Replies

History Ping

he was not even a Christian. He had no understanding whatsoever of the imputed righteousness of Christ.

You can't be a Christian without an "understanding" of the 16th century invention of the "imputed righteousness of Christ"? LOL. I guess there were no Christians before the 16th century.

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man?" For who but a righteous man lawfully uses the law? Yet it is not for him that it is made, but for the unrighteous. Must then the unrighteous man, in order that he may be justified,-- that is, become a righteous man,-- lawfully use the law, to lead him, as by the schoolmaster's hands to that grace by which alone he can fulfil what the law commands? Now it is freely that he is justified thereby,--that is, on account of no antecedent merits of his own works; "otherwise grace is no more grace," since it is bestowed on us, not because we have done good works, but that we may be able to do them,-- in other words, not because we have fulfilled the law, but in order that we may be able to fulfil the law. ...
For what else does the phrase "being justified" signify than being made righteous, -- by Him, of course, who justifies the ungodly man, that he may become a godly one instead? (St. Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter, nos. 16, 45)

This article practically breathes hatred for the practice of religion and piety. A sad demonstration of the roots of the Reformation.

BTTT

This guy flunks basic early modern history. He doesn't know the difference between monks and friars. He doesn't know that friars were not into contemplation but into the active life of preaching and teaching and pastoring people. The author of this piece doesn't have a clue about what life in an Augustinian Eremite friary was like.

He's clueless. Why should I take anything he says seriously? If graduate student turned in a paper with this sort of fundamental historical errors in it, I'd flunk him and tell him to become a journalist or something else where facts don't matter.

This is the kind of hooting laugher D. and I am describing:

All monks were required to pray the canonical hours. ... Everyone else prayed their prayers together and the prayers always included twenty-five "Our Fathers" ... By my count that means at least 175 "Our Fathers" ... a day. ... Monks were also encouraged to pray the Psalter. Sometimes they were made to pray the Psalter as punishment for infractions within the order.

Any knowledgeable Catholic and practically any Orthodox Christian will look at this, furrow his or her brow, then burst out laughing.

The canonical hours ARE the Psalter. All of the hours include Psalms and prose Scripture readings, they were not and never have been the recitation of 175 Our Fathers in a day. This was as true in Luther's time as it is today, an d it's as true in the East as in the West.

He managed to get a few things right. Compline traditionally ends with the singing of the Salve Regina.

This is what I mean about this gentleman having no feel or understanding of his subject matter.