Posted on 01/21/2015 4:47:04 PM PST by RnMomof7
As a church history professor, I am sometimes asked how certain practices developed in church history. For example: When did the Roman Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) emphasis on praying to saints and venerating relics and icons begin?
A somewhat obscure, but extremely helpful, book by John Calvin answers that question directly.
In his work, A Treatise on Relics, Calvin utilizes his extensive knowledge of church history to demonstrate that prayers to the saints, prayers for the dead, the veneration of relics, the lighting of candles (in homage to the saints), and the veneration of icons are all rooted in Roman paganism. Such practices infiltrated the Christian church after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire in the fourth century.
Here is an excerpt from Calvin’s work that summarizes his thesis:
Hero-worship is innate to human nature, and it is founded on some of our noblest feelings, — gratitude, love, and admiration, — but which, like all other feelings, when uncontrolled by principle and reason, may easily degenerate into the wildest exaggerations, and lead to most dangerous consequences. It was by such an exaggeration of these noble feelings that [Roman] Paganism filled the Olympus with gods and demigods, — elevating to this rank men who have often deserved the gratitude of their fellow-creatures, by some signal services rendered to the community, or their admiration, by having performed some deeds which required a more than usual degree of mental and physical powers.
The same cause obtained for the Christian martyrs the gratitude and admiration of their fellow-Christians, and finally converted them into a kind of demigods. This was more particularly the case when the church began to be corrupted by her compromise with Paganism [during the fourth and fifth-centuries], which having been baptized without being converted, rapidly introduced into the Christian church, not only many of its rites and ceremonies, but even its polytheism, with this difference, that the divinities of Greece and Rome were replaced by Christian saints, many of whom received the offices of their Pagan predecessors.
The church in the beginning tolerated these abuses, as a temporary evil, but was afterwards unable to remove them; and they became so strong, particularly during the prevailing ignorance of the middle ages, that the church ended up legalizing, through her decrees, that at which she did nothing but wink at first.
In a footnote, Calvin gives specific examples of how Christians saints simply became substitutes for pagan deities.
Thus St. Anthony of Padua restores, like Mercury, stolen property; St. Hubert, like Diana, is the patron of sportsmen; St. Cosmas, like Esculapius, that of physicians, etc. In fact, almost every profession and trade, as well as every place, have their especial patron saint, who, like the tutelary divinity of the Pagans, receives particular hours from his or her protégés.
You can read the entire work on Google Books.
Calvin’s treatment includes a historical overview, quotes from the church fathers, and even citations from sixteenth-century Roman Catholic scholars. The result is an air-tight case for the true origin of many Catholic practices.
Calvin’s conclusion is that these practices are nothing more than idolatrous superstitions, rooted in ancient Roman paganism. Even today, five centuries later, his work still serves as a necessary warning to those who persist in such idolatry. Hence his concluding sentence: “Now, those who fall into this error must do so willingly, as no one can from henceforth plead ignorance on the subject as their excuse.”
If the Catholic Church obliterated all memory of heretics, why have we even HEARD OF Arius, Nestorius, Montanus, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.
So somebody DID object to the invention of the Mass, the six other sacraments, the veneration of saints, etc., but the Church obliterated them from history? Unlike the THOUSANDS of OTHER heretics in history.
That’s a neat trick. The SAVAGERY of the Catholic Church against these proto-Lutherans is PROVEN by the fact that we have NO RECORD of the savagery.
Hey, still waiting for some of that warm weather.
It was in the 20’s today and actually felt mild.
Sad, isn’t it?
Same kind of reasoning that Catholics use about the assumption of Mary. Since there's no record of her death, it means that she didn't die.
Funny how Catholics accept it when it favors them.
It’s that projection thing again......
You have completely misstated what I have said in the past.
I have never argued from the absence of a record of Mary’s death to her not dying.
I argued from the total absence of relics to her assumption.
The total absence of relics is totally out-of-character for the early Christians. They kept relics of the apostles, martyrs, and many other people. The bones of 15,000 Roman martyrs are in the pillars around the altar in St. Peter’s.
The absence of a record of Mary’d death proves nothing. The absence of any relics of her body demands an explanation.
Ouch. It was about 85 yesterday. Two nights ago, I saw one of the most violent thunderstorms I have ever seen. The weird part, is that even though it was violent, there was no wind. Weird. My little dog, on my profile page, was going bonkers.
So, being as it is Friday, I am going to get away with something that others can't. I am going to eat meat today. Sound familiar?
:-)
And WHERE did I say that I was stating YOUR position?
***The SAVAGERY of the Catholic Church against these proto-Lutherans is PROVEN by the fact that we have NO RECORD of the savagery.***
Last week if I told you there were lesbian nuns hosting orgies you wouldn’t have believed me. Now we know differently. Who knows what secrets are buried in the bowels of The Vatican.
bttt
These quotes are interesting but don’t show that the Catholic claim of “Scripture+Tradition+Magisterium” is necessarily false. Briefly, these quotes when understood with the Catholic teaching that nothing can *violate* Scripture are, for the most part (except one which I will speak of in a minute) indicative of same. That is, while they demonstrate the material sufficiency of Scripture they do not necessarily demonstrate the material sufficiency of Scripture *alone* is all that is reauired for the formation and education of the Christian.
Regarding the quote attributed to Hippolytus which is the most strong for the Protestant case (given the above clarification). Firstly, its citation is wrong. That quote is not found in “Against Heresies” (there is in fact no such work by Hippolytus), there is a “Refutation of all Heresies” by him, (more on that in a moment too) but no “Against Heresies”.
At any rate the quote you provide is to be found in Hippolytus’ “Against Noetus”, the 9th “chapter” or paragraph if you wish. It is as you cite here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0521.htm
Now at this point it strikes me first that it’s at least a happy coincidence, if not Divine Providence, that the quote of Hippolytus is directly beneath another quote by Tertullian in your post. It reads:
“It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do, when we prove that He made His Word a Son to Himself. . . . All the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in (the Persons of) the Trinity, and indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith. (Against Praxeas, 11)”
This shows that Tertullian was arguing for the validity of the Trinity from Scripture as Hippolytus was, albeit for different reasons. But we must remember this fact, that both men here (in the two quotes you provided) are speaking about the Trinity. And how it can be demonstrated using Scripture. Hippolytus even goes so far as to clearly assert Scripture alone is suited for this task.
However, is this then a primitive reflection of the Protestant notion of “sola scriptura”? That is, are these two men saying that all tradition and/or teachings of the Church are to be either found in or ruled by Scripture alone? No they are not.
Tertullian himself is merely saying that all of Scripture, and not just portions, can be used to demonstrate the Trinity. Similarly for Hippolytus. This claim though is not the same as saying “all doctrine must be ruled by Scripture” in so much as if it isn’t demonstrated in Scripture, it’s not to be believed. No, in brief and in summary, these men are only saying that in the topic of the Trinity only, Scripture suffices and more generally they claim that no dogma at all can violate Scripture. While the Church may take exception to the former, the latter is merely Church teaching. For indeed we claim that no dogma as taught by the Church violates Scripture. It is only the opinion of others that is offered as proof against this claim so I will not speak to that here.
However what of the strong positive words of Hippolytus “There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source.” One may ask, “Does that not say plainly, there is no other source of knowledge of God than the Holy Scriptures”?
I will state now in reply, in case that is a question on anyone’s tongue, “No, it is not saying that in a general sense, as if the Scriptures alone are the only source of knowledge of God, rather what the Saint was saying there is that to discover and know the Triune nature of God, Scriptures are all that are required, not that everything about Him is contained in the Scriptures.” How can I state this so boldly, with such assurance, when the words of the Saint alone as they are seem to contradict me entirely?
It’s quite simple. It’s because the same man who wrote the above also wrote the following:
“Since, however, reason compels us to plunge into the very depth of narrative, we conceive we should not be silent, but, expounding the tenets of the several schools with minuteness, we shall evince reserve in nothing. Now it seems expedient, even at the expense of a more protracted investigation, not to shrink from labour; for we shall leave behind us no trifling auxiliary to human life against the recurrence of error, when all are made to behold, in an obvious light, the clandestine rites of these men, and the secret orgies which, retaining under their management, they deliver to the initiated only. But none will refute these, save the Holy Spirit bequeathed unto the Church, which the Apostles, having in the first instance received, have transmitted to those who have rightly believed. But we, as being their successors, and as participators in this grace, high-priesthood, and office of teaching, as well as being reputed guardians of the Church, must not be found deficient in vigilance, or disposed to suppress correct doctrine. Not even, however, labouring with every energy of body and soul, do we tire in our attempt adequately to render our Divine Benefactor a fitting return; and yet withal we do not so requite Him in a becoming manner, except we are not remiss in discharging the trust committed to us, but careful to complete the measure of our particular opportunity, and to impart to all without grudging whatever the Holy Ghost supplies, not only bringing to light, by means of our refutation, matters foreign (to our subject), but also whatsoever things the truth has received by the grace of the Father, and ministered to men. These also, illustrating by argument and creating testimony by letters, we shall unabashed proclaim.
“In order, then, as we have already stated, that we may prove them atheists, both in opinion and their mode (of treating a question) and in fact, and (in order to show) whence it is that their attempted theories have accrued unto them, and that they have endeavoured to establish their tenets, taking nothing from the holy Scriptures— nor is it from preserving the succession of any saint that they have hurried headlong into these opinions...”
This is from Hippolytus’ “Refutation of all Heresies”, found here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050101.htm
The careful reader should read this also plainly, and also ask of himself, “Is it reasonable to believe this same man who wrote the above also believes that in ONLY Scripture, is the entire knowledge of God to be found, in other words some proto-Protestant Saint, or does what he wrote above come off as sounding, well, pretty darn Catholic!” I submit the latter especially when one takes special note of the following:
“taking nothing from the holy Scriptures— NOR is it from preserving the succession of any saint”
Emphasis added this time. The objective reader is FORCED to see here that Hippolytus himself is giving this “succession of any saint” (which is really Tradition) the same weight as Holy Scripture. Otherwise why would he say the numerous heretics he goes on to dismantle have neither Holy Scripture OR Tradition? Meaning obviously (again obvious to the objective seeker of truth) that if they at least had Tradition they would have a leg to stand on, even if they don’t have Scripture. But they don’t even have that, so he feels confident in teaching how they are in error.
Truly the entire quote *I* have provided reads just like any “Papist” would talk today, with all the appeals to “succession” and office of “teaching” the “CHURCH” has, again, all from Hippolytus. So one is forced to conclude one of two things either Hippolytus is a crazy man, who in one tome speaks of the teaching authority of the Church, and another of “Scripture alone” or perhaps the interpretation I gave above is correct, that on the topic of the Trinity, and only the Trinity, Hippolytus would say Scripture is sufficient but he does not claim such sufficiency for all the works of God.
Else he is a mad man. Hardly a paragon anyone should claim as a reliable witness of anything.
Against those whom sided with Arius -- there was murderous savagery --- beginning within days of the end of proceedings of the Council of Nicea.
First, those who agreed with Arius were brutally set upon by those whom sided with Athanasius.
Later, things turned the other way around, and Athanasius had to flee for his life, yet Romanists seem to always forget the first part, remembering only Athanasius later being driven to exile, multiple times.
It would serve us well to recall also that he was not "of" Rome, nor owed his own eventually acquired bishopric to Rome, but was instead of the "See" of Alexandria.
I could possibly dig out the quote from the historian Philip Schaff who noted that Athansius did not object (that there is record of) as for the Arians being savagely set upon, but only raised his own voice against the violence once that worm turned to look himself in the eye.
While we are noting things -- it should also be recognized that Arius himself -- his own positions in comparison to later heretical positions which {wrongly} came to be associated with that bishop's name, were {again, in comparison) extremely mild in the direction of differentiation between the Incarnate Christ -- and God the Father. Those two are indeed two different persons -- even as recognized by the Trinitarian definition championed by Athanasius.
The core principle within that definition is perhaps --- the three (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) are all of one essence with myself using that particular word here rather than the more commonly employed word "substance", due to modern word usage.
In later centuries, so-called "Arians" took the thinking to places which Arius himself is attributed to having been firmly opposed to, while himself also being able to plead with a straight face in his own era -- that his own words concerning Christological conceptions were fairly traditional in a sense, for there was much wide-spread and orthodox history behind his own positions.
As for Nestorius -- he too was in danger for his own life -- and the proceedings there began before he himself arrived (by necessity, accompanied by armed guard). His opposition pleaded his case -- for him, and then those whom were there -- decided the matter before Nestorious even arrived. His later allowed reasoning and testimony was going against a stacked deck.
Following that -- those on the winning side banished Nestor and all of his church, with that schism persisting until late in the 20th century, wherein the RCC eventually relented and accepted that referring to Mary as "mother of the Incarnate Christ" was not heretical, while also browbeating the Nestorians into agreeing with the inherently problematic phrase "Mother of God" to be acceptable for Mary, also.
As for others who could possibly be looked upon as "proto-protestant (rather than just proto-lutheran) the list is rather longish -- with many of those having virtually all but entirely disappeared, the Roman Catholics having retained chiefly only record of what they themselves accused these others of -- by which I mean it can be rare to find these whom Rome persecuted explaining things in their own words, on their own terms (as Rome insists that all allow herself to do -- with no exception).
Burning such individuals as Jan Hus, and Jerome of Prague at the stake (lighting the fires when those both were alive) is inexcusable.
To reach for the excuse that the Council of Constance was not legitimate for reason of the papacy having been at that time contested --- serves, to an extent -- to bust up the claim of "uninterrupted succession" ---as if occupancy of THAT office was any guarantee of righteousness, and teaching only that which came from Christ and the Apostles.
What a SICK JOKE that claim is.
One simply must be born again. To properly stand in the shoes of the fisherman -- one themselves must receive the knowledge that Jesus was the Messiah, in the very self-same manner in which Peter did.
Even then -- from the earliest times of the Church, there was no singular bishop of bishops. That much is just so much Romish error -- even heresy.
Of course it's established...It's established in the scriptures...
Apostles and others died during the course of the writing of scripture...The Apostle John never hinted that he or we should pray to any of these dead 'saints'...John also told us that everything we need to know for salvation was revealed to us in the scriptures...
We are told to go right to the throne of Grace, the throne of Jesus for our prayers and requests...No dead saints or Mary...
We are not to think of men above what has been written...There are no saints in heaven who are any closer to God than we are right now...
There is no Catholic Mass in the New Testament Church...The bible teaches against those in your religion who wear long robes who you people call 'father' (just to name a couple of things)...
There is no special priesthood class in the New Testament church...There aren't even any priests...
There is NO RECORD of any dissension in the Church over the “invention” of the Mass, the introduction of images, the veneration of the martyrs and other saints.
Well not in your Church...Why would there be??? But in the church of the bible, there were plenty of cases...All those countless peoples and towns that your religion tortured and murdered for centuries for refusing to bow down to your popes, refusing to eat your wafers, refusing to pray to Mary, etc., etc...
You are trying to get me to believe that MASSIVE changes in the Christian religion, the introduction of idolatry, the hierarchy, etc., and NOBODY CONDEMNED it as heresy until the SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
The centuries we are talking about saw the major Christological and Trinitarian heresies, and their condemnation. But NO CONDEMNATIONS of the “idolatry” and “paganism” you complain about.
That is according to YOUR CATHOLIC history...That doesn't mean there's any truth to it...
You continue to ignore the 1500-YEAR SILENCE.
Let's see...Your religion started with Constantine with the pagans and the armies that controlled the known world at the time...It murdered the saints, burned their bibles, destroyed their churches and towns...
One can only wonder how much was written by them that we'll never know...And one might wonder how many of their 'church fathers' had written records that were destroyed by your religion and were martyred in the process...
Never know how much of that could be revealed in the secret archives of the Vatican...
In fact they are. You have put words in their mouths. The history behind this is the Rule of Faith which is proclaimed in Scriptures alone and passed from the apostles. The other piece of the history is these brave men fought off heretical doctrines which claimed they had secret knowledge from the apostles not found in scriptures. So these early theologians upheld and argued from scriptures.
Normal deflection from you and just words no proof. The CoT did indeed say that you must have the sacraments for Salvation and that Grace by itself wasn’t sufficient (official)or be anathema. Words like establish, present, enact, and new mean that it was NOT official in the past! Yes denied by the Prots, but that’s not the reason it was made official by the Catholics. Your Church made them official because it was hemorrhaging parishioners by the thousands. The brainstorming CoT came up with the idea of making people fear losing their Salvation by making all the sacraments and absolute and the Church the only way to do that or be anathema. I’m not a propagandist, but you are either willfully ignorant of your Church history or intentionally deceitful you pick.
See presiding, adhering to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, to the Apostolic traditions, and to the unanimous teaching of other councils and of the Fathers, has thought it proper to establish and enact these present canons;
Canon 1. If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, or that there are more or less than seven, namely, baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order and matrimony,[1] or that any one of these seven is not truly and intrinsically a sacrament, let him be anathema.
Very interesting.
Absolutely yes by your very own Bible
Exodus 7:11 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
11 Then Pharaoh summoned the wise men and the sorcerers; and they also, the magicians of Egypt, did the same by their secret arts.
Deuteronomy 13:1-3 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
13 If prophets or those who divine by dreams appear among you and promise you omens or portents, 2 and the omens or the portents declared by them take place, and they say, “Let us follow other gods” (whom you have not known) “and let us serve them,” 3 you must not heed the words of those prophets or those who divine by dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you indeed love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul.
Matthew 24:24 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce great signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.
Mark 13:22 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
22 False messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.
2 Thessalonians 2:9 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
9 The coming of the lawless one is apparent in the working of Satan, who uses all power, signs, lying wonders,
Revelation 16:14 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
14 These are demonic spirits, performing signs, who go abroad to the kings of the whole world, to assemble them for battle on the great day of God the Almighty.
There’s a LOT of wonderful truth in that post!
You actually have the wrong Catherine, as Catherine of Siena is the one this quote is attributed to, and which is not on the Wikipedia page listed. Nor is it on the one for Catherine of Siena:
Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom....
God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him. (St. Catherine of Siena)
I had part of that quote but was never able to find a original source for it online outside of it it being quoted in in Apostolic Digest by sedevacantist Michael Malone, Book 5, "The Book of Obedience,as KINGS & PRIESTS, and also atrrbuted to St. Catherine of Siena: A Biography By Anne B. Baldwin.
But nuns can be quite familiar with the demonic.
There was "Sister Magdalena of the Cross -The devil's saint for 40 years" with her demonic heavenly visions: http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2011/12/sister-magdalena-of-cross-nun-who-made.html
Not long after her fifth birthday, she is praying in Church when she hears music of remarkable sweetness. Then a beautiful young man, with thick, black hair appears to her, wearing a mantle so brilliant that she has to close her eyes. Hearing the story, some believe it to be Jesus. News of this event spreads throughout Córdoba, and many want to see little Magdalena. - See more at: http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2011/12/sister-magdalena-of-cross-nun-who-made.html#sthash.pOfzMlwQ.dpuf
...But for now, little Magdalena is living a simple life with her family who were poor artisans, and while Magdalena remains of exemplary modesty and conduct, the visions continue, one after another, and as time goes on this attracts the attention of many; so much so that one day she flees her home to take refuge in a nearby cave, where she once again falls into ecstasy. When she awakens, she discovers that she has been miraculously transported back to her bed by her guardian angel.
Soon, a person whom she believes to be Jesus appears to her and asks her to somewhat moderate her asceticism, so as not to compromise her fragile childhood health. He informs her that a great destiny awaits her, and that she will need her strength. She flies to the church to thank Jesus and on the way meets a man with a severe limp who asks her to lend him her hand to climb the Church steps. He has hardly climbed a few steps when he stands erect and with great surprise and excitement he dashes through the whole town crying out that he is healed!...
In 1497 at the age of ten, Magdalena is already quite beautiful, and in her purity she is very cautious to hide herself under long black dresses and skirts. Even so, she still finds herself too beautiful, and one day for penance she tries to crucify herself on the wall of her bedroom. She starts by nailing her two feet, then her left hand. Blood flows, and she faints from the atrocious pain. Her flesh tears and, falling heavily onto a chest, she breaks two ribs. Her parents call the doctor and he bandages all of her nail wounds, yet she is burning with desire to suffer terribly for the reparation of sins, and she repeatedly takes off the bandages, so as to suffer more. But this soon makes her very ill - See more at: http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2011/12/sister-magdalena-of-cross-nun-who-made.html#sthash.pOfzMlwQ.dpuf
On Easter Saturday, 1497, Magdalena is bedridden and seems to be dying, probaly because of infection from the wounds of her failed crucifixion. At midnight, she lets out a great scream, sits up on her bed, once more rips off her dressings, saying that she is healed. She says that it is Jesus himself, who has just appeared to her and has cured her...
Three months before her First Holy Communion, Magdalena seemingly stops eating. The pleadings of her poor parents make no difference; she fasts right up until the Sunday of her first Holy Communion, surprisingly without losing her healthy appearance. On the day of the ceremony, at the precise moment of consecration, she lets out another cry and prostrates herself for a long time. When she exits the church, she explains that the Lord Himself put the Eucharist in her mouth, without her needing to approach the priest
At sixteen, Magdalena contunes to astound many with her apparent extraordinary devotion and her remarkable desire to make reparation for sin. Many see her as a living saint- for who else but a saint could do such extraordinary penances? When she whips herself to bleeding point while doing penance, her wounds are miraculously healed the next day to everyones great surprise. She is healthy, and everything about her seems wholesome, except two fingers which have not grown like the others...
There are however some "red flags" though. She is seemingly not too discrete about her spiritual life and merits; she inflicts severe mortifications upon herself, carries a heavy cross all around the convent, kisses her companions’ feet, and she seemingly stops eating completely, apparently living only on Holy Communion. All of these facts are cause for some concern, but she does seem very devout and is willing to do even the most menial and unwanted tasks, so her "extravagances" are for the most part downplayed, at least for now...
It is at this time that another prodigious mystical gift of Sr. Magdalena appears: she can seemingly predict the future. In 1515, she announces the death of King Ferdinand for the following year, which comes to pass as foretold, and also the regency of Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros over the kingdom of Castile. In sign of gratitude, Cardinal Jiménez has a beautiful vermilion ostensory given to her, which increases the admiration and devotion of her fellow sisters and others even more.
On March 25, 1518, the day of the Feast of the Annunciation, Magdalena discreetly tells her Abbess some news which fills the pious woman with great confusion and perplexity--Magdalena states that on the preceding night, that is, the solemn Vigil of the Annunciation, she had conceived the child Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit. Thus Magdalene of the Cross, the shining light of the convent of Saint Elizabeth of the Angels, is pregnant....
The nuns are all informed of the situation, and soon the convent is divided into two camps. On the one side, there are those who doubt the miraculous conception, some perhaps because they feel a hidden envy for Magdalena. Others because it is such a extraordinary thing that has never happened outside of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and there is nothing in Sacred Scripture that would point to such a second birth of Jesus into this world...
On the other side, there are those, also numerous, who say that God works in mysterious ways, and that the Most High has been pouring all sorts of extraordinary graces on his humble servant for many years. Understandably they cannot fathom how she could have possibly stained her purity; she who is so seemingly devout and pious, and besides she never leaves the convent grounds. To that, the doubters reply that she receives her confessor alone, and also that the bars on the convent fence are so widely spaced as to allow the passage of a much more cumbersome being than the Holy Spirit...
Seemingly even more devout in the practice of virtue, she redoubles the severity of her penances, walking barefoot on pieces of broken glass and lashing her back and shoulders with instruments of severe mortification, along with wearing a rough cilice discipline...
Hearing the news, the Archbishop of Seville sends three experienced matron "midwives" to examine Magdalena. Having very carefully examined her, they announce that while it is indeed true that the nun is pregnant, it is also very much a fact that her virginity is completely intact and unquestionable. Prayers of thanksgiving explode in all the churches and throughout the land, and inside the convent the doubters and gossipers are reduced to utter silence and penances for their apparent doubts..
On Christmas Eve, 1518, Magdalena confirms that she will very soon give birth. A little house at the end of the garden is prepared for her, for in a vision her guardian angel recommends that she give birth alone, so as to suffer more without any human assistance. Magdalena remains locked up in the little house for three days, during which time the whole community remains in prayer. The story that Magdalena tells when she comes out is absolutely prodigious...
She relates that during Christmas night, at midnight, she gives birth to a magnificent baby who radiates so much light that she can see as if it were high noon. The cold air of her chamber is suddenly miraculously heated and the divine child doesn’t suffer at all from the cold. During this time, strangely Magdalena’s hair begins to grow very fast and, from crow black that it was, it changes to the brightest blond, with its long length allowing her to swaddle the infant child in it, and keep him warm in the softest of tunics. As proof of the miracle, she cuts a few of her blond curls before her hair turns back to normal. The nuns then compete for a few of the miraculous hairs to keep as precious relics. - See more at: http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2011/12/sister-magdalena-of-cross-nun-who-made.html#sthash.pOfzMlwQ.dpuf
Continuing with the story of the remarkable birth, Sr. Magdalene de la Cruz states that on the morning after Christmas she found herself alone, the beautiful little child gone, but with her breast chapped from suckling him, along with all of the stigmata of recent delivery still on her body. Soon the matron midwives are sent again to check on the veracity of these facts and to verify that Magdalena’s virginity has not suffered from the event. A solemn 'Te Deum' is then sung in the cathedral and donations flow in like never before...
In spite of this proof, Sr. Magdalena is subjected to another test, this time concerning her abstinence from food; a fast which she allegedly has been carrying out for eleven years. For, it was being insinuated that certain novices were secretly bringing her food.
So the Abbess then requests that a vigilant guard of two monks from the nearby Franciscan monastery be positioned at the entrance to Magdalena's cell with a 24 hour watch; the two monks taking turns with others in a rotating schedule. Additionally, she even orders that the window shutters of the chamber be nailed shut. After a few days, it is discovered that Magdalena has suddenly disappeared. They look for her everywhere, and soon find her in the completely opposite part of the garden, asleep near a fountain. The monks assure the abbess that they have not relaxed their surveillance for an instant. For her part, Sr. Magdalena reveals that it is Saint Francis himself who transported her to this place. Of course nobody is able to give any explanation for this prodigy, and it is concluded that this is but another miracle in the extraordinary life of Sister Magdalena of the Cross.
It is suggested that she should become the Abbess, since as time passes the current Abbess is becoming infirm....
With Magdalena now in charge, in the beginning life in the convent hardly changes, except Mother Magdalena seems to have a strong penchant for the practice of severe penances, and she exhorts her religious sisters to do likewise. In doing so, the new Abbess sometimes provokes very difficult scenes. And so it is that during Confession the sisters, by hypocrisy or fear of too difficult penances, now usually only accuse themselves of small faults. Hearing of this, Mother Magdalena enters into holy wrath which soon causes unspeakable fear into her sisters. She orders them to admit to more severe sins, and the poor nuns become frightened by the severity of the abbess. Some burst into tears, and there are a couple of others who astonishingly go into a sort of semi-possession, rolling on the floor and arching their bodies, before slowly returning back to normal. ..
But from now on, Mother Magdalena orers that the candles are to remain lit, and the nuns are given all the necessary time to openly whip themselves in the performance of bodily mortification and penance, in the full light and prescence of the other nuns. ..
Gone now are the "little penances" consisting of begging food from each table; for according to Mother Magdalena a soul with pride can submit to that easily enough. For acording to her it is severe mortification which is the salt of true penitence. The nuns are now encouraged to remain on their knees on boards garnished with rounded iron nailheads; they are encouraged to wear cilices or belts with small iron spikes pointing inwards and are encouraged to stretched out in doorways so that the others nuns can walk upon them and some wear a crown made of thorns. Yet these extreme severities seemingly do not harm the outward devotion of most of the community to their new Abbess. She is twice re-elected with the majority of the votes...
she is still said to be fasting on a daily basis for over thirty years now. ..
In 1543, she falls gravely ill..As time progrsses, Magdalena's illness continues to get worse. Seemingly out of character, she is now worried, and often asks the doctor to keep her informed on the evolution of her illness. One December day, she hears: “You are dying. You will not see another Christmas.” Greatly anguished, Magdalena suddenly twists on her bed and then rises up and lets out mysterious words:
“1544!...The forty years as announced!; I am a cursed dog! Take me to Hell!” Then she falls back into her bed and begins uttering revolting blasphemies before suddenly being taken from her bed by an inisible force and held in mid-air. She then falls heavily onto the bed several times, but apparently without hurting herself...The demon first lets out a terrible cry in which the name “Balban” is recognised. Later during exorcisms it was discovered that another demon named "Patorrio" was also influencing her. --:
Next, an Inquisitor is sent to investigate the thorny matter by the express order of Cardinal Juan Pardo de Tavera, the Primate of Spain. He is much younger than the Rev. Don Juan of Cordova and he inspires her with confidence. She reveals to him that the beautiful dark-haired young man who appeared to her at the age of five was in fact the devil. He had promised her fame and the respect of everyone, if she would consent to obey him always. http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2011/12/sister-magdalena-of-cross-nun-who-made.html#sthash.pOfzMlwQ.dpuf
Then we have Catherine of Siena;
Catherine's desire to suffer was so extreme that nothing could deter her. When her mother took the virgin to the hot springs and Vignoli in order to remove Catherine from her self imposed torture, the Saint flung herself into the part of the canals where the hot sulfuric water flowed into the pool - the burn caused by the boiling waters surpassed the pain of any flagellation.
Catherine's most frequently discussed ascetic practice is her self-starvation, her "holy anexoria." Beginning when she was not yet 16, Catherine restricted her diet to bread, uncooked vegetables and water. The next step toward complete rejection of terrestial sustenance came five years later.
While dressing the cancerous breast sores of a woman she was tending, Catherine felt repulsed at the horrid odor of the suppuration. Determined to overcome all bodily sensations, she carefully gathered the pus into a laddle and drank it all. That night she envisioned Jesus inviting her to drink the blood flowing from his pierced side, and it was with this consolation that your stomach " no longer had need of food and no longer could digest. (Bell 25) ...by the aged of 25 is reported that she absolutely ate nothing.
In January of 1 380, now in Rome, while contemplating Christ' s circumcision and his precious blood there shed, Catherine decided to increase her asceticism and drink no water. She still traveled the mile to St. Peter' s each day to spendgg CARTE ITALIANE hours in prayer. On February 26, the Saint lost the use of her legs, yet one biographer claims that she still managed to arrive at St. Peter' s during Lent. On Aprii 29, 1380, starved, dehydrated, and physically ravaged, Saint Catherine died. - Furth, Megan, Stanford University, Holy Alliance: Saint Catherine of Siena and the Paradox of Flesh; https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2768w4js.pdf
And which fasting is called Anorexia mirabilis, which
Anorexia mirabilis literally means "miraculous lack of appetite". It refers almost exclusively to women and girls of the Middle Ages who would starve themselves, sometimes to the point of death, in the name of God.
Many women notoriously refused all food except for the holy Eucharist, signifying not only their devotion to God and Jesus, but also demonstrating, to them, the separation of body and spirit. That the body could exist for extended periods without nourishment gave people of the time a clear picture of how much stronger, and therefore how much more important, the spirit was. It mattered not in popular opinion that the reported periods of female fasting were impossibly long (from months to many years) and simply added to the allure of this very specifically female achievement. Angela of Foligno
Both Angela of Foligno (1248–1309) and Catherine of Siena (1347–1380) were reportedly anorexia mirabilis sufferers.[6] They both refused food, but drank the pus from the sores of the sick. Angela of Foligno is reported to have said it was as "sweet as the Eucharist", and also to have eaten the scabs and lice from those same patients, though precious little else.[7]
Marie of Oignies (1167–1213) reportedly lived as a hermit, wore only white, cut off pieces of her body to expunge her desire, and both she and Beatrice of Nazareth claimed that not only did the smell of meat make them vomit, but also that the slightest whiff of food would cause their throats to close up entirely.[11][12] -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anorexia_mirabilis
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1 Timothy 4:1-3)
The object of ESTABLISH and ENACT is the CANON, not the doctrine. You are making precisely the blunder I already described. You will find everything Trent taught in canons of previous councils and countless theological treatises.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.