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.
You wrote:
“So holy.”
I’m just being accurate and honest.
Here’s your 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? Can you answer the question?
You think she would listen? If she doesn’t mind babies be murdered in the womb, then why would she bat an eye at theft?
When I was a boy I had a Monsignor. I googled him about 5 years ago and learned that the poor bastard had been one of the ones that had to cover up for the molestors in the diocese. I say poor bastard because I believe he was a decent man who did what his church wanted him to and they had him act to protect the church and not the children. This was my lifetime, not some ancient corruption like you can't admit to. When I returned to the church I went to a Catholic service. At that service there was not a priest doing the service. The fellow doing it joked around about lying about some photographs of John Paul II and who had taken them. I didn't think joking around about lying was what I wanted in a Church. I went to a the largest and richest Catholic Church in the area. We didn't like the service (there was nothing wrong that we could articulate, it just didn't touch us). About a year later I read in the paper that the priest had a bar in Ireland, was stealing money from the church and paid quite a bit of it to a church secretary or assistant that he was sleeping with. When they investigated the church finances it turned out the Priest before him had been stealing as well.
Turning a blind eye to the corruption is not what I believe Christ calls us to. Pray for an end to the corruption.
You wrote:
“Clearly, your church sold indulgences.”
Clearly it didn’t.
“The sales increased as I’ve posted support for when there were “capital intensive projects.””
No. The fact that more people donated money does not mean that there was even a single “sale”. Donations are different than sales.
“The volume of indulgences was so great they used printers such as Guttenburg.”
Again, donations are not sales. Also, that isn’t even much in volume. Using a printer only means thousands were printed. In a country of millions, that ain’t much.
“Penance in confession included giving money for the forgiveness, as I posted support for, and as you’ve said, a believing Catholic has to do the proscribed penance to have the sin forgiven.”
False. Money was never required by the Church for the forgiveness of sins. It wasn’t required before, during or after the Middle Ages. Again, if Tetsel taught something that is wrong, then TETZEL did something wrong - not the Church.
“Writers such as Chaucer lampooned the sales of indulgences in his “Pardoners Tale.””
None were sold by the Church. Chaucer makes it clear that the Pardoner was doing something dishonest. It was against Church law. Ever wonder why Chaucer shows the Pardoner clearly lying about from where he got the indulgence certificates? Chaucer knew the Church didn’t sell indulgences. He clearly showed the Pardoner was a liar.
If you really knew what you were talking about - in regard to Chaucer let alone about indulgences at all - you would know the famous note on the Pardoner from the 1775 edition of Chaucer (Vol. IV, page 215):
“It appears from hence that the Pardoner was an itinerant ecclefiaftick, of much the fame stamp with Frate Cipolla in the Decameron. vi. 10. By the Stat. 22 H. VIII. c. 12. all protlors and pardoners going about in any countrey without sufficient authority are to be treated as vagabonds. Their impositions upon the credulity of the vulgar have been checked by several Councils.”
See that? These people were acting without “sufficient authority”. They were “checked by several Councils.”
Selling indulgences was illegal. It was a violation of Church law. The Church did not sell indulgences.
“Millions left the Catholic church because of the corruption.”
False. http://www.the-orb.net/non_spec/missteps/ch11.html
“Corruption remains today but you can’t even admit to past corruption.”
False. I have no problem admitting that people were corrupt. The Church, however, did not sell indulgences.
“When I was a boy I had a Monsignor. I googled him about 5 years ago and learned that the poor bastard had been one of the ones that had to cover up for the molestors in the diocese. I say poor bastard because I believe he was a decent man who did what his church wanted him to and they had him act to protect the church and not the children.”
False. He didn’t do what the Church wanted him to do. He may have done what his particular bishop wanted him to do. One bishop is not the Church. One Monsignor is not the Church.
“This was my lifetime, not some ancient corruption like you can’t admit to.”
I don’t know why you think it is okay to repeatly post the same falsehood. I have no problem whatsoever saying there have always been corrupt people. I just don’t lie and say the Catholci Church sold indulgences. If it happened, you would be able to show some evidence of it. You have failed to do so and will continue to do so. I researched all of this when I was studying for my PhD in Medieval History. There is exactly ZERO evidence that the Catholic Church ever authorized the sale of even ONE indulgence anywhere, anytime, EVER.
“When I returned to the church I went to a Catholic service. At that service there was not a priest doing the service. The fellow doing it joked around about lying about some photographs of John Paul II and who had taken them. I didn’t think joking around about lying was what I wanted in a Church.”
Oh, so now you’re against lying? So what was this then:
“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.”
You wrote:
“I went to a the largest and richest Catholic Church in the area. We didn’t like the service (there was nothing wrong that we could articulate, it just didn’t touch us). About a year later I read in the paper that the priest had a bar in Ireland, was stealing money from the church and paid quite a bit of it to a church secretary or assistant that he was sleeping with. When they investigated the church finances it turned out the Priest before him had been stealing as well.”
Oh, my gosh, a priest who is also a sinner? What a shocker that a human being is a sinner! Is doing this a sin:
“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.”
Is doing that a sin?
“Turning a blind eye to the corruption is not what I believe Christ calls us to. Pray for an end to the corruption.”
I do. What I do not do is imagine corruption where it wasn’t. I blame those responsible. I do not blame the Church for selling indulgences when it never, ever, even once, sold indulgences. It was a violation of Church law.
What I suggest you do is find a better parish. You probably shouldn’t be wasting time online posting about subjects you apparently know nothing about. If there’s a Latin Mass near you, go there. That priest will most likely be a better priest than many others you’ll run in to. Ask him about all the permutations of violating the 8th Commandment.
By the way, I’m willing to bet that you went back to Mass (as you say, “When I returned to the church I went to a Catholic service”) you probably didn’t bother going to confession. In fact, you probably have significant difficulty humbling yourself before God enough to muster up the courage to go to confession. Deny it all you like, but that’s probably what you need.
Interesting take on corruption so rampant it reached the popular literature of the time. You say: “One bishop is not the Church. One Monsignor is not the Church.” I agree. The Church is the body of Christ and includes all Christians. The Catholic church is the monsignors and the bishops and the Popes and the laypeople of the Catholic Church (christian or not). It’s a heirarchical institution. 2 out of 3 of the Catholic churches I’ve attended in my life were touched by that corruption. Dodge around it all you want but you can’t face the corruption and so it continues in your denomination. I truly believe the faithful, such as yourself, are to blame as much as the priests and bishops. Your theology requires you to be blind followers. Deny all instances of corruption and defend the church. Buy all explanations otherwise the church will be hurt. I think the opposite. The Church will benefit from facing the corruption and being honest about it.
You wrote:
“Interesting take on corruption so rampant it reached the popular literature of the time.”
Corruption has appeared in popular literature in every age in every civilized society. It still does.
“You say: “One bishop is not the Church. One Monsignor is not the Church.” I agree. The Church is the body of Christ and includes all Christians.”
False. Not all Christians are in the Church - as they often admit themselves.
“The Catholic church is the monsignors and the bishops and the Popes and the laypeople of the Catholic Church (christian or not).”
False. All Catholics are baptized Christians. Whether or not they have been well catechized or act as Christians should is another matter. There is no such thing as Catholic non-Christians.
“It’s a heirarchical institution.”
Always has been. Christ appointed 12 Apostles. In Acts you see the choosing of deacons who served the apostles. That’s hierarchy.
“2 out of 3 of the Catholic churches I’ve attended in my life were touched by that corruption.”
False. All people are touched by corruption. Every parish of any notable age has had corrupt people in it. All of them. We are all afflicted with concupiscence.
“Dodge around it all you want but you can’t face the corruption and so it continues in your denomination.”
1. I’ve never been in a denomination. Ever.
2. I have never dodged anything about corruption. What I don’t do is imagine corruption that doesn’t exist.
“I truly believe the faithful, such as yourself, are to blame as much as the priests and bishops.”
I blame the faithful too - but the clergy have the greater responsibility since they were given the duty of leadership. It’s much like with education. Everyone blames the teachers or the unions. Yes, they are rife with problems, but in the end almost all education problems of any lasting nature rest at the feet of parents. They can use their power to change schools over night but rarely do so.
“Your theology requires you to be blind followers.”
False. My theology actually demands that I examine and weigh issues very carefully. All of this is done with truth as the ultimate prerequisite. This is why I have never been dishonest with what you have said. Can you say the same? One of us cares about truth. It isn’t you.
“Deny all instances of corruption and defend the church.”
False. Once again you resort to outright falsehoods. I have never, ever, anywhere or anytime in my life denied any case of corruption. What I don’t do is imagine it where it doesn’t exist or didn’t happen.
“Buy all explanations otherwise the church will be hurt.”
False. The truth is the truth. You can deny it all you like, but I never do so.
“I think the opposite.”
I don’t think you think much at all. See, someone who thinks wouldn’t post such obvious falsehoods and apparently expect them to not be noticed.
You actually have posted things that are in direct contradiction to the evidence.
Here are just two examples:
“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.”
Now, that statement of yours is a direct contradition of what I posted earlier. How do you explain that?
How about this one?:
You wrote: “Your theology requires you to be blind followers. Deny all instances of corruption and defend the church.”
But I actually said the following:
“I have no problem admitting that people were corrupt.”
“The Church will benefit from facing the corruption and being honest about it.”
The Church is honest. Individual people often are not. With what you have posted you are not necessarily in position to urge anyone to be honest about anything.
And like I said, you didn’t go to confession did you? Maybe one day the courage you need will be found and you can humble yourself before the Lord. Until then you will simply continue to attack what you apparently don’t know, haven’t studied, never researched, and don’t understand.
So the Catholic church CANNOT do anything wrong by definition. That’s cult thinking.
You wrote:
“So the Catholic church CANNOT do anything wrong by definition.”
The Church is Christ’s Body. Is Christ capable of teaching error? No. Neither is the Church. The Church can err on lesser matters. It did not sell indulgences in any case, however.
“That’s cult thinking.”
No. It is entirely Christian to believe Christ cannot teach error. It is entirely Christian to believe that He would not establish and send a Church which could fail - especially since He died in part to make that Church happen! People fail. God doesn’t. Ever.
Here’s an example of the failure of a person:
You said: “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.”
You still have never dealt with that failure. Not even once.
And you didn’t go to confession, did you?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my Catholic Apologetics and the Defense of the Faith ping list:
Please ping me to Catholic threads where I can help defend our common faith!
This is a TEST ping. If you want OFF this NEW CATHOLIC Apologetics list, please let me know! The "old" Catholic and prolife list will continue but no longer be used for the Defense of the Faith calls to action, that will be the job of this new list.
I can't help but wonder how you mean "popular literature" -- maybe something on the level of Harlequin romances? Chaucer wrote --perforce -- for the educated, necessarily the upper classes, those who were literate and could afford manuscripts. The Canterbury pilgrims represent in parvo the world, at least Christendom as it used to be called, and it shows the wheat and tares growing together. To omit that corruption so common in fallen man would be literally a Bowdlerization that would be foreign to the medieval world.
Was it not Jesus himself that prayed for Peter, so that after he had overcome satan he would lead the other apostles?
So the Catholic church CANNOT do anything wrong by definition.Correct.
That’s cult thinking.Correct, the True Cult of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Again, nice try to raise a nasty reply to your childish insult. But again, you fail.
I'm not sure what this has to do with the point of the previous post which was that if Peter could blaspheme why couldn't Irenaeus.
Spot on. The summons went out and you harkened. The posts are still there. Scroll up and read again. Pretty straightforward. Only nasty because you were "snared." Probably would be best if you could try and laugh at yourself a bit. Seems a bit crotchety around here. :-)
Oh, I get plenty enough laugh at you. Want to try again?
What's funny is you didn't go back and look. Come on, join us all in laughing at yourself. Where's your sense of humor. lol.
Your whirling dervish immitation is amusing, as you try to start with an insult—hoping to get a nasty reply— then try to spin that into an amusement. You make such a fine spokesthing for Mormonism apologetics don’tchaknow. Too bad they haven’t persuaded you to join their religion. You could probably benefit from a little fear of the Lord, even if it is another lord not The Lord. Deceit is at the heart of Mormonism so you ought to feel at home in that ISM.
"whirling dervish immitation". Oh wow. Your use of the English language is too wonderful for me. I hadn't realized you're such a holy dude. My mistake. Carry on. I'll just slip on a raincoat and a pair of rubber boots. Kinda like Mormons need to do when you're finished dressing them down. lol.
All in Jesus name of course. :-)
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.