Posted on 04/11/2016 7:49:06 AM PDT by Salvation
The eradication of poverty is an oft-stated goal of the modern, liberal West. President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s pronouncement of a “war on poverty” so imprinted this notion in the Western mind that it has become almost axiomatic. It is now a fundamental pillar in the thinking of almost every person (and organization) in the Western world, from the religious pew-sitter concerned for the poor to the most secular humanist bent on a utopian vision. Poverty is a great enemy that must be stamped out!
The only problem is that this is contrary to the Gospel! It is no surprise, therefore, that even after decades of Western “do-goodism,” barely a dent has been made in the percentage of people living in poverty. In fact, some statistics show that the percentage in poverty has increased. But why should we expect great fruitfulness in something that opposes God?
I can see the look of shock on your face right now; you may even be embarrassed that I have written this. I’d like to share a quote with you from Robert Cardinal Sarah, which makes an important distinction that we need to recover. While what he says may also shock you, I encourage you to read it carefully and thoughtfully; the distinction he makes is critical. Not only does the Gospel depend on it, but cultures and individual lives do as well. For indeed, in the name of eradicating poverty some of the worst of Western arrogance has been displayed. It is an arrogance that does not even recognize that it can become willing to the destroy the poor themselves as well as what and whom they love all in the name of this “noble” goal.
Cardinal Robert Sarah is no neophyte in this discussion. He grew up in an impoverished region of Africa and later headed the Roman dicastery, Cor unum, a charitable arm of the Holy See. The extensive passage below is an abbreviated version of the Cardinal’s response to the following questions posed by his interviewer, Nicholas Diat:
How would you describe the nature of Cor unum, the dicastery to which you devoted several years of your life, in its fight against all sorts of poverty? Furthermore, why do you speak so often about the close relation between God and the poor?
In his reply, the Cardinal is reacting somewhat to Mr. Diat’s description of Cor unum’s work as “fight[ing] against all sorts of poverty.” The Cardinal’s response is nothing short of stunning. Please read it carefully and consider obtaining the book so as to able to read the unabridged remarks as well.
The Gospel is not a slogan. The same goes for our activity to relieve people’s suffering … [it is a matter] of working humbly and having a deep respect for the poor. For example, I remember being disgusted when I heard the advertising slogan of a Catholic charitable organization, which was almost insulting to the poor: “Let us fight for zero poverty” … Not one saint … ever dared to speak that way about poverty and poor people.
Jesus himself had no pretention of this sort. This slogan respects neither the Gospel nor Christ. Ever since the Old Testament, God has been with the poor; and Sacred Scripture unceasingly acclaims “the poor of Yahweh.” …
Poverty is a biblical value confirmed by Christ, who emphatically exclaims, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven” (Mt 5:3). … The poor person is someone who knows that, by himself, he cannot live. He needs God and other people in order to be, flourish and grow. On the contrary, rich people expect nothing of anyone. They can provide for their needs without calling either on their neighbors or on God. In this sense wealth can lead to great sadness and true human loneliness or to terrible spiritual poverty. If in order to eat and care for himself, a man must turn to someone else, this necessarily results in a great enlargement of his heart. This is why the poor are closest to God and live in great solidarity with one another; they draw from this divine source the ability to be attentive to others.
The Church must not fight against poverty but, rather, wage a battle against destitution, especially material and spiritual destitution. … [so that all] might have the minimum they require in order to live. …
But we do not have the right to confuse destitution and poverty, because in so doing we would seriously be going against the Gospel. Recall what Christ told us: “The poor you will have always with you …” (Jn 12:8). Those who want to eradicate poverty make the Son of God a liar. …
[In his yearly Lenten message in 2014, Pope Francis] espoused what St. Francis [of Assisi] called “Lady Poverty.” … St. Francis of Assisi wanted to be poor because Christ chose poverty. If he calls poverty a royal virtue, it is because it shone brilliantly in the life of Jesus … and in the life of his mother, Mary of Nazareth. …
Similarly, I often think about the vow of poverty taken by religious … [they] do so in order to be as close as possible to Christ. The Son [of God] wanted us to be poor in order to show us the best path by which we can return to God. …
The Son of God loves the poor; others intend to eradicate them. What a lying, unrealistic, almost tyrannical utopia! I always marvel when Gaudium et Spes declares, “The spirit of poverty and charity is the glory and witness of the Church of Christ” (GS 88).
We must be precise in our choice of words. The language of the UN and its agencies, who want to suppress poverty, which they confuse with destitution, is not that of the Church of Christ. The Son of God did not come to speak to the poor in ideological slogans! The Church must banish these slogans from her language. For they have stupefied and destroyed peoples who were trying to remain free in conscience (Cardinal Sarah, God or Nothing: A Conversation in Faith with Nicholas Diat, pp. 140-142).
Perhaps stunned himself, Mr. Diat follows up with the following question: “Are you not afraid of being misunderstood in employing this sort of distinction?”
The Cardinal replies,
It is a lack of charity to shut one’s eyes. It is a lack of charity to remain silent in the face of confusing words and slogans! … If you read the Latin text of Gaudium et Spes carefully you will immediately notice this distinction (Ibid, p. 143).
This is a powerful insight and it reveals the deep flaw in Western “anti-poverty” programs. Christ asks us to love the poor and imitate the best of what they are, not eliminate them and disregard the simplicity and trust that they can often exemplify. But we in the West, imbued with our materialistic notions and mesmerized by the comfort and control that wealth can temporarily buy, denigrate what the Gospels praises and seek to eradicate it.
So unreflective are we in this matter that some will even justify the most awful things in the name of eradicating poverty. Many programs (U.S.-sponsored and U.N.-sponsored) with this goal advocate for contraception, abortion, and/or euthanasia. Some have even sought to compel these sorts of things as a precondition for receiving aid. Some seek to impose certain aspects of Western thinking, something that has been labeled an attempt at “ideological colonization.” Many of us in the “First World” often speak of the “Third World” in a way that at best is patronizing and at worst exhibits a thinly veiled contempt.
While it is true that certain economic and political systems best support Western lifestyles, there is more to life than material abundance. With our own culture, families, and common sense collapsing around us, it seems odd that we so easily consider our way of life superior; that we see our relationship to the poor and to poorer countries as one in which we have all the answers and they should just listen to us.
The word “arrogance” is derived from the Latin (a = not) + (rogare = to ask), which means “to not even bother asking.” We too easily assume, without even asking, that we know what is best; we presume that poor people in every part of the world want what we have (materially) and that they don’t perceive the awful price we have paid in order to get it.
We must recover a respect for the world’s poor, who have much to teach us. Even if they are not materially without troubles, they often possess many things we have lost: simplicity, family and tribal (communal) life, reciprocity, proper interdependence (as opposed to radical individualism), trust, a slower life, and a less-stressful life.
Further, we must not forget that the Lord counseled poverty (Lk 18:22), declared the poor blessed (Lk 6:20), lived simply Himself having “nowhere to lay his head” (Mt 8:20), lived among the working poor, and warned of the pernicious quality of wealth (Lk 16:13). God hears the cry of the poor and Mother Mary taught us of a great reversal that is coming, when the mighty and powerful will be cast down and poor and lowly raised up (Lk 1:52). Jesus taught us that many who are now last will be first in the kingdom of Heaven (Mat 19:30). In this life, the poor will sometimes need us. In the next life, on Judgment Day, we are going to need them to welcome us into eternal dwellings (Luke 16:9).
I really cannot say it better than did the good Cardinal, so I will not attempt to do so. We must surely work to alleviate the destitution that often comes in times of famine, war, or natural disaster. But destitution and poverty are not the same thing. Overlooking this distinction can be deadly for the poor we claim to serve and for their cultures, and can result in the worst forms of ideological colonization and secular utopianism.
If that doesn't convince; then NON-existing text is conjured up!
Apparations are seen!!
Visitations are observed!!!
The Catholic Church’s history is not a valid authority for the History of the Catholic Church.
There was no time where any form of organized Christian religion was not persecuted prior to Constantine. Only thing allowed was Paganism. This is a cold hard historical fact backed from many diverse sources.
...
Regarding what happened at Nicea:
The Council of Nicea took place in AD 325 by order of the Roman Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantine. Nicea was located in Asia Minor, east of Constantinople. At the Council of Nicea, Emperor Constantine presided over a group of church bishops and other leaders with the purpose of defining the nature of God for all of Christianity and eliminating confusion, controversy, and contention within the church. The Council of Nicea overwhelmingly affirmed the deity and eternality of Jesus Christ and defined the relationship between the Father and the Son as “of one substance.” It also affirmed the Trinity—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were listed as three co-equal and co-eternal Persons.
Constantine, who claimed conversion to Christianity, called for a meeting of bishops to be held in Nicea to resolve some escalating controversies among the church leadership. The issues being debated included the nature of Jesus Christ, the proper date to celebrate Easter, and other matters. The failing Roman Empire, now under Constantine’s rule, could not withstand the division caused by years of hard-fought, “out of hand” arguing over doctrinal differences. The emperor saw the quarrels within the church not only as a threat to Christianity but as a threat to society as well. Therefore, at the Council of Nicea, Constantine encouraged the church leaders to settle their internal disagreements and become Christlike agents who could bring new life to a troubled empire. Constantine felt “called” to use his authority to help bring about unity, peace, and love within the church.
The main theological issue had always been about Christ. Since the end of the apostolic age, Christians had begun debating these questions: Who is the Christ? Is He more divine than human or more human than divine? Was Jesus created or begotten? Being the Son of God, is He co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, or is He lower in status than the Father? Is the Father the one true God, or are the Father, Son, and Spirit the one true God?
A priest named Arius presented his argument that Jesus Christ was not an eternal being, that He was created at a certain point in time by the Father. Bishops such as Alexander and the deacon Athanasius argued the opposite position: that Jesus Christ is eternal, just like the Father is. It was an argument pitting trinitarianism against monarchianism.
Constantine prodded the 300 bishops in the council make a decision by majority vote defining who Jesus Christ is. The statement of doctrine they produced was one that all of Christianity would follow and obey, called the “Nicene Creed.” This creed was upheld by the church and enforced by the Emperor. The bishops at Nicea voted to make the full deity of Christ the accepted position of the church. The Council of Nicea upheld the doctrine of Christ’s true divinity, rejecting Arius’s heresy. The council did not invent this doctrine. Rather, it only recognized what the Bible already taught.
The New Testament teaches that Jesus the Messiah should be worshipped, which is to say He is co-equal with God. The New Testament forbids the worship of angels (Colossians 2:18; Revelation 22:8, 9) but commands worship of Jesus. The apostle Paul tells us that “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9; 1:19). Paul declares Jesus as Lord and the One to whom a person must pray for salvation (Romans 10:9-13; cf. Joel 2:32). “Jesus is God overall” (Romans 9:5) and our God and Savior (Titus 2:13). Faith in Jesus’ deity is basic to Paul’s theology.
John’s Gospel declares Jesus to be the divine, eternal Logos, the agent of creation and source of life and light (John 1:1-5,9); “the Way, the Truth, and the Life” (John 14:6); our advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1-2); the Sovereign (Revelation 1:5); and the Son of God from the beginning to the end (Revelation 22:13). The author of Hebrews reveals the deity of Jesus through His perfection as the most high priest (Hebrews 1; Hebrews 7:1-3). The divine-human Savior is the Christian’s object of faith, hope, and love.
The Council of Nicea did not invent the doctrine of the deity of Christ. Rather, the Council of Nicea affirmed the apostles’ teaching of who Christ is—the one true God and the Second Person of the Trinity, with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
http://www.gotquestions.org/council-of-Nicea.html
So the fact that Diocletian's palace had a Christian basilica across from it means the Church was still underground? How does that work exactly? 15% of the Empire's population was Christian by the time of Diocletian, nevermind the overwhelming majority of sympathizers it found with the "godfearers" of the day. It is simply not true that Christianity was persecuted nonstop until Constantine.
Of course Nicea didn't introduce anything new as regards the Divinity of Our Lord, but the word homoousios as it is understood today did come from Nicea. If everything was spelled out so well in Sacred Scripture, why was a council needed to combat Arianism?
I hope this isn't going to turn into a debate with a website.
You mean the Great Persecution under Diocletian between AD 303 and 313?
The one in conjunction with Galerius. The one where Christian places of worship were ordered destroyed. Now I ask you, how could there be Christian places of worship if the persecutions had been going nonstop since the beginning? How could the church at Nicomedia be burned to the ground if it hadn’t been built publicly?
The Great Persecution was ended in 311 and brought us the Donatist heresy.
Question: “How was the gospel preserved during the Middle Ages?”
Answer: Throughout the centuries, God has preserved His Word and has raised up men and women for the task. Even during the Middle Ages, sometimes called the “Dark Ages” because of a perceived lack of knowledge during that time, the truth of the gospel was available. It is true that the Roman Catholic Church and the Holy Roman Empire were at the height of their power and a common-language Bible was being suppressed; however, even then, God’s people were active. God’s hand is never “shortened that it cannot save” (Isaiah 59:1). His truth was marching on.
The Church had already survived much persecution under various Roman Emperors, including the Great Persecution under Diocletian between AD 303 and 313. Constantine put an end to the persecution after he became Emperor, and Christianity was eventually made the state religion of Rome.
As Rome began consolidating its power over the Church, there were dissenters who refused to acknowledge the bishop of Rome as their head. One such dissenter was the North African Bishop Donatus, who stood against Rome’s understanding of the sacraments and infant baptism. The Donatists were condemned by the churches in Europe, but they continued to be a light for the gospel of grace in the days of Constantine. Other men who fought for truth against early heresies were Bishops Alexander and Athanasius. Later, the gospel began to be preached as far away as Ireland (from AD 432) by Patrick. The Bible was also translated into Latin, and the gospel spread throughout Europe.
The Middle Ages, which lasted from about the 5th to the 15th century, was dominated in Europe by the Holy Roman Empire. This was the time of the Crusades, the Great Schism, the Inquisition, and the iron rule of the Roman Catholic Church. Throughout this difficult time, God still had witnesses to the truth.
When infant baptism was introduced by the Church of Rome, various churches dissented and denounced the practice. In the 11th and 12th centuries, the Petrobrusians rejected infant baptism. They became known as Anabaptists. They re-baptised believers who had been baptized as infants, maintaining that baptism is only valid if it was a conscious act of faith by the believer. The Anabaptists survived intense persecution and still exist today. From the Anabaptists the English Baptists came to prominence in the mid-1600s.
A group called the Waldensians was started in 1170 in Lyons, France, by a wealthy man named Valdes (Peter Waldo). He valued poverty as the basis for Christian life and the necessity for all Christians to preach the gospel. The Waldensians continued to expand but became increasingly estranged from the Roman Church over their doctrine, and in 1184 a papal bull was issued against them. Other reform groups existing before the Protestant Reformation were the Novatians, the Albigenses, the Petrobrussians, the Paulicians, the Cathari, the Paterines, the Lollards, and more.
Long before Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg in 1517, there were men who had stood up for reform and the true gospel. Among them were John Wycliffe, an English theologian and Oxford professor who was condemned as a heretic in 1415 for teaching that the common people should have access to the Bible; Jan Hus, a priest from Bohemia who was burned at the stake in 1415 for his opposition to the Church of Rome; and Girolamo Savonarola, an Italian friar who was hanged and burned in 1498.
During the 16th century, other godly men stood in opposition to the Church of Rome—Jakob Hutter (founder of the Hutterites), John Knox of Scotland, William Tyndale (martyred for translating the New Testament into English), John Calvin of France, Ulrich Zwingli of Switzerland, and the English reformers Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley (all burned at the stake).
God has had a faithful remnant in every age. In the time before the Flood, Noah found grace in God’s eyes. During the time of the judges, there were still faithful men like Gideon, Barak, and Boaz and faithful women like Hannah, Deborah, and Ruth. During the reign of Ahab and Jezebel, there were seven thousand people who stood firm against Baal worship (1 Kings 19:18). Just as God raised up faithful men and women in biblical times in the outworking of His divine plan, so He raised up faithful men and women during the Middle Ages. They were all sinners, flawed and imperfect characters, but God took what was weak and imperfect and turned them to His glory. Those faithful Christians were used by God “to contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3). In spite of all the conflicts, schisms and bloodshed that accompanied the growth of the Church up to and beyond the Reformation, the gospel message has been preserved.
Recommended Resources: Christianity Through the Centuries by Earle Cairns
http://www.gotquestions.org/middle-ages.html
In AD 303 Emperor Diocletian mounted a severe persecution against all Christians. All churches and Christian Scriptures were to be destroyed. During the persecution, many Christians betrayed other Christians to the Romans or handed over their copies of the Bible. These traitors became known as “traditores,” or Christians who turned in other Christians to the government. In the minds of many Christians, the sin of betrayal was a mark of evil character that could not be overcome.
so he missed a few of the Donatism Churches...
Your website source (which I tire of arguing with, I mean you just paste a great big splat of stuff) seems to admire the Donatists, well, good luck with that then. It also seems to link Alexander and Athanasius with the donatists, which is hysterical. If the donatists were against infant baptism why did it take (according to the splat) 700 years for the Petrobrusians (aka ana-baptists? really?) to show up.
Donatists were not “a light for the gospel of grace” they were a bunch of holier-than-thou rigorists who refused to accept repentance... and you have to explain away the Circumcellions if you’re going to sanctify the Donatists.
Oh and don’t forget, if you pin your hopes on donatism you have to deal with St. Augustine who was no friend of the donatists, even remotely.
I’m sorry perhaps you missed the part about legitimate historical sources. A blog does not count as a legitimate historical source. Suggested sources include but are not limited to: The World book encyclopedia online, The Encyclopedia Britannica online,, CCEL. You will note that CCEL (Christian Classics Ethereal Library) is a protestant source, and neither of the online encyclopedias have any connection to the Catholic Church.
It's just the boys claiming that "the Emperor has no clothes!" that have to do any proving around here.
Perhaps you have forgotten or are unfamiliar with the rules of debate.
5. He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.
Competitive Debate: Rules and Techniques,
Ealgeone made the "positive assertion", therefore the burden of proof rests squarely and solely on his shoulders.
In May 381, Theodosius summoned a new ecumenical council at Constantinople (see First Council of Constantinople) to repair the schism between East and West on the basis of Nicene orthodoxy.[17] "The council went on to define orthodoxy, including the mysterious Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, who, though equal to the Father, 'proceeded' from Him, whereas the Son was 'begotten' of Him."[18] The council also "condemned the Apollonarian and Macedonian heresies, clarified jurisdictions of the state church of the Roman Empire according to the civil boundaries of dioceses and ruled that Constantinople was second in precedence to Rome."[18] The death of Valens, the Arians' protector, probably damaged the standing of the Homoian faction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_I#cite_note-17
On the Council of Constantinople
The third canon reads:
"The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome."[21][20][19]
The third canon was a first step in the rising importance of the new imperial capital, just fifty years old, and was notable in that it demoted the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria. Jerusalem, as the site of the first Church, retained its place of honor.
Baronius asserted that the third canon was not authentic, not in fact decreed by the council. Some medieval Greeks maintained that it did not declare supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, but the primacy; "the first among equals", similar to how they today view the Bishop of Constantinople. Throughout the next several centuries, the Western Church asserted that the Bishop of Rome had supreme authority, and by the time of the Great Schism the Roman Catholic Church based its claim to supremacy on the succession of St. Peter. When the First Council of Constantinople was approved, Rome protested the diminished honor to be afforded the bishops of Antioch and Alexandria.[citation needed] The status of these Eastern patriarchs would be brought up again by the Papal Legates at the Council of Chalcedon. Pope Leo the Great,[24] declared that this canon had never been submitted to Rome and that their lessened honor was a violation of the Nicene order. At the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869), the Roman legates[25] asserted the place of the bishop of Rome's honor over the bishop of Constantinople's. After the Great Schism of 1054, in 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council declared, in its fifth canon, that the Roman Church "by the will of God holds over all others pre-eminence of ordinary power as the mother and mistress of all the faithful".[26][27] Roman supremacy over the whole world was formally claimed by the new Latin patriarch. The Roman correctores of Gratian,[28] insert the words: "canon hic ex iis est quos apostolica Romana sedes a principio et longo post tempore non recipit" ("this canon is one of those that the Apostolic See of Rome has not accepted from the beginning and ever since").
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Constantinople#Shift_of_influence_from_Rome_to_Constantinople
There is more as we all know. But this shows that the roman catholic claim to rome being supreme is in historical question.
In either event, we do not see in the NT any of the following practices of roman catholicism:
No Mass where the priest calls Christ down from Heaven to be placed upon the altar again where He is re-sacrificed again and again, etc.
No pope
No worship of Mary
No immaculate conception
No perpetual virginity of Mary
No indulgences
No purgatory
No praying to saints
and the list goes on and on.
1. its not a blog, its a very well known and respected Christian resource site. 2. Each article has links to publications backing up the article. So the attack the messenger attack on Got Questions has backfired.
Still not a legitimate historical source. I listed them, you don’t want to use them. Your lose.
I don’t mind gotquestions, or wikipedia being used as sources, what I do mind is having the material regurgitated on FR in huge walls of text that we are then expected to receive as holy writ.
I especially disapprove of the idea that all our sources are automatically ignored while at the same time opposing views must be accepted without question.
I really don’t like the fact that I spend time putting together a response to something only to have yet another wall of text thrown at me that doesn’t even necessarily apply to what I’ve written. It’s bad form.
If you don't want the text, would you be satisfied with just the link?
The reason the text is there is so others may be able to read the information. We do know other people read these threads but do not comment on them.
I do not dismiss your sources. In fact, I've learned a lot through all of these discussions.
What all of this information indicates is there is a lot of question around Rome being presumed to be the primary church.
We do not see however, a lot of the claims of roman catholicism in the NT as I've previously noted.
Here's what we do agree upon:
There are 27 books of the NT which are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Right?
The writings of the ECFs are not indicated to be inspired by the Holy Spirit? Right?
The viewpoints of the ECFs are not all consistent on these issues we discuss. Right?
Which writings will have clear authority in a discussion on religious matters?
The NT as we have it today.
Verga said:
“Still not a legitimate historical source. I listed them, you don’t want to use them. Your lose.
Perhaps you have forgotten or are unfamiliar with the rules of debate.”
verga in Post 69 also said:
“5. He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents’ use if desired.
Competitive Debate: Rules and Techniques,
Ealgeone made the “positive assertion”, therefore the burden of proof rests squarely and solely on his shoulders.”
69 posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2016 7:49:43 AM by verga (Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.)
...
Hoisted on your own petard :)
I guess that wipes out Tim staples catholic answers.com.
Yes thank you for affirming that ealgeone has proven nothing and the burden is still on him.
Still waiting on your documentation from a legitimate source. If it is just an opinion please admit that it is an opinion with no foundation other than your own bias.
Posted with the links as per FR forum rules.
Absolutely within the rules yet not a valid legitimate source in the bunch. Do yourself a big favor go to the sources i suggested, not one of them is Catholic and all contain the truth.
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.