Question for Freeper Catholics

1/27/04 | LS

[LS]

I recently watched "The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc," starring Milla Jovovich. Not being a Catholic, I had some questions:

1) At the end, the notes said Joan was "canonized" 500 years later(approx. 1930s, I guess). Does canonization automatically mean one is "sainted?" Or are they different? If so, what is the difference?

2) What are the prerequisites to be either "canonized" or "sainted," if they are different?

3) Specifically to the movie---if anyone saw it---was the Dustin Hoffman character supposed to be Lucifer, the accuser?

4) I'm weak historically on this: was the film accurate about Joan often doing things on her own ("if you love me, fight for me") as opposed to leading the armies "in the name of God?" I suppose it depends on what you think of Joan, but among believers, is the consensus that she indeed received instructions from God, or that she was a fruitloop?

[Havoc]

Umm, you might want to revise your rhetoric. The Catholic church spent a great deal of the middle ages and prior time trying to destroy any sect opposing them - Roman Catholics that is. Your statement makes your conquests against Donatism, Arianism, Gnosticism, etc all lies. That or your current statement is a lie. See how convenient truth is to throw out the window for the argument of the moment...

[RobbyS]

If by "philosophy" you mean theology, then you have your own philosophy, which is to say your version of Christianity. I follow Christ, you say. Not if the Christ you follow is nothing more than the creation of your mind or that of whatever sect you follow. As to accusations of murder, too much blood has has been shed by each side since the Reformation for either to claim to be the injured party.

[Havoc]

If by "philosophy" you mean theology, then you have your own philosophy,

No, I have a book of scripture. It addresses the way I should live my life and I'm spending my life trying to conform to it in full. Philosophy is for people lacking any rule for living and so feel they must create for themselves rules to fill a void in them or to answer questions through guesswork to make them feel more intelligent or fulfilled. I am intelligent, so what. And Christ fulfills me. I don't need philosophy, don't want philosophy, and as it happens was warned against it by the apostles. If the charge makes you feel better, then wrap yourself in the lie and try to be comfortable. Theology is religious philosophy. No difference. Why you'd think someone with Christ in them and his direction to follow is just beyond us Christians. Sorry.

. I follow Christ, you say. Not if the Christ you follow is nothing more than the creation of your mind or that of whatever sect you follow.

Or if Christ is a football, or... it's really pathetic, Robby. Truly. Christianity is following Christ. I understand that you don't get that. I understand that it puzzles Catholics, infuriates Roman Catholics and mildly chaffes Protestants when someone actually follows scripture and tries to emulate Jesus. That can't be allowed. I can remember some going batso nuts over someone daring to compare themselves to Christ. How insulting, eh. The very thing Christians should be doing daily and some of you actually find it an offense. How disgusting that a Christian should do what Christians are supposed to do.. lol

As to accusations of murder, too much blood has has been shed by each side since the Reformation for either to claim to be the injured party.

Oh please. I'm not a protestant or a catholic and I really have no part in that little feud between you on who has the more intelligent philosophy of life. Neither of your two sides really prizes scripture (God's word) or God. You more prize your intelligence and philosophy and spend most of your time talking down about them or two them on both sides. I've got no qualms putting either of you in your place as Christ did with the pharisees and saducees. I'm no respector of persons. And I see the handwringing you're engaged in now for what it is. You're wrong doesnt' make there's any better or vice versa. You're both wrong. You're just engaged in carnal one upmanship on how less wrong either of you can portray yourselves. You can pour a whole lot of sugar on a cow pie and make it look like a sugar pile; but, the stink and foulness is still underneath. That foulness in this case is false doctrine from a master other than Christ. The sugar is the pretense of sheepdipping to portray the outer image. When both of your sides are through pinching your noses, you might try getting rid of the cowpies and examine the sheepskin you're hiding behind. You might find something more useful to your soul. In the meantime, your religion murdered people for their beliefs. Stop handwringing. It's the witness of your clergy and your history. You can't change it. And you can't change that witness; but, you can dump your philosophy and get on Christ's team and stand against that philosophy that allowed it to happen. I know you won't; but, that's what this is about.

[Havoc]

Correction - thread ate part of my statement: Why you'd think someone with Christ in them and his direction to follow would need or want philosophy or philosophers is just beyond us Christians. Sorry

[The Truth will set you Free]

Sorry, about the generalized statement.

I was referring to the fact that any heresy (a belief held by baptized Christians that denies, casts doubt upon, or seeks to alter a Divinely revealed truth that has been set forth by the established Teaching Authority of the Church) or schism (a formal separation from the Church because of some dispute, usually doctrinal in nature. Schismatics are baptized individuals who, while calling themselves Christians, cease their allegiance to the Church by refusing to acknowledge its lawfully constituted authority.) before the reformation would have been in contrast to the Catholic Church. Where as in today's world someone can refer to the heresy of the Lutheran Chruch and many of the other Protestant sects.

You are right about the many other heresies that took place. Some early ones are Gnosticism, Marcionism, Montanism, Novatianism, Modalism, and Subordinationism. Some of these early heresies like Gnosticism attempted to combination various Eastern religions into the Church teachings. The biggest schism was that of the Eastern Church in 1054. Even though they don't really see the Holy Father in Rome as the Pope, they still keep to just about every other Church teaching.

P.S. Maybe I sould change my screen name. I can't even make a statment without someone thinking I am some kind of historian. LOL :-)

[The Truth will set you Free]

Of course Catholic Christians had to fight and kill. Espesianlly, in the early years of Christianity when Christianity was the minority and paganism was the norm. If it wasn't for the Catholic's fight for truth, the teachings of Christ would have been lost.

One may want to read into stuff like, the Teutonic knights

[The Truth will set you Free]

Ummm, Many of your Christian Church fathers were philosophers.

[Havoc]

Umm, I don't subscribe to philosophers. And my Christianity came from scripture written by the Apostles, not opinions written by halfwits who thought a better way was to theorize about religion rather than accepting the teaching of Christ. I'm a Christian - not an ism. Enlightenment is knowing God's word and having the mind of Christ. Not superior logical structures meant to render opinions on the best theory of how to do things contrary to scripture. Catholicism didn't go wrong because it made a mistake. The inquisitions are a combination of fraudulent laws adopted of a fraudulent organization and used under antichristian philosophy to persecute Christians. This isn't a matter of "oops I tripped". This was a planned, well thought out and debated long time belief system argued into existence and deemed Holy by a body that was operating 100% contrary to scripture. That isn't a mistake. That is a complete and utter betrayal. And I don't call anyone father outside of my dad and my God. By father, you mean mentor. And my mentors are people who get it right and know what they're talking about. Not people who disagree with what they believed yesterday and damn the guy that holds their old belief tomorrow while they struggle to figure out what to do with whores to keep them away from 'decent people.' I know more than you seem to give me credit for. So don't presume to tell me they're my early fathers.

[GirlShortstop]

FRiends, I have taken a few minutes to check into Fox.  Based upon my reading, I would conclude that it would be appropriate for Catholics and otherwise to take his works with a grain of salt. [the *real* meaning, not the other meaning!]
Below you'll find some pertinent, factual points...

This article is humbly dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Refuge of Sinners.

Commonly called Fox's Book of Martyrs, this book was originally published in the year 1559, and was authored by a protestant minister by the name of John Fox. The book was intended to be a compendium of "martyrdoms" inflicted on protestants by the Catholic Church. The first edition contained so many errors that a corrected edition had to be published in the year 1570, and several other editions have been published since.

The Columbia Encyclopedia informs us that Fox's book was "widely read, and its influence was extensive, although as history it is highly prejudiced and not altogether trustworthy."  emphasis added
    Columbia Encyclopedia

Funk and Wagnall's Encyclopedia:
"The work (Fox's Book of Martyrs) is uncritical, and indicates that, at best, Fox believed every atrocity story he heard."
    Funk and Wagnall's Standard Reference Encyclopedia, Vol. X, 1954, p. 3675. Under John Fox English Martyrologist.

In a later edition of Fox's Acts and Monuments (apparently edited in the 1800's) the following statement is to be found:

"The Irish, who formerly led an unsettled and roving life, in the woods, bogs, and mountains, and lived on the depredation of their neighbors, they who, in the morning seized the prey, and at night divided the spoil, have, for many years past, become quiet and civilized. They taste the sweets of English society, and the advantages of civil government. They trade in our cities, and are employed in our manufactories. They are received also into English families; and treated with great humanity by the Protestants."
    John Fox, Acts and Monuments, emphasis added

gss note:   I don't want to make a massive posting, so you'll need to take a look at the source link up top for a true idea of what the "great humanity" was in reality.  

I suppose that if Jack Chick is good, then Fox's works are just as fine!  FReegards.

[The Truth will set you Free]

LOL......The only thing I can say to someone like you is to read a lot more.

[The Truth will set you Free]

I know some very good Christian people who study in philosophy and they are far from.......well, what havoc said. LOL.....

P.S. Thanks for the Re: GSs

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Admitting you've read a Chick tract is a first for FR.

I'm apalled that you so quickly forget that I've read a few.

[Havoc]

Read a lot more? Why. Reading them once is more abuse than I or anyone should have had to put up with at all.
I've studied this garbage since 1988 and am pretty well versed at this point. Like I said, you shouldn't assume things.

[The Truth will set you Free]

Well, my dear friend.

If you mean reading the writings of the people who put the Bible together;(despite the fact that for the first four hundred years of Christianity there was no published Christian Bible, despite the fact that for the next one thousand years, until the invention of the printing press, there were scant few Bibles, this despite the fact that only the literate had access to the Bible) as "garbage". These people lived and died for their faith; I would have to say the only "garbage" is some of what to say.

The simple truth is that the only reason you even own a Bible is because of those people. Even as a non-Catholic I was greatful for that.

I have noticed you have problems with people assuming; You may want to look in the mirror. This website is for assumers.

May Christ's peace be with you.

[Havoc]

This website is for discussers. Assumption is still the mother of all screwups. And as for how people got by with early writings, they did just fine for 300 plus years without catholicism. The jews got by for several thousand without catholicism and only finalized canon around the time of Christ. Funny that, huh. God handled things as he saw fit and did fine without catholics. There's no reason to assume that Catholics are the saviors of scripture any more than to believe daffy duck is the reason the sun rises or sets. I'm glad you got your rhetoric back on track; but, my stance isn't going to change because you throw rhetoric and goofy claims. Credit where credit is due; but, to that point only.

So I'll make my point. Jerome states that Peter was in Rome for 25 years. Even scripture scuttles it. You can look no further than scripture and completely shred it. I know, I've watched catholic heads fall as it's blasted out of the water at countless sites. I've mused as the stories change to finally "well why couldn't he have been there in the last few years of his life". Nice to see them claim the higher ground of credulity. The shame of it is they don't know enough not to throw out the 25 year number to be run through it again the next time around cause it's in all the cut and paste tracts apparently.

Credibility means something. Scripture wouldn't be worth a hoot if it wasn't reliable. And you want us to look up to people who are anything but. The Apostles were reliable - and they weren't superhuman, they were from among us and they taught us all. And your fathers spent all their time opining instead of knowing anything. I know my faith and my doctrine because the Apostles saw to it that I could. Again, I put it to you. When I have assurity from those that preceeded these pretenders, what on earth makes you think poor substitutes opining at things have any place in my lexicon? If I want to know how to program, I learn from someone who KNOWS the subject. Not someone who is guessing and opining about how it might be done. God created the code and wrote the program. You guys didn't like it and philosophised a whole different package that breaks the rules, misuses the structures and data forms, redefines the imoveable defines and breaks all the for loops. Sorry if I just went over your head; but, it's a means to an end. And I'm sick of being browbeaten by pretenders who are offended at my assurity of who I am and my reluctance to turn from Christ to their 'better way.' Sure hasn't done you any favors, You're clergy is still handwringing about systematic religious cleansing. Deal with it. I'll stick with God's word where I know my faith is on sound foundation and wish God's blessings on His people. I'll recognize those who are not against me; but, I can't waste God's blessings on those who'd be so ungratious as to polute my soul with false doctrine if they could just talk me into it. Jesus loved me enough to die for my sins. Your clergy loves me enough that if it were half a millenia earlier, I'd be a charburger doing what Christ commanded.

[GirlShortstop]

The jews got by for several thousand without catholicism and only finalized canon around the time of Christ.

What is the point of this statement?  Is the Jewish choice yours?
Here is a tidbit you may have (conveniently) overlooked:

During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia (or Javneh) in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures.  
don't let facts get in the way!

[RobbyS]

Christianity is indeed following Christ, and you have the Scriptures, but that is not enough to establish you as the authority we all must follow. So aufwiedersehen!

[polemikos]

Is this thread still going? Yipes.

[GirlShortstop]

Is this thread still going? Yipes.     LOL... apparently so.    :-)
Goodnight.

[polemikos]

they did just fine for 300 plus years without catholicism.

The early church was the Catholic Church. Any church that can trace its roots to the apostles can do so only through the Catholic Church.

There's no reason to assume that Catholics are the saviors of scripture any more than to believe daffy duck is the reason the sun rises or sets.

Ignoring your non-sequitur, the Catholic Church determined the Bible. It was first canonized by the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. As Luther admitted:

"We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists--that with them is the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."
- Luther, Commentary on John, ch. 16.

Your notion that the Church was not instrumental violates the principle of causality: that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. The Church (the apostles) wrote Scripture, and the successors of the apostles, the bishops of the Church, decided on the canon, the list of books to be declared scriptural and infallible. If Scripture is infallible, then the process by which the Church defined the canon of Scripture must also be infallible. This means the Church possessed infallibility. Yet nowhere does the Bible say the Church would lose such infallibility.

Even scripture scuttles it.

Scuttles what? That Peter was in Rome? Of course he was in Rome. Jimminy Crickets. They found his bones there a few decades ago.

Scripture wouldn't be worth a hoot if it wasn't reliable.

You're getting close. For Scripture to be reliable, it has to be reliably determined. Because the Catholic Church had the power of binding/loosing it could reliably determine was was scripture and what wasn't. It stood unchanged until Luther came along. Even Protestant historians admit this:

"It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]... It always included ... the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books"
-- patristics scholar J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 53 -- emphasis added

The Apostles were reliable...

So when Paul says the church is the "pillar and foundation of truth", you believe him, right?