How to Establish Authority in a Church

Catholic Culture ^ | 5/9/11 | Dr. Jeff Mirus

[Chaguito]

The Apostles decide, and they are the driving force behind the New Testament.

[boatbums]

Catholic can mean anything you want it to mean.....to you, but to Catholics it means something else. We get it, Protestants choose to be different, they value differentness above Communion. That need to be different from Catholics is the essence of Protestantism.

I don't think you can speak for the motives of others. I certainly did not leave the Catholic Church to be "different", I left because the truth I sought that I found in Holy Scripture was NOT what I was being taught. I knew it even then. Sure it would be wonderful if we were all one big happy family on earth, but that will not happen until the judgment and we are in Heaven. The tares are still mixed with the wheat, remember? I still believe that the prayer of Jesus was answered affirmatively, seeing as he was God and all. All Christians are one in Christ, already, but some people refuse to accept it.

In my dealings with Protestants, including close relatives, I find that they most often choose the team they are on and then let that mold their belief system. It leads them to accept lies about the Church and about the Reformers without the burden of unbiased research or reason.

If your dealings with relatives most often result in choosing sides, perhaps it is because they feel they HAVE to. Is your "Freeper" button always on? ;o)

[Lera]

Amen.

I was just reading Mark 6 , that very verse you mentioned.

Mar 6:7 And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;
Mar 6:8 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:
Mar 6:9 But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.
Mar 6:10 And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place.
Mar 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Mar 6:12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent.

[boatbums]

Funny how that happens! I find it very hard to imagine how “religious” people could turn that command of our Lord into permission to torture and kill those who don't believe as they do. It is so anti-Christ in everything he said and did.

[Lera]

ORLY?

The Council of Toulouse placed the Bible on the Index of Forbidden Books in 1229

Why would the Roman Catholic church not want people to read the Bible ? Oh wait we already know what happened when they did -—> The Reformation

[Lera]

*nods in complete agreement*

[Cronos]

your lack of history is incredible.

First you had displayed utter lack of knowledge of American history, then European history, and biblical verses and now lack of knowledge on Christian history.

There are just too many folks who are blindly following their hate driven pastors.

Let's rip your statement to the shreds it deserves

1. The Index of Forbidden books was established in 1559 not 1229

• The Council of Toulouse in 1229 was against Gnostics (who believed the God of the OT was a fake god or a demiurge)
  
• This Council forbade reading of distorted bibles -- just like your pastor now may say not to read the New World Translation of the Bible made by the Jehovah's Witnesses

  note == this was not an ecumenical council but one to handle a local problem and no, it did not add even the mis-translated bibles to the "Index of Forbidden Books" primarily because that Index did not even exist yet

  Sheesh, go read, Lera. Your knowledge of the Bible and history is extremely poor

[Cronos]

it's incredible how little Biblical or historical knowledge our detractors have

their lack of history is incredible.

In the past I've had to explain to them about American history and biblical verses and now they boldly display their utter lack of knowledge on Christian history.

There are just too many folks who are blindly following their hate driven pastors.

It's so easy to rip their statements to the shreds it deserves

1. Firstly, the Index of Forbidden books was established in 1559 not 1229
2. The Council of Toulouse in 1229 was against Gnostics (who believed the God of the OT was a fake god or a demiurge)
   
3. This Council forbade reading of distorted bibles -- just like your pastor now may say not to read the New World Translation of the Bible made by the Jehovah's Witnesses

   note == this was not an ecumenical council but one to handle a local problem and no, it did not add even the mis-translated bibles to the "Index of Forbidden Books" primarily because that Index did not even exist yet

[Cronos]

"the slaughter of the Huguenots ?"

let's trace the Huguenots, shall we. In france, under Francis I, France was tolerant of all religious views

however, what did the Huguenots do? In the affair of the placards they posted placards all over Paris and even on the bedchamber door of the king (a security breach that angered him and made him change his tolerance position) -- these placards were attacks on Catholics.

So, instead of discussing, the Huguenots went to attack the Catholic majority who until then were content to let them live and debate and discuss and debate. Incidently, until this time the Huguenots were increasing, like the Moslems in Bradford, but then they started to get shrill and wake people up with their attacks

This polemic was an attack and the Huguenots started this retaliation.This was in 1534

Next, came the French wars of religion in which the Huguenots conspired against the King. This, added to the previous attack meant that they now publically came to attack the conservative forces. The progressives of the Huguenots were the precursors of the Revolutionaires

The people who became Huguenots were primarily the urban elite, like our present-day New Yorkers who take a fad and they saw that this was a means to oppose the King, so Huguenotism became a political tool

A group of Huguenots tried to kidnap the Prince Francis II when his father died -- causing more antagonism.

Huguenots in 1560 attacked Catholic Churchs and destroyed properties in Rouen and La Rochelle -- thus the FIRST salvo was lobbed by the Huguenots. -- the Catholics retailiated with mobs at seeing their places of worship attacked and defiled by Huguenots

Next, in 1562-70, we have the wars -- now political-religious, so no, it was not a simple case of "persecution" --> The Huguenots were one side of a civil war, which they lost

Now, let's come to the juicy part, the St. Bart's day massacre -- this occured in 1572, 40 years after the first provocations by the Huguenots and 12 years after they started destroying Catholic Churchs (just like the Moslems in America they were quiet until their numbers grew)

now, King Charles XI was openly in favor of the Huguenots -- so a political moment. Hence the attacks on the opposing side

So, let's see in conclusion -- Huguenots first start their provocations in 1534, then in 1560 start attacking Catholic Churchs (with no provocation), then start their political support against the conservatives and start a civil war. After 12 years their side loses the civil war and yet they are still allowed to live and practise their faith (note this is the 1500s, not a nice time, yet they get this tolerance) -- but they still play political intrigues. So, one faction starts to attack and massacre the other faction

so, stop the entire "poor persecuted Huguenots" -- they brought it on themselves.

[Cronos]

As shown above (and you can check the facts for yourself), the Huguenots were the one who bit the hand that fed them, then launched the first attacks, started a civil war and then lost

They were like the Moslems in present day France -- slowly starting, making nice noises, but then attacking Christian churchs and finally starting a civil war.

They lost, tough luck --- the losers in the 1500s were not given much graces, yet they were allowed to stay with the same acts of tolerance AFTER losing politically. Yet they continued supporting political intrigues and there was a political massacre.

The Huguenots were on the losing side, so they got killed like the Catholics in England or in Scandanavia.

It was the 1500s, a pretty barbaric time

The mass killings of the Huguenots were done at the hands of rioters in a pogrom after it was learned that the Huguenots were conspiring with the English to stage a coup and facilitate an invasion. It is never healthy to conspire against a sitting king. After this, one branch became the persecutors in South Africa, another branch, many would have joined the KKK (I'm not implying all by any means, but many)

Do read the history, thanks

[Cronos]

MD — see above posts by me to the poster — some of our friends consistently display their utter lack of Biblical and historical knowledge

[Cronos]

MD to Lera

Actually I did see that sentence. And I saw the subsequent sentences as well! And a few words later you posted:

The Protestants petitioned the duke of Savoy against these missionaries, whose insolence and ill-usage were become intolerable; but instead of getting any redress, the interest of the missionaries so far prevailed, that the duke published a decree, in which he declared, that one witness should be sufficient in a court of law against a Protestant, and that any witness, who convicted a Protestant of any crime whatever, should be entitled to one hundred crowns.

And so I see that the orders and permissions not only did not come all the way from the top but even the poor Protestants thought they had a reasonable hope of restraining the missionaries by appealing to the duke -- who evidently (IF this source is to be trusted) was a jerk.

I don't consider the 17th century to be medieval, so I'm not sure what that remark is about.

The medival church is without excuse , it put to death people for not agreeing with them , it plundered what ever wealth they had ....

Well just as there was a confusion about the Pope's involvement in the Piedmont, there may be a little over-simplification in saying "the medieval church did this or that.

Non Catholics still seem to believe the portrayal of the Catholic Church in movies, where shrouded emissaries carry unbreakable secret commands from the Pope to willing assassins.

IF that image had anything like a realistic basis, there never would have been a Francis, Dominic, of even a Catherine of Siena upbraiding the Pope for being a wussy.

It is such an interesting phenomenon. The really interesting history would be to track the decline from the REALITY of the Spanish Inquisition through the accounts in which it got more and more lurid, sadistic, and cruel -- and THAT image came to dominate the culture so much that any attempt to describe what happened is dismissed as 'Revisionism' while Monty Python and comfy chairs dominate discourse.

And I think to look down on the very idea of religiously based armed conflict, while I quite agree (unless it's defensive), is a little like sneering at Washington and Jefferson for owning slaves. Our almost automatic clarity about the wrongness of such things is informed by the mistakes of our predecessors

and you will get no response back that the initial statement was utterly wrong. What is sad is that these folks make the same mistakes over and over again -- displaying their utter lack of Biblical and historical knowledge

[Cronos]

Lera “the Protestant churches that are again” — of course would you say this doesn’t include your cult? question: didn’t you say your cult was not Protestant?

[Cronos]

"foundations come from reading the..." -- then why does your group of folks consistently make mistakes in their basic facts over and over again?

why does your cult keep your it's leftist Escetology?

[Rashputin]

"your lack of history is incredible."

Whenever you see the 1229 date you know the person citing it has either read PCA theologian Loraine Boettner's stuff or something that refers to it in spite of it having been proved totally wrong on a lot more than a single date. Looking through a series of such mistakes and well known lies floating around FR you find sort of a forensic pattern in all the anti-Catholic posts. Not only are there posts from time to time that are barely disguised quotes from various books, but events focused on all track back to the nativist propaganda of the early part of the last century. Occasionally you'll see something from the Lutheran propaganda machine during the Reformation, but mostly it's far more recently fabricated stuff, particularly the exaggerations of events compared to how they were described prior to about 1880. You know, when states first started passing laws to permit warrant-less searches of Catholic Churches or other properties, denied Catholics the right to hold public office, and otherwise stood up for freedom of religion by passing anti-Catholic laws.

It's sort of fun to be able to trace straight back to the same small set of completely debunked sources so often. If you look through a series of this sort of post you can trace all their BS back to a very few sources, those being Boettner, Hislop, Hunt, and the unmentionable one. Not much in the way of actual history or facts in that crowd of authors nor is there a single concern for the truth shared among the four of them.

[Cronos]

I left because the truth I sought that I found in Holy Scripture was NOT what I was being taught

And do you believe in the truth in John 6?

Even Martin Luther said

Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391

[Cronos]

Rashputing: Whenever you see the 1229 date you know the person citing it has either read PCA theologian Loraine Boettner's stuff or something that refers to it in spite of it having been proved totally wrong on a lot more than a single date.

-->

or they heard it from someone who heard it from someone -- they do no research on their own. "To know history it

what about you, Lera? Did you learn about this laughably false date on your own or from someone else?

Cardinal Newman said "to be deep in history is to cease to be a ...."

[Cronos]

Rashputin: Looking through a series of such mistakes and well known lies floating around FR you find sort of a forensic pattern in all the anti-Catholic posts. Not only are there posts from time to time that are barely disguised quotes from various books, but events focused on all track back to the nativist propaganda of the early part of the last century.

True, so true -- Lera's posts in the past have been equally hilarious and devoid of all Biblical and historical fact

[Mad Dawg]

Thank you, Cronos.

I have to say I was taught the same distortion by my very Calvinist history prof at Virginia Theological Seminary.

It is embarrassing to find that a sho’ ‘nuff professor, one much loved by many, would just spew such unsubstantiated and poorly researched stuff.

I guess Lera and Boatbums won't like this, but I'd suggest that we can take some solace, thus: The highest people, as the world reckons high, will, without doing the least amount of checking, believe the most astonishing falsehoods about us. And they will cheerfully and blatantly deny evidence in front of their faces.

To me, this suggests that there must be something to the Catholic Church. If non-Catholic Christians make common cause with Monty Python, Saturday Night Live, and the lame stream media to spread falsehoods and sophistries about us, good.

Boatbums: (I Love how we end up calling each other the most outraeous names -- boatbums, forsooth -- without batting an eye.

I'll reread Dominus Iesus if you will ...

[Mad Dawg]

Brothers and Sisters, Friends and Foes:

Behold how sweet it is when brothers dwell together in unity.

Suppose I am a vile and spiteful jerk. (You can do it if you try — Imagine!) ;-)

Then am I not to be pitied and prayed for as well as rebuked?

IF, as Lera suggests, I am caught up in murderous delusion and justifying without justice the slaughter of Huguenots (wow! I spelled it right on the first try!) will I be brought to a better mind by rebukes and abuse only?

Can we not at least - from our seemingly diametrically opposed points of view, offer ourselves “our prayers and works, joys and sorrows” to the Lord in hopes that He who reconciles all things in Himself may help us find some common ground across which we can reach to each other.

(I’m sorry. I just have these piety attacks. They can sneak up on me because I have logs in both eyes so I don’t see them coming.)

But I see so much that is wrong in my own heart. If I want spite and opposition, I have only to look inward and I find it in plenty. It is hard to bear the sting of the lash of rebukes, even deserved rebukes — one might say especially deserved rebukes because then I can find no refuge in innocence.

I’m not preaching. I am as guilty of cracking the whip as any, and more guilty than many.I am imploring.

Lera, Boatbums:Please forgive me when I am needlessly cruel. Bear with me. God has not yet touched my thigh and put it out of joint and so I still struggle, all the while praying that He will conquer me thoroughly within and without. In the meantime, my cruelty is not only wrong in itself but wrong because it insults the Divine Mercy. When, as sometimes happens, God lets me see it with a little clarity, I find it loathsome.

I am truly sorry, not with writhing and tears, but with the momentary clarity of vision which reveals the beauty of my Lord and the mess in my soul. Ick!