Replies

Since, as with almost all Protestants, you probably know little about history, you might want to read this before you post anything that cites Lea as an authority:

This is from a classic, unfortunately there is only the beginning of the article: http://archive.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9605clas.asp

Unlike most people I have actually read the works of Lea. I know about his sources, methods, and his anachronism which was so pronounced that it was tantamount to bigotry.

If his mother had not left the Catholic Church in 1822 who knows what might have happened. Maybe he would not have swallowed so much bilge water about the Church being such a threat to liberty that he would not have read that threat BACK INTO MEDIEVAL HISTORY. And to think, his grandfather published the first Catholic Bible in the USA!

I always wondered why he had a nervous breakdown in 1847.

Your comments are no less rash than what you accuse Lea of and the link seems to deal with something entirely apart from my post.

And your comment really have no bearing on what I quoted. Lea is not likely to be appreciated by Catholics as even the Catholic Encyclopedia says of him,

” The anti-clerical animus which prompts a certain type of mind to rake these scandals together, and to revel in and exaggerate their prurient details, is at least as marked as the tendency on the part of the Church's apologists to ignore these uncomfortable pages of history altogether.”

In short, he's being called a “muck raker” but the scandals are and were real. If few have read Lea I encourage them to do so and Peter Damian and the news of today letting them make their own judgment.

I always wondered why he had a nervous breakdown in 1847

Why did the former freeper BChan have his own breakdown?

Should we blame his Catholicism? Or maybe it was just the style, flavor (and spirit) of a certain subset of it, found here frequently on FR religion forum pages that helped push him to the brink?

The stubborn, stiff-necked and proud, will continue on... knowing all the words, yet not having the knowledge of the precepts convert them, much as the Jewish religious authorities of Jesus's day, thought they knew it all --- for was not it God whom had in previous centuries, put them in charge of such matters?

Embroidered phylacteries saved no one in Christ's day (on earth), nor was He impressed by them or their wearers.

They could recite the writings, word for word. Nobody knew it like they did. What happened to them, but they had those temples of theirs overthrown, cast down, stone by stone?

To this day, He dwells not in temples made of hands.

You wrote;

Maybe he would not have swallowed so much bilge water about the Church being such a threat to liberty that he would not have read that threat BACK INTO MEDIEVAL HISTORY.

Read that back into history?

For more than a few, it WAS back in Medieval times, when the Catholic Church in Europe, in conjunction with kings, was indeed a threat to not only liberty, but at times one's very life.

If burning people at the stake, alive, (as in the case of John Huss) is not an abuse of Christ-given authority, what is?

With "history" like that to defend, it's no wonder you're trying to sell to us the meme that "Protestants are ignorant of history", while you feverishly attempt to whitewash the same.

Longing for the good 'ol days, are you? When your church could, under authority it had granted to itself, kill it's critics?