain as a propaganda tool for their claim that there was hidden church. All of the heretics (Arian, Nestorian and all of the early heresies) suddenly become “Protestant” in this propaganda. The Jews and Muslims who were the focus of the Spanish Inquisition are erased from the Protestant rendition to create an image in which Protestant persecution was rampant throughout Europe in medieval times.

Then I find out that it is questionable as to whether or not the Malleus Maleficarum was even approved for use by the Church as it never received the Nihil Obstat, the author was accused of forging an approval for the work and that same author was condemned by the Inquisition in 1490 . It certainly is a convenient propaganda tool. From the outrageous claims that anti-Catholics like Jack Chick and Dave Hunt have made, I have clear evidence in other cases that the worst possible portrait of the Church they portray is not rooted in lies. There has historically been a concerted campaign to slander the Church in certain circles using lies because using truth does not work against a* true* Church.

Meanwhile, neither Eden of Mind nor CorneliusBottom is willing to share which church they belong to despite my asking two or three times (not to mention the other posters here who asked).

Add to that the fact that EOM agreed that Scriptures specifically mentions heresy and Paul says “let them be anathema”. When I asked EOM what the repercussions for an accused heretic should be, I have received silence. It seems disingenuos to claim that one is interested in truth while concealing so much about onself, EOM.

I’ve even gone so far as to ask what is the true Church and when was the Catholic Church founded if not in 30 A.D? Silence.

What’s my conclusion? I have seen enough instances in which the Church is accused of great evils (for instance the fake “Knights of Columbus Oath” and the fake “Vicarius” title supposedly used by the Pope that adds up to 666 to name just two) only to find out that they are lies created to discredit Catholicism. So now I have evidence that the myth of the Inquisition was used as a propaganda tool by Protestants. Add to that the likelihood that the Malleus Maleficarum was not even approved by the Church.

Am I concerned that the Church is not the true Church? Not in the least bit. It’s an historical fact. Even Martin Luther was clear about that:

``We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all" - Martin Luther, Commentary on St. John

(Think of the implications of that quote. If the Catholic Church was the source through whom the Protestants received their Bible and there was a hidden church, the hidden church had **no **Bible. “Nulla Scriptura” anyone?)

 

[adnauseum]

Mickey:

I hope you are prepared for a response that is torturously long, pseudo-polite, quasi-intellectual, and circularly-argumentative. But still manages to bash the Catholic Church! :banghead:

Right you are.

Okay now that someone has hinted at the matter, I don’t mind saying I found the whole thread sort of creepy.

The mysterious appearance of EOM’s alter ego Cornelius totally spooked me.

St. Michael the Archangel do your thing buddy.

 

[CorneliusBottom]

Mickey:

Read Eom’s posts and you will see the circular strawmen for yourself!

I apologize for my slowness, but I read every post in this thread before registering, and have read every post since. I haven’t seen any circular argumentation from Eden of Mind, so perhaps you can provide an example or two. You cited this post of Church Militant’s as evidence:
Church Militant:

If this is true then there is no such thing here on Earth since all…every single version and denomination (and non-denom) has failed in this capacity.

Furthermore “Foxe’s Book of (ahem) Martyrs” is hideously one sided and biased. I’ve read it, but I’ve also read the accounts of the Catholics who have suffered as badly or worse at that miserable time in history.

I think this is a huge waste of time as “Eden of Mind” simply refuses to accept any evidence except his own or that which agrees with his. This is fruitless…and just like trying to prove to someone that you’re a good person. You can’t. Because every time you cite your evidence…they simply raise the bar again and say…“it’s not enough”.

But this is neither Eden of Mind’s argument nor is even this caricature circular in nature. A circular argument uses what is yet to be proved as a part of the proof. For example, if someone were attempting to prove that all those burned as heretics were, indeed, heretics, it would be an example of circular logic to say as an argument that they were all heretics because Rome condemned them, and they would not have condemned them if they were not heretics. Someone “raising the bar” every time evidence is presented is not a circular argument. But I think that if you review the statements made by Eden of Mind, you will see that he hasn’t raised any bars. He set a single bar at the outset: If Rome is guilty of the blood of her brethren, she cannot be the True Church. There have been discussions over the strength of the argument, the strength of the evidence, and the strength of the sources, but not once has Eden of Mind changed that single bar, at least as far as I can tell.

In response to Church Militant’s post, no one has denied that Protestants have been responsible for horrendous acts. Nor has anyone proposed that there is a Protestant denomination which can be called, as a denomination, the True Church. Neither of these are at issue here. The question is not, “Which of these is the True Church?” but “Is Roman Catholicism the True Church?” This question was asked with regard to a single criterion: That the True Church cannot possibly murder her own members.

 

[CorneliusBottom]

mercygate:

Regrettably, much as I admire and am sympathetic to Cranmer, and personally pray almost daily his Prayer of Humble Access – one of the most beautiful prayers ever written – there is no way that my most pitiable, gifted, troubled, Cranmer can be exonerated of heresy. After all, he did write:

**“And as for the pope, I refuse him as Christ’s enemy, and Antichrist, with all his false doctrine.” **

Perhaps you missed this:
Eden of Mind:

Regarding the third group, those killed even after they’ve properly recanted, Thomas Cranmer is a very famous example of this. He willfully signed a letter of recantation and then was burned all the same…

I mention this because it seems that Cranmer may be a separated brother who erred but repented and was burned all the same, but I fear that you will say something like, “Since he was burned, he must have been a heretic.”

mercygate:

Eden of Mind and Cornelius, I know you think your effort to discredit the authenticity of the Church is meritorious, but if the Catholic Church is not the true Church, then there IS no true Church AT ALL.

I suppose that is an assertion which many Protestants would reject, myself included.

mercygate:

Did Jesus Christ promise to build a Church on earth? Did he promise to be with it all days? Did he send the Holy Spirit to “guide it into all truth?” If he did none of those things, then he is a liar. If he did those things, and If the Catholic Church is NOT that Church, what is?

That’s not within the scope of the question. The question regards the authenticity of the Catholic Church, not rival candidates. You seem to be saying, “If you don’t know or give the answer, Rome must be the answer.” Of course, that’s a logical fallacy. Rome’s legitimacy is established or disconfirmed quite independently of whether I know or give the answer to the question that you are asking.

mercygate:

To deny that there is such a thing as a visible Church is to deny the word of Christ.

I suppose that is an issue for another time. It’s certainly not in the scope of the question before us, since the question is whether Rome is the True Church, not whether there is a visible/invisible Church distinction.

mercygate:

To use the fight against heresy as a whipping boy is handy but since there is plenty of bloodshed on all sides, you cannot – by the presumed ineligibility of the Catholic Church to be the true Church – thereby build a case that one of the Protestant factions must therefore be Christ’s true Church.

Neither myself nor Eden of Mind has attempted to do so.

mercygate:

Given the history of bloodshed on all sides and considering the cultural norms of the times, your definition of the “true church” based solely on the criterion of non-violence does not hold up.

No one said anything about non-violence, mercygate. If you review the actual problem, it regards whether the True Church can murder her own brothers. Perhaps I muddied the waters a bit in my last posts, but as I recall, no one has challenged either the bloody history of the Protestant factions or the justifiability of capital punishment within Biblical restrictions.

mercygate:

The single criterion of non-violence would leave only the Mennonites standing. So without three of the four marks of the Church: One, Catholic and Apostolic, and using the criterion of non-violence as your measure of Holiness, do the the Mennonites constitute the One True Church?

Since no one has put forth the criterion of non-violence, the question doesn’t even need answering. This thread has become very long and I think that’s why this muddy recollection of the issue at hand is showing, but let’s try to marshal our strength again.

 

[JimG]

Perhaps everyone would like to join EOM’s church, if only we knew what it is.

 

[adnauseum]

These blokes are attacking the legitimacy of the Church because a bible verse says if you kill your brother, then Christ isn’t “in you,” and yet the Church calls heretic Christians “separated bretheren” but killed them in the Inquisition.

Get it? Brother, bretheren? “in you?” See that? Poof! Church is false.

Drop the word salad and cut to the chase; EOM claims:

The bible which was created by the Authority of the Church contains a verse which proves the Church has no Authority.

Do you see the self-negating structure of the argument?

Rest assured: IF the bible was created by the Authority of the Church, then EOM is spinning in a spiral of self-contradiction.

And any serious intellectual knows the bible was created by the Church.

Draw your own conclusion.

 

[CorneliusBottom]

adnauseum:

Drop the word salad and cut to the chase; EOM claims:

The bible which was created by the Authority of the Church contains a verse which proves the Church has no Authority.

Do you see the self-negating structure of the argument?

If the language used in the thread is difficult, that wasn’t intentional on my part, and I assume Eden of Mind was not trying to be obscure, since he’s continually clarified the argument. Actually, sir, I think you’re missing key points here. The argument is not that the Bible proves that the Church has no authority, but that the Roman Catholic Church is not the True Church, if she has murdered her brothers. Furthermore, the argument that the Bible was created by the authority of the Church can be challenged. It was created, supervised, protected, and preserved by the Holy Spirit of God:

2Pe 1:21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Of course, the Holy Spirit has worked through the Church to create and preserve the Scriptures, but saying that the Bible was created by the authority of the Church is, at best, imprecise and, at worst, idolatry. I think faithful Roman Catholics will agree with me in this, since the authority of the Church is derivative in nature; the Church has authority to do only what God has assigned to her, and power only to do what God empowers her to do.

Once again, however, we must remember that what is at issue here is whether the Church is Roman Catholicism or not. You seem to be saying that, because Roman Catholicism created the Bible, Roman Catholicism cannot be false or the Bible is false as well. But assuming that Christianity is true, if Rome is not the True Church, then she must not have created the Bible. I realize that you believe that Peter was the first Pope, that Paul, Mark, and Luke were faithful members of the Church which today is called Roman Catholicism, and that Jesus established it and no other Church, but that is exactly what is at issue here. Given that Christianity is true, if Roman Catholicism is guilty of the blood of Christians in the turbulent times in question, it follows that Paul, Peter, Mark, and Luke were not members of that church which is guilty of that blood. This means we must look elsewhere for the True Church.

I’d like to restate the argument as I think it ought to read:

The Bible provides us with marks that must accompany the True Church. If any body fails to carry these marks, it is not the True Church. One of these marks is that the True Church cannot kill her own brothers. Roman Catholicism is guilty of the death of Christians, therefore she is not the True Church.

adnauseum:

Rest assured: IF the bible was created by the Authority of the Church, then EOM is spinning in a spiral of self-contradiction.

And yet, we have just seen that your own claims rest on assumptions which are self-contradictory if Eden of Mind is correct. You’re assuming in advance that there is no church but Rome, but that’s the issue under discussion. I can do what you did, and boil your argument down to this:

“Since Roman Catholicism is the true Church founded by Christ, the Bible cannot be used to test whether she is the true Church founded by Christ.”

You’re assuming what is yet to be proved as a part of your argument.

adnauseum:

And any serious intellectual knows the bible was created by the Church.

The question is not whether either of us is a “serious intellectual” but whether the reasoning is sound. That’s not argument; it’s name-calling. Now, maybe I am just a silly non-intellectual, but that doesn’t make me wrong on any particular point. I mean, Paul certainly would have objected to that sort of thing:

1Co 1:26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.
1Co 1:27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;
1Co 1:28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are,
1Co 1:29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.

Dismissing an argument because you think the man who makes it is stupid, dim-witted, or not an intellectual is both logically fallacious and foolish with regard to wisdom. And don’t forget: Darwinists use the same argument you just used to defend Darwinism. “All serious intellectuals know that Darwinian evolution is true.”

 

[adnauseum]

CorneliusBottom:

saying that the Bible was created by the authority of the Church is, at best, imprecise and, at worst, idolatry.

See?

The Bible was in fact established by the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

No serious intellectual denies this.

EOM and his alter-ego deny this.

That’s all there is to it, folks.

 

[esr]

Since EOM has not answered my questions, then maybe I should
direct them to Cornelius Bottum. What about my suggestion that maybe God did allow the Catholic Church to kill heretics in order to preserve the true Church, as He promised in Sacred Scripture that the gates of hell (heretics) would not prevail against it. Afterall our ways are not His ways and He has in mind the “big picture.”

Furthermore, let’s assume that you have convinced me that the Catholic Church is not the true Church. You would not be my brother if you did not tell me where to turn. Don’t leave me hanging, where should I go to find the true Church?

 

[Church_Militant]

CorneliusBottom:

In response to Church Militant’s post, no one has denied that Protestants have been responsible for horrendous acts. Nor has anyone proposed that there is a Protestant denomination which can be called, as a denomination, the True Church. Neither of these are at issue here. The question is not, “Which of these is the True Church?” but “Is Roman Catholicism the True Church?” This question was asked with regard to a single criterion: That the True Church cannot possibly murder her own members.

Yet this is not what the OP is asking anyway… and futher, the misconduct of any one or group of members of any organization…even it’s leaders, does not disqualify any truth that that group may propound. Truth, (if one believes in objective truth) remains a constant regardless of human actions one way or another. So…since the historical evidence shows that the Catholic Church is indeed the church that Christ originally founded, then this whole discussion is a moot point, and nothing more than an exploration of excuses for you to reject that objectively proven historical evidence that the early church was indeed Catholic and called itself that even before the death of the last apostle.

Members of “The True Church” can indeed murder and commit any human failings that any other human being can commit, but that does not invalidate the factual truth of that church. If so then, all of Christianity must indeed collapse since the apostles themselves were not shining examples of high moral character and courage, and that is as evident as a simple reading of the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

All the rest of this discussion is nothing more than a great deal of noise and dust being thrown up into the air. I don’t see an honest query or discussion here…I see an ongoing platform for a couple of guys to allege trash which Catholics have answered in very good faith while they continue to deride and denounce the Catholic Church and picking up stones to throw, all the while knowing that they themselves are not without sin.

So go ahead… let the one without sin throw that first stone.

Enough of this! I’m outta this bad joke!
Mark well these posters friends…
Pax vobiscum,

 

[the_storygirl]

I have by no means read all the many replies to your query, but my opinion should be fairly short.

The Bible has many examples of fallen beings heading up God’s work on earth. Moses was a murderer. David an adulterer and a murderer. Abraham, revered in the New Testament, sinned with Hagar. The tweleve founders of Israel’s tribes slaughtered a whole village to avenge their sister Dinah. The priests during Samuel’s day abused the Ark of the Covenant. But we would have God be true and every man a liar. Do the actions of these men make God’s law void? Did it cause Israel to no longer be chosen? Ought the true believers to abandon God for, say, Baal? Surely not.