Posted on 11/15/2011 4:28:39 PM PST by rzman21
You wrote:
“Northern Europe, and I don’t mean just “North of the Alps” was not converted totally before America was discovered. As late as the 1600s you could still find pagans throughout Northern Scandinavia and Northern Russia.”
And since we know there are Muslims and Buddhists in Greece and Russia respectively that means - by your logic - that those countries were never “converted totally” yet. See how that doesn’t work? You can’t say that because the Lapps ddin’t convert until the early modern period that that means the Swedes were somehow not really Christians. That is pure hogwash!
“Central and Eastern Europe were subjected to repeated transfers of authority from East to West and West to East throughout the the Middle Ages.”
Not really. Poland, once Christianized, never was “East”. You’re talking about a few places in the Balkans and Bohemia, Hungary perhaps and that’s really it.
“Frontiersmen on the American frontier were in the practice of creating new churches out of nothing. By the early 1800s Scottish immigrants added an intellectual component to the practice and came up with the idea of a Second Century church.”
In other words, they invented more Protestant rubbish and passed it off to ill-educated twist as proper and worthwhile. Man-made sects - and all Protestant sects are man made - are just lies.
I did NOT read his mind.
I clearly said: “Probably because you don’t know much about him JUDGING BY YOUR POST.”
You wrote:
“I don’t have much good to say about Constantine.”
AND JUDGING BY YOUR POST you probably don’t know much about him.
If you had said "By judging your post, I doubt you know much about him." you would have been expressing your own mind and not reading his.
You wrote:
“There’s currently a theory being investigated that most Protestant areas in Europe were actually Orthodox up until quite recent times but when invaded and taken over by Western princes or armies the priests were sacked or they fled and the new rulers simply failed to bring in Roman priests. The populace left to its own started running their own churches.”
Completely false. Take a map of Protestant Europe: England, Iceland, Scotland, Sweden, Holland, and most of the rest had no Eastern “Orthodox” Christians at all - ever - until modern times.
You’re still wrong, but I fixed it in another post. Why was my other post deleted?
The one with a reference to “crack” was deleted. Posts which suggest another Freeper is drunk, on meds, etc. are pulled whenever I see them because they are personal and lead to flamewars.
“I don’t have much good to say about Constantine.”
“AND JUDGING BY YOUR POST you probably don’t know much about him.”
And you seem to know a lot that isn’t so. (hat tip to Reagan)
I see. So, when a Freeper tells me that I worship the Virgin Mary (and I don’t), which is the same thing as saying I worship a false God and betray my own religion, that must also be personal and must also be considered something that would lead to a flame war, correct? After all, that would also have to be “mind reading” would it not?
Christian Traditions are not “inventions of philosophy”.
Also, neither 2 Thessalonians 2:14-15 nor 2 THESSALONIANS 3
6 say “Tradition...goes directly to SCRIPTURE” nor that it is “inventions of philosophy”. St. Paul simply correctly notes there is one body of doctrine and two modes of transmission. And that’s exactly what the church teaches:
II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE
One common source. . .
80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.”40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”42
“And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”43
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”44
Spare me your citations. When you understand 1st century Judaism then we can talk. Until then don’t bother using your cliches.
You wrote:
“2 Thessalonians defines good traditions as being from 1) the Gospel and 2) the Epistles from “us”, i.e. the Apostles and therefore synonymous with Holy Scripture.”
False. The Gospel is not a written message. It is the Good News of Christ - which St. Paul always preached and lived and SOMETIMES wrote. Look at St. Philip in Acts 8:12. In 8:35 Philip preaches starting with scripture. If you do a simple word search of “good news” you’ll see it is overwhelmingly by PREACHING not writing.
“Your traditions are supported by a catechism written by men whose hands were drenched in innocent blood over which non-scriptural tradition to accept, generally in order to cement political power. By their fruits ye shall know them.”
Your views are out of touch with reality. First, the Catechism was written by men who were never “drenched in innocent blood”. Tell me who Cardinal Schonborn killed. Can you? No, because he killed no one. Your comment rings of a bizarre twilight world view completely out of touch with reality. Second, although written by men, the work was protected by the Holy Spirit for He protects the Church. Also, you made no effort to refute what I posted. Failed so soon?
“Why do you think Christ and the Apostles blasted traditions other than those explicitly in Scripture as the philosophy of men over and over?”
First of all, they didn’t do what you claim. Please don’t twist the scriptures to your own destruction (2 Peter 3:14-18). Jesus “blasted” those traditions which NEGATED the word of God. He did not blast those which affirmed God word and that word did not have to be explicitly written either. Explain Matthew 23:1-3. Where do you find “Moses’ seat” in scriptures Christ would have known? Yeah, no where. And notice what he actually says to the Apostles about what they should do with the teachings?:
“so practice and observe whatever they tell you— but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.”
Where is that in the scriptures that existed when Christ walked the earth? No where. It is Tradition.
“Why do you and the catechism ignore those warnings?”
Your distortions of scripture are not warnings except against making your mistakes. I don’t make your mistakes.
“It was clearly a warning against the mixture of lies and truth in the Catholic Catechism, as well as the errors of Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones and everyone else.”
There are no lies in the Catechism. Have you ever even read it? You can’t seem to respond to it.
“The Black Letter of Scripture is the only true north that each conscience must strive to approximate. Debate is good. Prove all things. But nothing spiritual is proven by dictat of anyone regardless of their claim of authority, or by the sword or the stake.”
And you can’t seem to prove anything you say. You don’t even seem to know the scriptures very well. You certainly can’t seem to interpret them properly.
That's what's being investigated.
As you know there's this question about NORTHWESTERN Europe (Scotland, Britain, Western France and adjoining border areas) regarding the nature of the church during the early missionary periods ~ to wit the 200, 300, 400, 500 period, with many areas rejecting Augustine's authority into the 600, 700 period ~ and maybe even later. (NOTE: Christianization was still underway in Wales, Ireland, Alba and Britain right up to 535AD at which time there was a general economic, social and population collapse in the area. Augustine attempted to rule over a far different NW Europe than had existed in earlier times)
You were aware, of course, that Rome had little influence there. But who did?
BTW, Iceland was first settled in the 800s by monks FROM WHERE? No one seems to be really clear on the matter. There are claims but what archaeological evidence backs them up. The Roman claim is thin until about 1000 ~ the Vatican has a record of the Greenland settlements. Then there's the Mediterranean ~ while we were speaking of such clearly mixed Orthodox/Protestant areas as Bohemia, and undoubtedly vast stretches of Europe along the Carpathians, there's the Sicilian experience, and even that of Tyrolia and modern Croatia.
Russian Orthodox priests had been attempting to Christianize the Sapma (Northern Scandinavia) since even before the departure of the Mongol tax collectors. They weren't terribly successful, but the Eastern tribes seem to have had a substantial Orthodox presence in the early 1500s ~ and are still Orthodox ~ but that splits tribes right down the middle at the national border between Russia and Norway. When the Swedes began transporting tens of thousands of Sa'ami to America in the 1600s the Orthodox in their number were left unchurched and to their own devices. There are several religious movements here that date from that event ~ many don't celebrate Christmas.
You shouldn't be too quick to dismiss Orthodox presence in much more of Europe than has been traditional to believe. In this case facts on the ground are much more important than "faith".
If you ever understand the Word of God, then you and God can talk. I will simply pray for you.
Now how do you imagine those ol'boys got away with that right under the nose of the Orthodox Church?
It's clearly because much of Russia itself was only nominally Christian.
You wrote:
“Augustine attempted to rule over a far different NW Europe than had existed in earlier times)”
Who? What Augustine? You’re not making sense.
“You were aware, of course, that Rome had little influence there. But who did?”
No, actually before the barbarian invasions, Rome had great influence there.
“BTW, Iceland was first settled in the 800s by monks FROM WHERE? No one seems to be really clear on the matter.”
Yes, we are entirely clear on that. Ireland and Scotland.
“There are claims but what archaeological evidence backs them up. The Roman claim is thin until about 1000 ~ the Vatican has a record of the Greenland settlements.”
You are making no sense whatsoever. First, stop relying on Wikipedia. Your comments directly follow the article on settlement of Iceland on wikipedia. And what Roman claim are you even talking about? Your comments are nonsensical.
“Then there’s the Mediterranean ~ while we were speaking of such clearly mixed Orthodox/Protestant areas as Bohemia, and undoubtedly vast stretches of Europe along the Carpathians, there’s the Sicilian experience, and even that of Tyrolia and modern Croatia.”
No. 1) Sicily and Tyrol were Catholic before either ever could have become Orthodox. 2) None of the three places (Sicily, Tyrol, Croatia) are Protestants so they still don’t work for your bizarre claim.
“Russian Orthodox priests had been attempting to Christianize the Sapma (Northern Scandinavia) since even before the departure of the Mongol tax collectors.”
Do you have any idea what you’re actually saying? The Mongol conquest of Russia began in the 1220s. That’s 400 years AFTER St. Ansgar made his first attempt to convert the Swedes. The Archdiocese of Uppsala was establish in the late 12th century - 60 years before the Mongols began their conquest of Russia. Russia would dig their way out from under their Mongol overlords for two centuries.
“They weren’t terribly successful, but the Eastern tribes seem to have had a substantial Orthodox presence in the early 1500s ~ and are still Orthodox ~ but that splits tribes right down the middle at the national border between Russia and Norway.”
Eastern tribes? Do you mean the Setu? They’re not in Sweden. Do you mean in the area of Pechenga? That’s not even in Scandanavia either! Do you realize that the first Catholic parish in the Norwegian Lapland was built at Vardø in 1307?
“When the Swedes began transporting tens of thousands of Sa’ami to America in the 1600s the Orthodox in their number were left unchurched and to their own devices. There are several religious movements here that date from that event ~ many don’t celebrate Christmas.”
None of which proves any of your claims.
“You shouldn’t be too quick to dismiss Orthodox presence in much more of Europe than has been traditional to believe.”
Nonsense. There is no evidence for your Orthodox-Protestant claim.
“In this case facts on the ground are much more important than “faith”.”
You presented no facts whatsoever to prove your claims. I bet that’s exactly how your posts will continue as well.
Come on now, "vladimir998", you've blown your Eastern cover.
BTW, I think the first time I encountered you on Free Republic you were denying the existence of the "Dark Ages" or the vast desolation in Western Europe shortly after 535 AD.
You wrote:
“You really don’t know your Swedes do you.”
Yeah, actually I apparently know them better than others here.
“There’s a really great book out there called History of the Vikings.”
Which one? The one from Gwyn Jones? Read it. The one from Else Roesdahl? Read it. Viking Age Iceland by Jesse Byock? Read it. I also have in storage and read the encyclopedia of Medieval Scandinavia (great cure for insomnia). Oh, and did I mention I took Old Norse in graduate school and read some of the sagas in the original? Yeah.
“It reports a traditional Viking Chief’s burial ~ burning boat and sacrifical virgin included ~ in the 1700s on the Volga!”
What you’re apparently alluding to is the report of Ahmad ibn Fadlan, an early 10th century Arab assistant emissary, who traveled from Baghdad to the Volga Bulgars in 921. It was he who witnessed the chief’s funeral. I read his book more than 15 years ago. For kicks you might want to read Michael Cricton’s Eaters of the Dead which is a novelization of the old Beowulf story which takes its beginning from Fadlan’s chronicle. It was later made into a movie called 13th Warrior.
Your most glaring error is that you said there were Vikings on the Volga in 1700. Peter was the Tsar of Russia then. Do you really think the Vikings for contemporary to the Romanov dynasty?
“Now how do you imagine those ol’boys got away with that right under the nose of the Orthodox Church?”
They didn’t. BECAUSE RUSSIA WOULD ONLY BE CONVERTED 60 YEARS AFTER THE EVENT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT!!! There was no Orthodox Church on the Volga yet. Unreal!
“It’s clearly because much of Russia itself was only nominally Christian.”
(sigh) No, it’s because Russia wasn’t Christian AT ALL YET. Please get your chronology straight.
Look in Gwyn Jones’ book, page 425, and see the appendix on the ship burial on the Volga and you’ll see it is based on Ibn Fadlan’s 10th century account.
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.