How the (Catholic) Church Built Western Civilization

Zenit News Agency ^ | September 26, 2005

[mike182d]

So, please explain the Dead Sea Scrolls which predate the Roman church by hundreds of years. Your history regarding the preservation of Scripture is shallow at best.

Was the New Testament in the Dead Sea Scrolls? That's news to me...

[Scotswife]

"So, please explain the Dead Sea Scrolls which predate the Roman church by hundreds of years. Your history regarding the preservation of Scripture is shallow at best."

You are referring to Old Testament writings preserved by the Essenes - a Jewish community.

I could have been more specific - the New Testament writings were written by the first christians, of which this church was first referred to as "catholic" - universal- by Ignatius.
It was this same Church which preserved these writings, translated them - and declared them divinely inspired.

[MissAmericanPie]

I'm sure the "company" feels your pain regarding the Luther's of this world, the flies in the ointment. Just think of how much could be consolidated and controlled if burning at the stake were still an option.=o)

[mike182d]

I hear that Germany is looking for good revisionists to rewrite the history of Germany from 1932-1945. So, maybe there are some good Catholic historians who are up to it?

I find that comment terribly ironic as it was members of a German sect (Protestants) who are responsible for propogating some of the worst revisionist history of the Church they so vehemently despised:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp

[mike182d]

I'm sure the "company" feels your pain regarding the Luther's of this world, the flies in the ointment. Just think of how much could be consolidated and controlled if burning at the stake were still an option.=o)

I'm sorry, but any man who claims to know more than the followers of Christ, the first Christians and the 1500 years of Christians before him about what Christ actually taught is to be highly suspect in his thinking.

If you study the history of Christianity, you will not find "sola sciptura," "sola fides," rejection of the sacraments, rejection of the priesthood/celibacy, rejection of intercessory prayer, etc., prior to Martin Luther. To follow Martin Luther is to follow a tradition invented in the 16th Century. To follow the Catholic Church is to follow a tradition began by the Apostles themselves.

Which do you suppose is truer to the saying and teachigs of Christ?

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

I agree with the "Christianity" part, but that casts a much wider net than just the Catholic Church. I think Protestants did quite well in the good old USofA after having wrenched the bible from the hands of those that didn't allow the ordinary man to read it, and they seem to have been very blessed in all their endeavors, as opposed to Old Europe's stagnation.

You are exactly right. Rejection of Catholic perversion of scripture launched a return to the Bible and the birth of a mighty nation. However, rejection of the Bible at present is destroying it.

[mike182d]

I am not Protestant. I owe no allegiance to the Roman Catholic Church. I have no dog in the fight between "Protestants" and "Catholics" other than to chuckle at the blatant revisionism on the part of Catholicism because so much of its history is indefensible.

I suppose look to Britain for the most accurate portrayal of the Revolutionary War? Or to Russia for the most accurate portrayal of the Space Race? You'll find their accounts of history are quite different than ours. In so far as history is a written account of the subjective experience of men, there is no such thing as "objective" history.

My source for history is not the group defending itself. Maybe to be more objective you should try reading some real history.

So, you're completely disregarding the entire article and everything contained therein because its from a Catholic source? Would you care to address points in the article with your own counterpoints from your wealth of "objective" Catholic history?

[mike182d]

You are exactly right. Rejection of Catholic perversion of scripture launched a return to the Bible and the birth of a mighty nation. However, rejection of the Bible at present is destroying it.

Catholic "perversion?" Excuse me, but do you have a translation of the New Testament not authorized by the Catholic Church in the 4th Century? The very New Testament you hold in your hand is a product of the very Church you accuse of perverting the Bible. If the Catholic Church perverts the Bible, you have no reason to accept the Gospel of John as true over, say, the Gospel of Mary Magdelene.

[MissAmericanPie]

I have to disagree with your claim that the Catholic Church was handed the reins by the apostles. Catholic doctrine flies in the face of the detailed scriptures regarding the qualifications of a preacher/teacher. The bible never speaks of an organized priesthood.

In fact given what Christ had to say to the priesthood of the time, calling them snakes, one would logically assume that this type of organization of priests leads to corruption. Given the sexual assult of homosexual/predator priests on altar boys I can't see why the Catholic Church would feel it's so much better to have child molesters in charge of their flocks rather than those awful married fathers.

This is just one example of where the Catholic Church went off the tracks regarding their doctrine verses scripture. Don't get me started on the corruption and abuse of their followers through the centuries until the common man wrested the scriptures from their control.

[safisoft]

Was the New Testament in the Dead Sea Scrolls? That's news to me...

So, Scripture starts at Matthew 1:1 for you. That explains a lot.

BTW, the D.S.S. have all of the books found in Catholic "Apocrypha" - which is one of the principle debates on the origins of canon. The Scriptures are not the sole possession of the Catholic Church. The 'New Testament' itself places the preservation of Scripture with the Jews.

[Tao Yin]

• latria - the honor that is due to God alone
• dulia - the honor that is due to the saints
• hyperdulia - (huper [more than]+ dulia = "beyond dulia"), the honor due to Mary alone

latria, dulia and hyperdulia all translate to worship. It is like the many greek terms for love.

When people started reading the Bible and questioning the Catholic traditions that didn't seem to match Scripture, these words were given different translations.

• latria - worship
• dulia - honor
• hyperdulia - venerate

And I like this little blurb from Catholic.com "Though one should know it from one’s own background, it often may be best to simply point out that Catholics do not worship anyone but God and omit discussing the history of the term. "

I did not misrepresent the catholic faith. Next time it would be best to simple say "Move along, nothing to see here!" because you're not supposed to talk about it.

[ReagansRaiders]

And all this can be traced back to "How the Irish Saved Civilization". http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385418493/104-0012929-1793571?v=glance

[mike182d]

I have to disagree with your claim that the Catholic Church was handed the reins by the apostles. Catholic doctrine flies in the face of the detailed scriptures regarding the qualifications of a preacher/teacher. The bible never speaks of an organized priesthood.

First, it is never alleged that the Apostles created the Catholic Church or "handed the reins" to a seperate entity. Rather, the Catholic Church was the Apostles - appointed by Christ Himself, and continued with their successive appointments.

I think it would do you well to read the book of Acts and pay close attention to how the Church functions. Who told Peter to appoint another Apostle to replace Judas? It certainly wasn't Jesus as He had long since ascended into heaven and Peter certainly wasn't appealing to the Bible. So, where does Peter get the authority to name another Apostle, whereas Christ had been the only one capable of doing so prior? Secondly, did not this new appointment - Matthias - come into possession of all the powers of an Apostle? The powers and the authority of the Apostles could be passed on to others as Acts clearly demonstrates and was passed on as the 2000 year history of the Church demonstrates. Think about it: the Apostles didn't die all at once. If someone claimed to be an appointed successor of an Apostle, and it was not "kosher" with the existing Apostles or the Christian community, don't you think they would have said something prior to the 16th Century? And yet, no one questioned Apostolic succession for 1500 years. What did Martin Luther know that the first 1500 years of Christians didn't?

The bible never speaks of an organized priesthood.

Of course the Bible speaks of a priesthood, its all over the Old Testament. In fact, for Paul to consider Christ a "High Priest," it would necessitate the existance of a priesthood. If there isn't a priesthood, what exactly is Christ the High Priest of? That's like saying there's a Speaker of the House without a House of Representatives. Doesn't make much sense. Once again, the first 1500 years of Christians didn't have a problem with it. What did Martin Luther know that they didn't? (Keep in mind the current "priesthood" is not the same as the Jewish "priesthood." It is not the Catholic priest that makes a sacrifice on behalf of himself or the people, but rather a man acting in persona Christi, or in the person of Christ with Christ working through Him, to make accessible to those present today the grace of His sole, eternal sacrifice 2000 years ago).

In fact given what Christ had to say to the priesthood of the time, calling them snakes, one would logically assume that this type of organization of priests leads to corruption.

Show me where Christ criticizes the office of the priesthood. He only challenges individual priests for being hypocritical and not living up to the holiness of their position. If you can show me where in the Bible Christ removes the priesthood, as an office, I'm all ears.

Given the sexual assult of homosexual/predator priests on altar boys I can't see why the Catholic Church would feel it's so much better to have child molesters in charge of their flocks rather than those awful married fathers.

This is what we typically call "ignorance." First of all, lack of sex has nothing to do with pedophilia - there is absolutely no corrolation. If so, why would Christ and St. Paul say that it is better to be celibate if it was inherently evil? Secondly, your judging the whole of a group of people by a deviant 3% (6% tops). This is no more justified than calling all blondes "dumb" or all black "criminals."

This is just one example of where the Catholic Church went off the tracks regarding their doctrine verses scripture.

Find one Bible verse that contradicts a Catholic dogma or doctrine. You will not find it. The best Protestants can say is that "its not explicitely in the Bible" but there is no Catholic dogma or doctrine that contradicts scripture.

However, there are plenty of Protestant beliefs that clearly contradict the written Word of God. At the very least, its a case of the pot calling the kettle "black."

[little jeremiah]

later read/pingout.

[NYer]

I have to disagree with your claim that the Catholic Church was handed the reins by the apostles.

2 Sam. 7:16; Psalm 89:3-4; 1 Chron.17:12,14 - God promises to establish the Davidic kingdom forever on earth.

Matt. 1:1 - Matthew clearly establishes this tie of David to Jesus. Jesus is the new King of the new House of David, and the King will assign a chief steward to rule over the house while the King is in heaven.

Luke 1:32 - the archangel Gabriel announces to Mary that her Son would be given "the throne of His father David."

Matt. 16:19 - Jesus gives Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven." While most Protestants argue that the kingdom of heaven Jesus was talking about is the eternal state of glory (as if Peter is up in heaven letting people in), the kingdom of heaven Jesus is speaking of actually refers to the Church on earth. In using the term "keys," Jesus was referencing Isaiah 22 (which is the only place in the Bible where keys are used in the context of a kingdom).

Isaiah 22:22 - in the old Davidic kingdom, there were royal ministers who conducted the liturgical worship and bound the people in teaching and doctrine. But there was also a Prime Minister or chief steward of the kingdom who held the keys. Jesus gives Peter these keys to His earthly kingdom, the Church. This representative has decision-making authority over the people - when he shuts, no one opens. See also Job 12:14.

Rev. 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1 - Jesus' "keys" undeniably represent authority. By using the word "keys," Jesus gives Peter authority on earth over the new Davidic kingdom, and this was not seriously questioned by anyone until the Protestant reformation 1,500 years later after Peter’s investiture.

Matt. 16:19 - whatever Peter binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven / when the Prime Minister to the King opens, no one shuts. This "binding and loosing" authority allows the keeper of the keys to establish "halakah," or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves. Peter's "keys" fit into the "gates" of Hades which also represent Peter’s pastoral authority over souls.

Matt. 23:2-4 - the "binding and loosing" terminology used by Jesus was understood by the Jewish people. For example, Jesus said that the Pharisees "bind" heavy burdens but won't move ("loose") them with their fingers. Peter and the apostles have the new binding and loosing authority over the Church of the New Covenant.

[mike182d]

So, Scripture starts at Matthew 1:1 for you. That explains a lot. BTW, the D.S.S. have all of the books found in Catholic "Apocrypha" - which is one of the principle debates on the origins of canon. The Scriptures are not the sole possession of the Catholic Church. The 'New Testament' itself places the preservation of Scripture with the Jews.i>

When did I say that?

I said that if you're going to deny the Church the authority to add books to Scripture, than the New Testament is completely unjustified in existing. If you are going to say that the New Testament is justified in existing as part of Scripture, then you must believe in the Catholic Church's authority to add such books to the collection of Scriptures.

If you don't believe that the New Testament is "Scripture," then that's a whole different discussion altogether and your position that only the Hebrew Bible is the authoritative Word of God has some merit. But, if you're going to say that the New Testament is legitimately part of Sacred Scripture, then you must, by necessity, submit that its inclusion was by the authority of the Catholic Church. Otherwise, the Gospel of John has no more right to be included in Sacred Scripture than the Gospel of Mary Magdelene or the Gospel of Thomas. It was the Catholic Church that seperated the "wheat from the chaff" in the formulation of a New Testament canon and that cannot be denied, historically.

[annalex]

mild torture

Commenting on a historical period requires familiarity with the culture of that period in that place. Intentionally causing physical discomfort (to oneself) is a part of Catholic culture to this day. It is done, possibly on advice from a priest, to focus the mind rather than as punishment. Similarly, an inquisitor would make the suspected heretic suffer mild pain or discomfort because the inquisitor believes that would remind the suspect of the suffering of Jesus and the suffering of hell that awaits the suspect if he does not cooperate. It was done to motivate honesty and cooperation with the investigation. The Inquisition always reminded its cadre that torture that is so intense that it causes false confessions is not allowed. A typical instrument of torture was a metal stick with forked sharp ends; it was tied to the suspect's neck so that he has to keep his chin up to avoid pain.

Regarding specifically Spanish Jews, the Holy Inquisition concerned itself only with the dishonest Conversos, that is, precisely, Jewish converts to Christianity that secretly maintained their Jewish faith. By definition, the Spanish Inquisition was not interested in a Jew (or a follower of any other religion beside Catholic Christianity) who would declare himself such. Jews that kept their faith suffered expulsions and other injustices at the hand of the King's government, to be sure, but not at the hand of the Inquisition. Also, while explanations what the Kingdom of Spain did is not relevant for our discussion, Spain had just emerged from the prolonged war of reconquest with the Muslim and viewed Jews, rightly or wrongly, as colaborators with them.

[safisoft]

Regarding specifically Spanish Jews, the Holy Inquisition concerned itself only with the dishonest Conversos, that is, precisely, Jewish converts to Christianity that secretly maintained their Jewish faith. By definition, the Spanish Inquisition was not interested in a Jew (or a follower of any other religion beside Catholic Christianity) who would declare himself such. Jews that kept their faith suffered expulsions and other injustices at the hand of the King's government, to be sure, but not at the hand of the Inquisition.

Sick stuff. Making excuses for the shameful past of the Roman Church ("Holy Inquisition", what a sick phrase!) is disturbing to say the least. All I can say is thank G-d for the Reformation if it took at least part of the world away from this sick stuff.

[annalex]

The Bishop of Rome is not a micromanager...he only acts when necessesity obligates him to act...and that was exactly the case with the Corinthians.

Precisely so. Also, Pope Clement made the scriptural foundation of his primacy very clear as he compared the twelve Apostles to the twelve tribes of Israel where Aaron had primacy:

[...] when rivalry arose concerning the priesthood, and the tribes were contending among themselves as to which of them should be adorned with that glorious title, [Moses] commanded the twelve princes of the tribes to bring him their rods, each one being inscribed with the name of the tribe. And he took them and bound them [together], and sealed them with the rings of the princes of the tribes, and laid them up in the tabernacle of witness on the table of God. And having shut the doors of the tabernacle, he sealed the keys, as he had done the rods, and said to them, Men and brethren, the tribe whose rod shall blossom has God chosen to fulfil the office of the priesthood, and to minister to Him. And when the morning was come, he assembled all Israel, six hundred thousand men, and showed the seals to the princes of the tribes, and opened the tabernacle of witness, and brought forth the rods. And the rod of Aaron was found not only to have blossomed, but to bear fruit upon it. What think you, beloved? Did not Moses know beforehand that this would happen? Undoubtedly he knew; but he acted thus, that there might be no sedition in Israel, and that the name of the true and only God might be glorified;

Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 42

[annalex]

You won't be coming to the Church soon, I am afraid. Whenever you are ready, we are.