[hopefulpilgrim]

You wrote:

You assume--falsely-- that the Churchmen of the 4th Century were ignorant of Scripture. Yet men like Ambrose were steeped in it.(We need not mention Jerome) Yet he accepted doctrines that you reject but were already Catholic doctrine a thousand years before Luther. Why should I accept Luther's (or your) interpretations rather than his?

Well, of course there were some who were steeped in it, such as BISHOPS, THEOLOGIANS, AND PRIESTS, like Ambrose and Jerome, but certainly not the average common man of the time. He didn't have access to the scriptures like they came to have much later. How could he be in disagreement with something he knew so little of? Of the theologians and priests who did have access to the scriptures and who came to realize that the church was in need of reform in order to harmonize with the scriptures, and who were subsequently excommunicated (and who knows what else done to them), how many have we heard about? I would imagine that the RCC knows how to cover its tracks pretty well, even back then.

[dignan3]

Well, of course there were some who were steeped in it, such as BISHOPS, THEOLOGIANS, AND PRIESTS, like Ambrose and Jerome, but certainly not the average common man of the time. He didn't have access to the scriptures like they came to have much later. How could he be in disagreement with something he knew so little of?

Yeah, because the average Joe Sixpack, living in the 4^th century and asuming he could read in the first place, could just go on down to the corner Barnes and Noble and go get his very own inexpensive copy of the Bible with Christ's words in red. If it weren't for that evil Catholic Church, that is. (/sarcasm OFF!)

You also seem to be ignorant of the fact that the Scriptures have, since day one, had a very prominent place in the Christian Liturgy. Joe Sixpack wasn't as ignorant of the Scriptures as you think.

Of the theologians and priests who did have access to the scriptures and who came to realize that the church was in need of reform in order to harmonize with the scriptures, and who were subsequently excommunicated (and who knows what else done to them), how many have we heard about?

None, because your mythical proto-Protestants never existed in the first place. We have some primary sources of the heretic's writings and we have a myriad of secondary sources which are the writings of the Fathers and the teachings of the Councils contra the heretics of the day. Between those two, an excellent record has been established of what the Church believed and what the heretics, and make no mistake about it, that's what they were in the truest sense of the word, believed.

I would imagine that the RCC knows how to cover its tracks pretty well, even back then.

I know that it's hard having the entire weight of early Christian history against you, but you make it even more painful for yourself when you engage in flights of fantasy.

Pray for John Paul II

[RobbyS]

the average common man of the time I suppose ypu are aluding to the Reformation. The "Average common man" had little to do with the success of the Reformation, which was largely the work of scholars and defecting priests like Luther and their political patrons. Despite the proliferation of books due to the printing press, even the average city person could not read. And forget the peasantry--which was 90% of the common people! During the French Religious Wars, Paris was a hotbed of support for the Catholic League because the "mob" was on the side of the Church. The Huguenot movement was heavily aristocratic in character. After the defection of their leader Henry of Navarre, Huguenot strength resided large in the leadership in certain cities and other areas in the South--which wsas traditionally hostile to the Church.