Posted on 12/10/2010 9:27:36 AM PST by marshmallow
The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolic doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles.
1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. Revelation 22:17 For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case?
Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
2. To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent.
Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address.
Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.
3. For, prior to Valentinus, those who follow Valentinus had no existence; nor did those from Marcion exist before Marcion; nor, in short, had any of those malignant-minded people, whom I have above enumerated, any being previous to the initiators and inventors of their perversity. For Valentinus came to Rome in the time of Hyginus, flourished under Pius, and remained until Anicetus. Cerdon, too, Marcion's predecessor, himself arrived in the time of Hyginus, who was the ninth bishop. Coming frequently into the Church, and making public confession, he thus remained, one time teaching in secret, and then again making public confession; but at last, having been denounced for corrupt teaching, he was excommunicated from the assembly of the brethren.
Marcion, then, succeeding him, flourished under Anicetus, who held the tenth place of the episcopate. But the rest, who are called Gnostics, take rise from Menander, Simon's disciple, as I have shown; and each one of them appeared to be both the father and the high priest of that doctrine into which he has been initiated. But all these (the Marcosians) broke out into their apostasy much later, even during the intermediate period of the Church.
Classic. He called “mormon bashers” forth and you responded. At least you know what you are. lol. Oh wait a minute. I forgot. You “love” them.
Nice try, in your usual fashion. But once again, you fail.
No I think I pretty much got that one right. The guy called for “mormon bashers” and you responded. Promptly I might add.
you wrote:
“Heh. Nothing wrong has ever been done by the Catholic church right?”
Doctrinally? No. In other actions, yes. Ending the general use of the old Mass was a mistake, for instance.
“Civil authorities burned the heretics at the stake, the church just approved it.”
True.
“Donations paid for indulgences,”
False. Nothing paid for indulgences. They weren’t sold. Something that isn’t sold, isn’t “paid for.” This is shown to be true by the fact that Albrecht of Mainz’ advisory letter on indulgence preaching expects the poor to be given the indulgence without any donation at all. People who give things away for free are not selling them.
“and Chaucer didn’t understand it when he lampooned the practice and the millions that left the Catholic faith just didn’t understand the distinction.”
What Chaucer satirized is irrelevant. He also satirized marriage. That doesn’t mean he didn’t believe in marriage.
“Such fools. Popes were having orgies in that era and riding about on white elephants.”
Alexander VI may have been involved in orgies - the stories may also be false. Leo X was given an elephant by the king of Portugal. Did either man - no matter how flawed they were as men - teach a single false doctrine? No.
“Rogue priests abused children in our own era, the Church just covered it up.”
Again, false. Some bishops covered it up in their dioceses. Others did not. The Church didn’t cover up anything.
“Or were it rogue bishops and cardinals that were covering it up? You’ve read scholarly articles!”
Some bishops did bad things while others didn’t - that’s what the evidence clearly shows. I don’t blame the Church for what a tiny proportion of its members have done. You apparently do, and that’s probably because of bigotry.
“That’s why I used the phrase Churchianity. You are so wrapped up in your church your faith is threatened by just recognizing historical fact. Christ should be the focus, not the denomination.”
I’ve never been in a denomination. My faith can never be threatened by any fact whatsoever because all of them merely bolster my faith in Christ and His Church. Pointing out the failings of mere men is no threat to my faith whatsoever. None of those failings sullies the Church itself however. Unlike you I know what the Church is - it is the Bride of Christ, unspotted and unwrinkled.
“You view apologetics as defending your church, not Christ.”
Are you admitting that you’re attacking Christ? I believe you are attacking Christ when you attack His Church for they are one. The Church is Christ’s Body. The Church is Christ’s Bride. Thus, when you defend the Church, you defend Christ. You are tacitly admitting that you are an enemy of Christ. I’m not really surprised.
“You view insult and denial of fact as techniques in apologetics. You offer no facts!”
I have offered facts and you have never been able to deal with them. You even fell flat on your face when you attempted to post evidence in support of your completely illogical and ahistorical point of view. An enemy of Christ can’t be expected to be logical so I guess you’ll never be so.
“Phhhht!”
That’s just about the brightest things you’ve posted all day.
“Vlad is offering no facts, but just denial that indulgences were sold by the Catholics in the middle ages.”
So how does he PROVE a negative. Since objectively the Church never did sell indulgences (sinful men claiming the right to do that on behalf of the Church did lie and sell them, but the Church never did), the burden appears to be on your shoulders to PROVE the affirmative case.
I take it your high school didn’t offer any courses in logic?
The Church is made up of some special substance not made up of sinful men then?
The Text of a Sermon on Indulgences
by Johann Tetzel
What are you thinking about? Why do you hesitate to convert yourself? Why don’t you have fears about your sins? Why don’t you confess now to the vicars of our Most Holy Pope? Don’t you have the example of Lawrence, who, compelled by the love of God, gave away his inheritance and suffered his body to be burned? Why do you not take the example of Bartholomew, Stephen, and of other saints who gladly suffered the most gruesome deaths for the sake and salvation of their souls? You, however, do not give up great treasures; indeed you give not even a moderate alms. They gave their bodies to be martyred, but you delight in living well and joyfully. You priest, nobleman, merchant, wife, virgin, you married people, young person, old man, enter into your church which is for you, as I have said, St. Peter’s, and visit the most holy Cross. It has been placed there for you, and it always cries and calls for you. Are you perhaps ashamed to visit the Cross with a candle and yet not ashamed to visit a tavern? Are you ashamed to go to the apostolic confessors, but not ashamed to go to a dance? Behold, you are on the raging sea of the world in storm and danger, not knowing if you will safely reach the harbor of salvation. Do you not know that everything which man has hangs on a thin thread and that all of life is but a struggle on earth? Let us then fight, as did Lawrence and the other saints, for the day it is well, but ill tomorrow. Today alive and tomorrow dead.
You should know that all who confess and in penance put alms into the coffer according to the counsel of the confessor, will obtain complete remission of all their sins. If they visit, after confession and after the Jubilee, the Cross and the altar every day they will receive that indulgence which would be theirs upon visiting in St. Peter’s the seven altars, where complete indulgence is offered. Why are you then standing there? Run for the salvation of your souls! Be as careful and concerned for the salvation of your souls as you are for your temporal goods, which you seek both day and night. Seek the Lord while he may be found and while he is near. Work, as St. John says, while it it yet day, for the night comes when no man can work.
Don’t you hear the voices of your wailing dead parents and others who say, ‘Have mercy upon me, have mercy upon me, because we are in severe punishment and pain. From this you could redeem us with a small alms and yet you do not want to do so.’ Open your ears as the father says to the son and the mother to the daughter . . ., ‘We have created you, fed you, cared for you, and left you our temporal goods. Why then are you so cruel and harsh that you do not want to save us, though it only takes a little? You let us lie in flames so that we only slowly come to the promised glory.’ You may have letters which let you have, once in life and in the hour of death . . . full remission of the punishment which belongs to sin. Oh, those of you with vows, you usurers, robbers, murderers, and criminals - Now is the time to hear the voice of God. He does not want the death of the sinner, but that he be converted and live. Convert yourselves then, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, to the Lord, thy God. Oh, you blasphemers, gossippers, who hinder this work openly or secretly, what about your affairs? You are outside the fellowship of the Church. No masses, no sermons, prayers, sacraments, or intercession help you. No field, vineyard, trees, or cattle bring fruit or wine for you. Even spiritual things vanish, as many an illustration could point out. Convert yourself with all you heart and use the medicine of which the Book of Wisdom says, ‘The Most High has made medicine out of the earth and a wise man will not reject it.’
Source: W. Köhler, Dokumente zum Ablassstreit, pp. 125-26.
I love apologists like you Vlad. Too lazy to post anything factual or persuasive yourself!
Did Protestants sell indulgences? You know Catholics did.
You wrote:
“I love apologists like you Vlad. Too lazy to post anything factual or persuasive yourself!”
Actually I posted facts already - all of which you are far too ignorant about the subject to actually deal with. Did I not already mention the advisory letter of Albrecht of Mainz? That shows the Church - when Tetzel was preaching - did not sell indulgences. What Tetzel did - if he did anything wrong - was entirely his own choice.
As is clear, the Church never sold indulgences. You simply keep proving me right.
Also, if you actually read what you posted, Tetzel’s repeated mentioning of conversion show that he himself was not just selling indulgences. He expected people to convert and make a good confession. You are destroting your own argument. The ignorant usually do that because they have no idea of what they’re doing or what they’re talking about.
You should know that all who confess and in penance put alms into the coffer according to the counsel of the confessor, will obtain complete remission of all their sins.
“If they visit, after confession
and after the Jubilee, the Cross and the altar every day they will receive that indulgence which would
be theirs upon visiting in St. Peter’s the seven altars, where complete indulgence is offered.”
You keep proving me right with each and every post.
LOL! Ignoring the parts where they can “donate” after the confessor requires them to pay for an indulgence as penance! Wouldn’t a believing Catholic have to do the penance required to remove the sin? And yet it’s a “donation” to you.
Do priests still require you to pay money as penance to have sins removed? If not, why not? :P If so . . . you poor SAP!
You wrote: “LOL! Ignoring the parts where they can “donate”....”
DONATION means no sale. Again you prove my point. Your ignorance simply isn’t helping you.
“Do priests still require you to pay money as penance to have sins removed?”
They never did.
“If not, why not?”
They never did and still don’t. An indulgence is not penance.
“If so . . . you poor SAP!”
Once again you have proven me right. Your own post shows DONATIONS, not sales. Your ignorance isn’t working for you. You are, however, working for me.
We can see the rank intellectual dishonesty and ignorance of anti-Catholics in the following statement:
“Vlad is offering no facts, but just denial that indulgences were sold by the Catholics in the middle ages.”
I never denied - not once - that some Catholics violated Church law and sold indulgences. What I denied is that the Church sold indulgences. The Church didn’t. Some unscrupulous people did. I said in post #65: “There were unscrupulous Catholics who sold indulgences I am sure, but the Church never sold them and never approved of the sale of indulgences.” So, when someone then says that I denied that Catholic sold indulgences how honest can that statement be?
“The fig leaf surrounding the practice was so transparent and the abuses so rampant it was lampooned in popular fiction, such as Chaucer. I don’t believe intelligent Catholics deny the obvious. I think Vlad is a particularly pointless waste of time.”
Everything I posted is factually correct. I also never once misrepresented or was dishonest about what November 2010 posted. Did he act the same way?
Here was his false claim:
“Vlad is offering no facts, but just denial that indulgences were sold by the Catholics in the middle ages.”
And yet in post #65 I wrote:
“There were unscrupulous Catholics who sold indulgences I am sure, but the Church never sold them and never approved of the sale of indulgences.”
When someone posts a falsehood about what someone has so clearly said what do we call that?
Isn’t a Catholic required to do the penance proscribed in confession to be absolved of the sin? And yet you call that a “donation!” Pitiful.
You wrote:
“Isn’t a Catholic required to do the penance proscribed in confession to be absolved of the sin? And yet you call that a “donation!” Pitiful.”
As with other anti-Catholics your ability to factually relate what is said by others is minimal. In post 113 you said:
“Do priests still require you to pay money as penance to have sins removed?”
To which I accurately answered:
“They never did.”
That is the correct answer.
And as I said, “An indulgence is not penance.”
Penance is completed before a person can receive an indulgence and no money is involved with either the penance or the indulgence. Even 500 years ago the penance given to a penitent in itself had nothing to with money or indulgences.
Now, back to your latest misunderstanding: “Isn’t a Catholic required to do the penance proscribed in confession to be absolved of the sin?”
For the absolution to be applied to him, yes.
“And yet you call that a “donation!””
No. I never called that a donation. Show me where I ever said that a penance was a donation. Is this how you’re going to proceed now? When you can’t make anything approaching an intelligent or researched argument you’re going to just create straw men?
Here, by the way, is your previous false claim:
“Vlad is offering no facts, but just denial that indulgences were sold by the Catholics in the middle ages.”
And yet in post #65 I wrote:
“There were unscrupulous Catholics who sold indulgences I am sure, but the Church never sold them and never approved of the sale of indulgences.”
When someone posts a falsehood about what someone has so clearly said what is that commonly called?
So holy.
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.