How the (Catholic) Church Built Western Civilization

Zenit News Agency ^ | September 26, 2005

[aShepard]

My not being a religious scholar, before 1500 AD how many different denominations of Christian religions were there?? Catholic, and ??, and??, and??

I think it would be more proper to credit Christianity, and Judiasm as the driving forces that were responsible for the western world to break out of the dark ages.

[mike182d]

I have particular disgust for such men because of their vitriol against all things Jewish.

What are you reading of theirs? You will not find a "disgust" for all things Jewish in the history of the Catholic Church as there are many traditions and rituals held fast and carried over by Catholics - the same cannot be said of Protestants, but that is besides the point.

I also think you miss the first several hundred years of oppression and persecution of Christians by the Jews. Convenient isn't it? Christianity actually began as a Jewish sect and remained so for several decades until they received hostility from the Jews.

Matter of fact, if you read any of the Old Testament, the sentiment of the prophets almost mirrors that of the Christian Church: 1. God gaves the law to His chosen people, 2. they rejected it, therefore they stand condemned for rejecting the Lord and His covenant.

You might as well label Isaiah, Moses, David, Elijah, or even Jesus as "anti-semetic" too. Their opinion of faithless Jews is no different than Christianity's. The difference is, instead of Jews being faithless to the original covenant, they are being faithless to the new covenant. Its the same story either way and its very hypocritical to finger the Christians for this one. Those sentiments are all throughout the Bible.

[mike182d]

I think it would be more proper to credit Christianity, and Judiasm as the driving forces that were responsible for the western world to break out of the dark ages.

What is different about the Catholic Church and the whole of Christianity prior to the 1500s? Its the same thing. Ergo, to adjust your statement to reflect your own points:

"I think it would be more proper to credit the Catholic Church and Judaism..."

[aShepard]

Nah! I'll stick with Christianity, not the specific construction of the Catholic church.

[mike182d]

Nah! I'll stick with Christianity, not the specific construction of the Catholic church.

If you can demonstrate how the two are different, I'm all ears.

The Catholic Church was Christianity for the first 1500 years and that's historic fact.

[safisoft]

What are you reading of theirs? You will not find a "disgust" for all things Jewish...

Pick up Martyr's Dialog with Trypho. Pick up anything by Origen. Pick up anything by Augustine. The are rife with statements about how evil Jews are. The church's position regarding Jews for most of its history that the only good Jew was one that had become 'christian' - or maybe one that was a target for conversion. The Presbyterian church today is much the same (Calvin was also vitriolic against Jews).

The reason why Israel's closest friends in 'Christendom' are conservative evangelicals is because they are the largest group of 'Christians' that has repudiated Supercessinism (i.e. replacement theology). Roman Catholics have not repudiated it, but make it their entire focus for what they call the 'Old Testament'.

[aShepard]

....The Catholic Church was Christianity for the first 1500 years and that's historic fact.....

I guess that this is my whole point. The book is entitled:

How the Church Built Western Civilization

But the poster changed the title by adding - Catholic -

I don't think that there had to be a Pope, or Saints, or other precepts of today's Catholism to advance western civilization. Just the opposite, as many independent thinkers decided to break away from these religious trappings starting in the 1500's.

Certainly these thinkers have added as much wisdom to modern man, although they're not Catholic. Also, certainly Judiasm was instrumental in the early years, and their influence has growth over the centuries.

Maybe we're talking semantics, like what the meaning of is - is, but I reject the notion that it was the trappings of Catholicism that fostered knowledge, and that if other Christian idealogy had been in place during that period that the growth of knowledge would have suffered.

[mike182d]

Pick up Martyr's Dialog with Trypho. Pick up anything by Origen. Pick up anything by Augustine. The are rife with statements about how evil Jews are. The church's position regarding Jews for most of its history that the only good Jew was one that had become 'christian' - or maybe one that was a target for conversion. The Presbyterian church today is much the same (Calvin was also vitriolic against Jews).

Would you like a list of how many times the prophets and leaders of the Jewish people call them an "evil" generation or an "evil" people for rejecting God's covenant?

With Christ came the establishment of a new covenant with the whole world - most especially the Jews. They rejected this covenant with God, so I fail to see why you expect "neo-Jews" or believers in Yahweh's new covenant to see them any different than the prophets and Jewish leaders did under the Old Covenant. They were not rejecting Jews simply because they were Jewish (in fact Augustine praises the Jews who were faithful to the Law in City of God) but rather because the Jews of their time, just like the Jews throughout the Old Testament, rejected God's covenant with them.

If you're going to make such an accusation against Christians, you must necessarily include Moses, David, Elijah, Isaiah in your list. They were all making the same point against Jews who disobeyed God's Law.

[mike182d]

But the poster changed the title by adding - Catholic -

The official title of Thomas Woods' book is "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization." The error lies in the reporter's omission.

See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/05/23/DI2005052300939_pf.html

You'll find that specifically "Catholic" beliefs and missions are responsible for some of the greatest progress in Western Civilization, such as the need to better educate Priests in seminaries created what is now the university system, and so forth.

[safisoft]

Would you like a list of how many times the prophets and leaders of the Jewish people call them an "evil" generation or an "evil" people for rejecting God's covenant?

How convenient that in your mind, HaShem simply says 'never mind' and lets you break it.

As for Augustine praising the Jews for faithfulness to the Law, you are wrong. He praises them for being faithful to what He saw the 'Law' to be, a sort of retro-active 'Law of Christ'. The fact is, the Jews throughout the past 2,000 have been more faithful to the Law than Christians have... so did G-d change His mind?

[mike182d]

My simple point is that when St. Augustine and the early Christians spoke against the Jewish people, its in the same vain as Moses, David, or the Prophets would. It is not "anti-semetic" in the Nazi sense of the word. Granted, some got carried away in their zeal, but so did some of the Jewish prophets in speaking against the faithless Jews.

The fact is, the Jews throughout the past 2,000 have been more faithful to the Law than Christians have... so did G-d change His mind?

You're dealing with an entirely different theological issue here.

Consider the following:
When you enroll in a University, there are certain laws governing your development and academic achievements. When you graduate, you have succesfully fullfilled all the duties and obligations required of the University and now have your degree. However, upon receiving your degree, even though you are not obligated to follow all the laws of the University, you can't leave behind the formation attained by those laws or waste what you've received in the diploma.

The relationship between God's New and Old Covenants are not a matter of God "changing his mind" but rather part of his larger plan in sanctifying and redeeming the whole of the human race from their fallen state that can be viewed in similar light as the University analogy. As Christ says: "I have not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it." Basically, Christians are not bound to sacrifice lambs and place the blood on their doors at Passover because Christ is the "diploma" of the Law, so to speak. With His fulfillment, we are no longer required to do all that the "old" law required while at the same time applying the formation achieved by implementing the Law into our new life in Him.

This topic is immense, and probably shouldn't be discussed here, but that's an overly simplistic summation of the Old and New Covenant's relation to each other in the presence of an eternal, unchanging God.

[safisoft]

Basically, Christians are not bound to sacrifice lambs and place the blood on their doors at Passover because Christ is the "diploma" of the Law, so to speak. With His fulfillment, we are no longer required to do all that the "old" law required while at the same time applying the formation achieved by implementing the Law into our new life in Him.

Since you brought up diplomas, then you should know that on this topic I have a doctorate.

Seriously, the relationship between the 'Old Covenant' and the 'New Covenant' is largely missed in mainstream Christianity because it is confused on both. The 'New Covenant' from Jer 31 is claimed by Christianity, and yet it has 7 promises of which are NOT presently fulfilled except in some mystical way (I don't like mystical where Scripture does not make it so). Not that it is not already partially operable, but it is not yet complete - and diddling with the Greek verb tenses in Hebrews and Colossians is proof that Christian 'scholars' don't want the masses to be 'confused' by a YET FUTURE 'New Covenant'.

There is one promise of particular interest in Jer 31 in light of your reference of the 'Law'. It says that He will write the Torah upon Israel and Judah's hearts. What Torah (Law) were the readers of Jeremiah to understand? A DIFFERENT LAW? Does G-d change? When the writer of Hebrews quotes this passage, he/she (Pricilla maybe?) has no issue with the 'Law'. Nor does Ya'akov (James) in Acts 21. In fact, he tells Paul that there were 'myriads and myriads' of believers in Jerusalem, all ZEALOUS FOR THE LAW. Did someone forget to tell the First Century believers that it was passe?

Lastly, your understanding of the sacrifices is through a dirty lense. Apparently, someone forgot to tell the disciples of the Master that sacrifices were not desirable. Paul himself makes them in Acts 21-22 - and for four other men as well (if you knew the Torah, you would know that, because you would know that Num 6 requires sin sacrifices for ending a vow of this sort). Also, if you will look in Zech 14 you will see a yet future event - a return to sacrifices at the "Feast of Tabernacles" [Sukkot]. If you knew the Torah you would know that the Messianic Kingdom has a Temple - and sacrifices. The last 8 chapters of Ezekiel detail a yet future time where all Israel celebrates Passover (with Passover sacrifices) in the Messianic Era.

The fact is that since most 'Christians' are dismissive of the front 3/4 of their Bible, they aren't in touch with the very things they claim to know so well. The fact is, the 'New Covenant' is not 'new' at all - it is from before the foundations of the world. It does not replace the 'Old' - it operates along side it - because it is about the World to Come.

Not my words only. Take some of these key words and look them up in Hebrew and Greek. You will see what I mean. While you are at it, check out the Greek of Hebrews and Colossians. Count the number of times the verb tenses are switched when put into English.

[mike182d]

Since you brought up diplomas, then you should know that on this topic I have a doctorate.

lol. You should have said that before! I would have tried to produce a more thorough and prepared response than what I did. It must have seemed quite juvenile...

As you suggest I will further research the Hebrew Bible and the Law detailed within to provide a more sufficient answer for your purposes. However, I will provide an immediate off-the-cuff response as the Psalms in this morning's Liturgy of the Hours deal with the very issue we're discussing.

The fact is that since most 'Christians' are dismissive of the front 3/4 of their Bible, they aren't in touch with the very things they claim to know so well. The fact is, the 'New Covenant' is not 'new' at all - it is from before the foundations of the world. It does not replace the 'Old' - it operates along side it - because it is about the World to Come.

I think that most Catholic theologians since the beginning would absolutely agree with this remark. The term "new" is admitedly a bit of a misnomer for the very reason you suggest and I was trying, in an overly simplistic way, to illustrate that very point with the example of the University.

You are correct that the Law - not just "natural" law but the Law - was written in the hearts of the Jews. But an crucial question to ask is: What was the desired end of the Law, what purpose did it seek?

The psalm chanted in this morning's liturgy of the hours is Psalm 51 in which David cries aloud to the Lord:

"For in sacrifice you take no delight, burnt offering from me you would refuse, my sacrifice, a contrite spirit, a humbled contrite heart you will not spurn."

Now this can be very confusing given that throughout the history of the Jews God is demanding sacrifice and burnt offering. However, as the Law is written in the hearts of the Jews, the Jews can feel in their own hearts traces of a greater understanding of the purpose for the Law and the great Prophets constantly remind them of this, most notably Isaiah. The sacrifices offered by the Jews, while necessary to God, were merely precursurs to a final sacrfice that would fulfill everything that the Law commanded or sought and not ends in themselves. The Messiah will not come just to fulfill the destiny of the Jewish people but the very Law itself.

I'm glad that you brought up the necessity of a Temple because, believe it or not, Catholics believe this as well. Christ says that He will destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days. The Jews say he's insane and He explains that the Temple will become His own body. The Temple was the Holy of Holies, it was that single place on earth in which God was most truly present. With the incarnation of God in the person of Jesus Christ, Christ now becomes the "Holy of Holies," or the Temple if you will and this only makes sense with John 6:50- when Christ says we must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life. In the past, the Jews had to cleanse themselves in preparation to enter the Holy of Holies. With Jesus Christ, God made flesh, the Holy of Holies enters into men to cleanse them and prepare them for the Kingdom of Heaven. That is why Christ is called the "Lamb of God." He is that Paschal Lamb sacrificed for the sins of others and after this sacrifice it was necessary to consume the Lamb.

For the Catholic Church, our bodies become the new "temples" because God chose to dwell within us in a very real and physical way as celebrated in the Eucharist. So, if anything, Catholics have been the only one's satisfying the requirements of the Old Law since the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. The Jews haven't participated in this ritual for over 1900 years.

But....none of this makes sense apart from Judaism or the "Old" Covenant. Does it not say something about God's love for His chosen people that He chose to actually become a Jew in the flesh? Jesus Christ lived a Jew and died a Jew and the Catholic Church has always believed that the Salvation of mankind can only come from the Jews.

[safisoft]

Jesus Christ lived a Jew and died a Jew and the Catholic Church has always believed that the Salvation of mankind can only come from the Jews.

I am greatful for your thoughtful responses. I truly appreciate your patience in that regard as well.

I raised my questions rhetorically, and yet you honestly sought to answer them - and I agree with much of your responses.

Understand that I am not pushing anything, but I recently wrote a Bible study course on the book of Hebrews from a literary and historical perspective. Part One of that study is on my web site and you are welcome to it (I never charge). You my likely reject some of it, but it also tries to honestly answer some of the questions that we bring to this discussion.

www.bereansonline.org

Shalom brother,

[Tao Yin]

If the keys given to Peter were so important, then why were they only mentioned in 1 out of the 3 tellings of the story?

The point is that the keys were not the point of the story.

The keys do give me pause, but not enough to believe in secret teachings or evolutionary theology.

[Tao Yin]

The year 220? Thanks, I stand corrected, but that still doesn't invalidate my proposition that the keys were an invention to prove a point that they already held to be true.

The problem is that I don't believe in secret teachings or evolutionary doctrine.

You mentioned the Trinity as evolutionary doctrine, but that is terminology. Nothing has been added to the Scriptures regarding the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We just use a different name.

Regarding the keys given to Peter (only mentioned in 1 of the 3 tellings of the story) their meaning has been a theological evolution. Something has been added to Scripture, not just restated.

The same evolutionary doctrine can be seen in the beliefs about Mary. I don't know if she was a perpetual virgin, but I know belief either way is not a condition of salvation.

Beleif that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary is found in every creed. Claiming that belief of Mary's perpetual virginity is a condition of salvation is only found in the writings of some Pope.

My beliefs are founded on the apostolic church. The beliefs I follow have not evolved over time, but are founded on the rock; belief in Jesus. Salvation is by grace, through faith, for works.

[conservonator]

The fact that they were mentioned once is enough. The keys were an integral part of the story, or do you think Christ uses symbolic language for superfluous reasons? There is no "secret teaching", we're not gnostic, and evolution is not a dogma so no one is required to believe it at all.

[Tao Yin]

You are correct, I was rude. Sorry.

[Tao Yin]

The fact remains that the story is told 3 times. Each time it is told, the recurring theme is belief in Jesus.

Story 1: Jesus is the Christ!
Story 2: Jesus is the Christ!
Story 3: Jesus is the Christ! PS - Peter is in charge and beleiving this is a condition of salvation!

Don't you see the absurdity of your claim.

[FourtySeven]

The Real Inquisition

Excellent resource! Thank you, this will be added to my collection at home.