Crusades And Catholicism, Moved from Euros vs Americans

Given John Foxe's rabid anti-Catholicism (as is plainly evident to anyone throughout his works) it is hardly surprising that he attempted to shanghai heretics, schismatics and apostates into the Protestant movement.

Yep. That is right. And they were classified by the Church as heretics, schismatics and apostates until after the Council of Trent, after which the term Protestant became the generally accepted form of description for those who left the Church, for whatever reason. But there was only one Church, and that was the Catholic Church, as founded by Christ.

Oh, yeah, a bit contentious. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ when:

Matt 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, THAT THOU ART PETER, AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

That was when the Catholic Church began.

Just my tuppence.

Andy

I don't know how to break out the quotes Andy so I did it this way

*Given John Foxe's rabid anti-Catholicism (as is plainly evident to anyone *throughout his works) it is hardly surprising that he attempted to shanghai *heretics, schismatics and apostates into the Protestant movement.

I guess this depends on your perspective (i.e. anti-Catholicism) I would say that his anti-Catholicism is as plainly evident as is Mel Gibsons anti-semetism in "The Passion"

*Yep. That is right. And they were classified by the Church as heretics, *schismatics and apostates until after the Council of Trent, after which the term *Protestant became the generally accepted form of description for those who left *the Church, for whatever reason. But there was only one Church, and that was *the Catholic Church, as founded by Christ.

The fact that the "Roman Catholic Church" classified them as heretics for not bowing the knee to Rome did not make them any less Christian. The fact that the Concil of Trent reversed it's stance is only a correction of how it should have been in the first place. The fact that those protesting the "Roman Catholic Church" we not officially recognized as Christians has no bearing on whether they were or not especially when later the "Roman Catholic Church" reversed it's decision. These people that the "Roman Catholic Church" tortured and slew as heretics, schismatics and apostates were Christians by the standard of Bowing the knee to Jesus the Christ of the New Testament as foretold by the Old Testament, as Lord and Saviour.

*Oh, yeah, a bit contentious. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ when:

*Matt 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, *Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father *which is in heaven.
*
*18 And I say also unto thee, THAT THOU ART PETER, AND UPON THIS ROCK I *WILL BUILD MY CHURCH; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

*19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever *thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt *loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
*
*That was when the Catholic Church began

I seem to detect a bit sarcasm in this last part but it it difficult to tell by your typing

Notice that I said the "Roman Catholic Church". Meaning the Church of Rome and not the Church Universal (Catholic means universal) I am well aware of these biblical passages as well as the rest of the New and Old Testament in their entirety.

I also know that the original texts from which all modern translations come from did not contain any punctuation what so ever and that the "Roman Catholic Church" uses this passage taken a bit out of context to establish Peter as the first Pope (in contradiction of history specifically as conveyed by the New Testament record)

16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

16:14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God

This larger context indicates to me (and all non-Roman Catholic Christians) that the Rock that Jesus is building the Church is the fact that he is Christ (Saviour, Messiah, etc..) the Son of the living God.

The word translated as church simply means, the called out and has no bearing on the establishment of an organized religion such as the "Roman Catholic Church"

All that said I do believe in a universal called out group of people who serve Jesus the Christ as Lord, I just do not believe that this group is embodied within one organized group specifically. Whether Protestant or Roman Catholic. As a result I do not consider myself either so I guess until the next council I am probably to be considered heretic, schismatic and/or apostate by your Church perhaps we can still be friends in spite of all that.


Peace

Mikel

Foxe's anti-Catholicism was the widespread anti-Catholicism that was rampant during the Elizabethan period. This is evident from the number of Catholic martyrs who were tortured and executed by the gov't for no other reason than praying Mass.

The Catholic Church is the repository of the entirety of the graces of Christianity promised us by Christ. Did their resistance to the teachings of the Church make them less Christian? Yes, it did. They resisted the Church founded by Christ, denying its teachings. In essence, they were the first "cafeteria Catholics." They denied themselves the entirety of the Church's sanctifying grace. By the way, the vast majority of heretics, schismatics and apostates were simply refused the Sacraments until they recanted. The killing of any of these people is to be deplored, but taken in the millieu of the Middle Ages, it was understandable. Not excusable, highly regrettable, but understandable.

The Church of Rome IS the Catholic Church, founded by Christ.

Nice try. But the literal context of the conversation in fact confirms the Catholic position. Christ asked and Simon answered. It was at this point that Christ granted the keys to "Cephas," with the grammatical indication being that "Cephas" was being granted the ability to bind and loose sin as the head of the newly established Church. Not being theologians, Christ tended to be very literal when talking to the Apostles. They were men of their era- simple men, called to a phenomenal task.

If it has no bearing on the establishment of an organized Church, why did Christ give to Peter the keys? Why did He invest in him the ability to absolve sin? Why has the Catholic Church survived and thrived for going on 2000 years against all adversaries, both internal and external? What was that about "... the gates of Hell shall not prevail..." or something? "Ekklesia" does indeed refer to the body of believers, called by Him, as the object of His designs. And for 2000 years the "body of believers" that has embodied the fullness of the Christian faith is the Catholic Church.

Of course you won't be called those nasty terms. You never accepted the Catholic faith as the one true faith, so those definitons wouldn't apply to you! Many of my best friends are Protestants and one is even a Wiccan. I seldom ever refer to them as heretics or infidels. Of course we can still be friends! How boring would life be without the occasional hotblooded debate to liven things up?


Just my tuppence.

Andy

PS: Sorry for the delay in my answer. I had to take a bit of time off, as I wasn't as recovered as I thought I was. That's what I get for thinking. At least that's what my wife tells me!

This disturbs me greatly. I have always had Catholic friends, even married one. I always looked upon their religion as a continuence of a family tradition, just as is my Protestant religion. But I never, ever thought of them as anything other than a fellow Christian.

But what I am reading is that the 'Church' does not look upon we Protestants the same.

Yes, the church was founded upon Peter, the rock. But that was never intended to make it some exclusive club. Any who call upon the name of Jesus can claim that lineage, be they Catholic, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Brethern or any other denomination. Christ sacrificed everything to save the world, and we want to exact conditions, put people in boxes, judge unworthy those who don't conform to a set of man's rules. There is nothing in the Bible about a pope, a church heirarchy or a church government. These are things created by man, not God. Man needs structure. Fine. But that always has to be seen as coming from man, not God.

Yes, Catholics were martyred in Elizabethian England. And my Brethern ancestors were martyred in what is now Germany in the 1600's. First by the Catholics and then by the Lutherans who only recently came out from under Catholic opression.

The point is, this is a human sin, not one of the Catholic or any church. Wars, muder, rape and pillage are all sins performed by people. Churches are made up of people and therefore are not perfect. None are perfect, all sin and fall short. It's all about Grace and Redemption, not pointing fingers or superiority. I would have to think that all of us have ancestors, if we go back far enough, who participated in a crusade, witch hunt, public flogging - something that we would condemn. I could condemn the Catholics for the crusades. But, then I have to condemn myself, because somewhere in my convoluted family tree is probably some guy who shoved the torch in the pile of wood beneath some presumed witch or heritic.

And, we all have equilivant moments in our own lives. Moments of betrayal, anger akin to murder, self-righteousness, justifications, superiority at the expense of our brothers. Many carry on personal crusades, the brutality of which are not evident in physical terms.

I am majorly rambling here..... History is a wonderful study and much can be learned by it. However, it can become a divisive thing. And when it comes to the following of Christ, that is never a good thing.

When debating religion, it is always good to take a step back and remind ourselves of the fundamentals. John 3:16. "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosever believeth on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. " Nothing about Catholics or Protestants. Nothing about the necessity of memebership in any particular church. It's all about Grace - bought at the supreme sacrifice but wonderously, freely given to all. Church is about worship, not conditions of Grace.

I was brought up as a Roman Catholic - attending a private Convent school until 18. Here's a joke that was told by one of the nuns 'against' her own religion... It is sooooo true! (And who SAYS Nuns don't have a sense of humour?!)

A man finds himself at the Pearly Gates where St Peter welcomes him in and offers to show him round. 'Over there are the Buddhists', '.... and in that area, the Muslims'... and so on... They come to a very high brick wall. St Peter asks the man to keep his voice down. 'Why? Who is behind that wall?' asks the man. 'Shhhh, says St Peter - 'the RCs - and they think they are the only ones in here'!)

I gave up on religion at the age of 16.

No need to be disturbed . The only way to make headway is to get the issues out and wrangle over them. Especially when they are as deeply held as religious convictions usually are.

To say that Catholicism is a family tradition is to ignore the history and Tradition of the Catholic Church. It is the sine qua non of being Catholic that one believe that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ. But the continuity of the Catholic faith over 2000 years, in my mind, constitutes a bit more than adherence to family tradition.

Indeed, you are looked upon as a fellow Christian. The Church now makes no assertion as to the efficacy of salvation as it may reside in any of the 39,000+ Protestant sects. The Church DOES maintain, and always has, that the Catholic Church, as established by Christ, is the repository of the entirety of sanctifying grace. Incidentally, the Church does consider it a sin (called Feeneyism) to assert that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. The Church does not attempt to discern the mind of God as it relates to those who do not profess faith in the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Again, Catholics do not believe that the Bible is the SOLE source of guidance for the Christian. Holy Tradition, as determined by the Magisterium of the Church is accorded an equal place with Holy Scripture. The Bible never claimed to be the sole source of guidance, anyway.

Rambling is good!!! And division in the Church is not good . Which is why most devout Catholics pray for the reunion of the Church, as impossible as it may seem. For we know that for God, nothing is impossible.

A great deal of what I write about here is defined Catholic dogma (which I know is a dirty word for many) . But what I say, I deeply believe in, and hold to be the truth. Or at least as near to the truth as I can approximate, given my feeble human mind. There have always been divisions within the Church. Quite likely, there always will be. But I, and many others, fervently and devoutly pray that the wounds dividing Christianity are healed and that the Church may be whole again.

Just my tuppence.

Andy

I have heard that joke with just about every sect known to man as a sub for the RC's. It is still funny!

Andy

Being raised 'low church' I do look at things differently. The Bible is our only authority.

And, I do not see the different denominations as a divided church. People are different and need to worship in different ways. There need not be one earthly church structure.

The only thing that divides Christians is focusing on anything other than Christ's teaching and example.

This post has been edited by Elspeth on 04-Mar-2004, 04:23 PM

I will give this a try.

We obviously have widely different takes and just to give you my background I do have a Catholic Education (4 years of Catecism 5 days a week during the school year)which I recieved before becoming a Christian and studying Comparative Religeons and Systematic theology for the last 16 years independantly (probably doesn't qualify as I have no sheepskin to ad authority to what I've learned and probably would not make any difference unless my certification had come from an approved Roman Catholic Institution )

I also have a high percentage of Catholic friends who seem to be somewhat less fundamental in their view of the church than yourself. Probably has to do with the Diocyes here in Indianapolis.

[/QUOTE]Foxe's anti-Catholicism was the widespread anti-Catholicism that was rampant during the Elizabethan period. This is evident from the number of Catholic martyrs who were tortured and executed by the gov't for no other reason than praying Mass..[/QUOTE]

Being from an anti-Catholic era is no indication that Foxe was anti-Catholic and is no better evidence that his writings are not historical than than my saying that the Catholic account of history is invalid simply because they are pro-Catholic or that all of the decrees of the church took place in a pro-Catholic enviroment. One could put the same argument easily against the Catholic church saying that the evidence of there rabid pro-Catholic stance is obvious in the way that they killed Christians for no other reason than refusing to acknowledge the Roman Catholic Church as the official instrument of God and then justifying their actions by classifying these people as heretics, schismatics and apostates.

[Quote/]The Catholic Church is the repository of the entirety of the graces of Christianity promised us by Christ. Did their resistance to the teachings of the Church make them less Christian? Yes, it did. They resisted the Church founded by Christ, denying its teachings. In essence, they were the first "cafeteria Catholics." They denied themselves the entirety of the Church's sanctifying grace. By the way, the vast majority of heretics, schismatics and apostates were simply refused the Sacraments until they recanted. The killing of any of these people is to be deplored, but taken in the millieu of the Middle Ages, it was understandable. Not excusable, highly regrettable, but understandable. [Quote/]

They recanted rather than be tortured and killed, a highly effective method of Proseletising. Because they did not accept the man made institution of the Roman Catholic church as the Holy Soveriegn instrument of God and thus died for their faith rather than submit to an organization that they saw to be against God. (and we obviously disagree on this one ) They would have killed me had I lived then and I would have gladly given my life for what I believe in. (I don't much like the skined or burned alive thing but death to my body holds no fear for me as I look at this a simply the doorway to eternal life if you have Jesus as your Lord and Saviour)

[Quote/]Nice try. But the literal context of the conversation in fact confirms the Catholic position. Christ asked and Simon answered. It was at this point that Christ granted the keys to "Cephas," with the grammatical indication being that "Cephas" was being granted the ability to bind and loose sin as the head of the newly established Church. Not being theologians, Christ tended to be very literal when talking to the Apostles. They were men of their era- simple men, called to a phenomenal task.[Quote/]

Again I disagree for the following reasons. If you are looking at the text literally it only confirms the position that Christ was not ordaining Peter as the First Pope or establishing the Roman Catholic Church. It reads "thou are cephas (small stone) and upon this Petra (Rock) I will build my Church" again looking at the larger context it is obvious the the Rock (always a foundation reference in the Bible) is the acknowledgement of who Jesus is (Messiah, the Christ, etc) The Roman Catholic interpretation of this passage (which I have been familiar with for at least 25 years) is obscure. It takes a passage with an obvious meaning and digs an obscure foundation then builds it's entire basis for authority off of an obscure interpretation of this one passage.

[Quote/]If it has no bearing on the establishment of an organized Church, why did Christ give to Peter the keys? Why did He invest in him the ability to absolve sin? Why has the Catholic Church survived and thrived for going on 2000 years against all adversaries, both internal and external? What was that about "... the gates of Hell shall not prevail..." or something? "Ekklesia" does indeed refer to the body of believers, called by Him, as the object of His designs. And for 2000 years the "body of believers" that has embodied the fullness of the Christian faith is the Catholic Church.[Quote/]

To this I would again refer to the larger context that he is giving all Christians the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven not just Peter. Obviously he was talking directly with Peter here and this simply demonstrates the personal nature of the Christian relationship and opposed to having to go through an impersonal organization to commune with God. If this is the point where Jesus ordained Peter as the first Pope of the founding church why did he moments later say to Peter "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men" consistency in the reasoning used by the Roman Catholic Church would indicate that the Roman Catholic Church savours the things of man and not the things of God, and if this is indeed the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church then it is an offense in God's eyes. (I'm not saying that this is what is being said, I am simply saying if one then the other)

As far as 2000 years being the evidence of the one true Church, the Jews have a much longer history and by this reasoning have a much more legitimate claim if they would choose to make it. After all the Messiah does come from the Jews and all Christian Biblical faith is by definition Judeo-Christian.

[Quote/]Of course you won't be called those nasty terms. You never accepted the Catholic faith as the one true faith, so those definitons wouldn't apply to you! Many of my best friends are Protestants and one is even a Wiccan. [Quote/]

Exactly my point as many who were killed for there faith had never accecpted the Catholic Church as the one true faith and those that did and were subsequently tortured and killed would today be called Protestants. Just one more point is that I do not consider my self a Protestant as I do not protest the Roman Catholic Church I just do not agree that they or any other man made institution is the exclusive Holy instrument of God in this world.

BTW I'm glad you are feeling better

Peace

Mikel

[QUOTE=Raven,Mar 4 2004, 10:57 AM]We obviously have widely different takes and just to give you my background I do have a Catholic Education (4 years of Catecism 5 days a week during the school year)which I recieved before becoming a Christian and studying Comparative Religeons and Systematic theology for the last 16 years independantly (probably doesn't qualify as I have no sheepskin to ad authority to what I've learned and probably would not make any difference unless my certification had come from an approved Roman Catholic Institution )[/QUOTE]

Obviously! I have no sheepskin in theology either. Just a BA in history from a secular college. I also have studied systematic and dogmatic theology independently for the last 12 years (not quite 16, but close though!) Sounds like we should form an independent theological scholars association! Incidentally, if those catechism classes were after 1970, I would view them as suspect. Having reviewed many of the catechetical materials out there (as a catechist for my parish), most of them are heterodox in the extreme. Some even deny the True Presence in the Eucharist!!!!! It is possible that you were not getting the whole unvarnished truth, but a watered down, post-Vatican II version

[QUOTE=Raven,Mar 4 2004, 10:57 AM]I also have a high percentage of Catholic friends who seem to be somewhat less fundamental in their view of the church than yourself. Probably has to do with the Diocyes here in Indianapolis.[/QUOTE]

I fully realize that I hold a minority opinion, being a truly orthodox Roman Catholic, not a so-called "American Catholic" or "cafeteria Catholic." I don't believe the rampant heterodoxy one sees to be diocese related, but rather endemic in the Church in America. I feel it to be due to a lack of adequate catechesis, a creeping secularism that has invaded the Church and to a lack of decisive leadership and direction by our Bishops in this arena. Incidentally, I am not a "traditionalist" or "sedevacantist" Catholic. I am merely orthodox in my beliefs, and no more. Hutton Gibson, I ain't!

[QUOTE=Raven,Mar 4 2004, 10:57 AM]Being from an anti-Catholic era is no indication that Foxe was anti-Catholic and is no better evidence that his writings are not historical than than my saying that the Catholic account of history is invalid simply because they are pro-Catholic or that all of the decrees of the church took place in a pro-Catholic enviroment.[/QUOTE]

Taken as a historiographical corpus, Foxe's work (including his sermons) is decidedly anti-Catholic. Professor David Loades, director of the John Foxe Project at the University of Sheffield, in a piece explaining the origin and significance of the Book of Martyrs, states that "... he was quickly persuaded that what Elizabeth's fragile settlement needed was the support of some major anti-catholic polemic. By both temperment and training Foxe was ideally suited to this task." This is the opinion of a professor in a secular university in Foxe's homeland, who directs the center devoted to the study of Foxe's work.

[QUOTE=Raven,Mar 4 2004, 10:57 AM]They recanted rather than be tortured and killed, a highly effective method of Proseletising. [/QUOTE]

Indeed. But makes them no less culpable for denying the Faith.

[QUOTE=Raven,Mar 4 2004, 10:57 AM]Because they did not accept the man made institution of the Roman Catholic church as the Holy Soveriegn instrument of God and thus died for their faith rather than submit to an organization that they saw to be against God. (and we obviously disagree on this one )

Agreeing to disagree is an honorable way to settle this, me thinks,

[QUOTE=Raven,Mar 4 2004, 10:57 AM]It reads "thou are cephas (small stone) and upon this Petra (Rock) I will build my Church" again looking at the larger context it is obvious the the Rock (always a foundation reference in the Bible) is the acknowledgement of who Jesus is (Messiah, the Christ, etc) The Roman Catholic interpretation of this passage (which I have been familiar with for at least 25 years) is obscure. It takes a passage with an obvious meaning and digs an obscure foundation then builds it's entire basis for authority off of an obscure interpretation of this one passage.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, Raven, but you are mixing your languages. "Cephas" is the Aramaic term for stone, while "petra(os)" is the Greek word. Some Aramaic words, "cephas" among them, have no grammatical gender. When the word was translated into Greek, which does have a gender for every word, there was a problem. "Petros" being the masculine declension, was attached to Simon, so that it would agree in gender with its referrent. However, when the second "cephas" was translated, the referrent was in another clause, so the translator directly translated it to "petra." Hence the confusion. But I must disagree (again ) with your assertion that the Catholic interpretation is obscure. The obvious meaning of the passage is that Simon is the rock upon which the Church will be built.

[QUOTE=Raven,Mar 4 2004, 10:57 AM]To this I would again refer to the larger context that he is giving all Christians the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven not just Peter. Obviously he was talking directly with Peter here and this simply demonstrates the personal nature of the Christian relationship and opposed to having to go through an impersonal organization to commune with God. If this is the point where Jesus ordained Peter as the first Pope of the founding church why did he moments later say to Peter "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men" consistency in the reasoning used by the Roman Catholic Church would indicate that the Roman Catholic Church savours the things of man and not the things of God, and if this is indeed the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church then it is an offense in God's eyes. (I'm not saying that this is what is being said, I am simply saying if one then the other)[/QUOTE]

He spoke directly to Peter, and it was to Peter that he directed his directive of the Keys. That is the simplest way to look at it. As to why Jesus rebuked Peter a couple of verses later, well, let's look at it:

[QUOTE]21 From that time Jesus began to shew to his disciples, that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the ancients and scribes and chief priests, and be put to death, and the third day rise again.

22 And Peter taking him, began to rebuke him, saying: Lord, be it far from thee, this shall not be unto thee.

23 Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men. [/QUOTE]

Peter was rebuked because he, as a human being, did not wish his Saviour to have to suffer at the hands of the Sanhedrin and the Romans. Hence the rebuke. Peter was being human, that's all. He didn't want to see this man that he loved and followed to suffer. And incidentally, we don't know that it was "moments" later. There is no referrent to elapsed time, whether seconds, hours or days. To me, it appears to be some period later than the preceding verses. But that's just my interpretation.


[QUOTE=Raven,Mar 4 2004, 10:57 AM]As far as 2000 years being the evidence of the one true Church, the Jews have a much longer history and by this reasoning have a much more legitimate claim if they would choose to make it. After all the Messiah does come from the Jews and all Christian Biblical faith is by definition Judeo-Christian.[/QUOTE]

Christ came to fulfill the promises made to the Jewish people. He made "...all things new," to paraphrase. Yes, the Jews have a longer history than the Catholic Church. But the Church was founded by Christ, who brought fulfillment to the Jewish prophecies. So, the clock started again when Christ founded his Church.

[QUOTE=Raven,Mar 4 2004, 10:57 AM]Exactly my point as many who were killed for there faith had never accecpted the Catholic Church as the one true faith and those that did and were subsequently tortured and killed would today be called Protestants. [QUOTE]

But for 1500 years, the Catholic Church was the "only game in town." There were no other denominations. It is for that reason that they were labelled as they were. Since Trent, it is realized that there are people who will be born, raised and die, and will never know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, established by Christ. It is for this reason that the Church no longer avers that all Protestants are heretics. Seperated brethren, yes. But heretics no longer.

Just my tuppence.

Andy

I'm even more sorry as you are correct about the cephas thing (bows humbly beneath the unrelenting Iron fist of Andy Lucy and the Roman Catholic Church )

How ever I still do not believe that you can have it both ways on the issue of speaking directly to Peter or in a metaphorical sense. In one breath declaring Peter the Rock on which he will build the Church and then in the next calling him Satan. I believe both to be not directly aimed at Peter (i.e Peter is not the Rock of the Church that God is building on nor is he Satan) and I will hold to my view that your interpretation (and the interpretation of the Old School Roman Catholic Church )or Matt 16:18 is indeed an obscure as opposed to obvious interpretation. I guess yet another point that we must agree to disagree.

[QUOTE=Raven,Mar 4 2004, 10:57 AM]They recanted rather than be tortured and killed, a highly effective method of Proseletising. [/QUOTE]

[quote=AndyLucyIndeed. But makes them no less culpable for denying the Faith.[/quote]

My Point is what they were denying the faith of (i.e. Catholic Church vs Jesus Christ as God in the Flesh, Lord and Savior, risen Messiah etc...)

[quote=AndyLucy Christ came to fulfill the promises made to the Jewish people. He made "...all things new," to paraphrase. Yes, the Jews have a longer history than the Catholic Church. But the Church was founded by Christ, who brought fulfillment to the Jewish prophecies. So, the clock started again when Christ founded his Church. [/quote]

I understand all of this (obviously i hope ) my point being that the Jews have been here much longer as an organized religion and would and do deny the legitimacy of the Christian Church. My point being that just because they have been here longer is no evidence that they are more on the mark. This sort of argument should carry no weight as it breaks down under scrutiny. It is no more valid an argument for the Roman Catholic Church as the one true Church than using the fact that you have a minority opinion amongst Catholics to say that this somehow diminishes your arguments/evidence.

Which is also my point with Foxe the evidence that he is anti Catholic (i.e. lived in an anti-Catholic period, portrayed the Catholic church in a negative light) in no way presents conclusive evidence that his writings are not historically accurate nor is that con-clusive evidence that he himself was anti-Catholic unless you define anti-Catholic as not being for all the things that he saw the Catholic church doing or that they had done. (the definition I was using was having an anti-Catholic predisposition without any regard for the evidence)


Finally
[quote=AndyLucy Obviously! I have no sheepskin in theology either. Just a BA in history from a secular college. I also have studied systematic and dogmatic theology independently for the last 12 years (not quite 16, but close though!) Sounds like we should form an independent theological scholars association! Incidentally, if those catechism classes were after 1970, I would view them as suspect. Having reviewed many of the catechetical materials out there (as a catechist for my parish), [/quote]

Just to clarify, I was never a Catholic although I did consider conversion at one time (not being a Christian at all at the time-I just liked the partys people etc and the idea of confession) My catechism classes were 1974-1978 but I have studied Catholic theology since and have uncovered the unvarnished truth of Orthodox Catholic Belief, I just have not met very many people who hold to it as stringently as you do. My point in bringing that up was that my disposition towards Catholics in general was very favorable before I began my studies in 1987. I still hold no malice towards them because of what the Church has done historically or tolerates with in there ranks to this day or at least until recently. So I would not be classified anti-Catholic at least I don't feel that way.

I currently go to a high Church (presbyterian) but I am not a Protestant (nor a presbyterian that is just where I attend) In other words I do not hold up the hierarchy of the church as the supreme mouth piece of God.

Also I believe that Church doctrine should be based on the Bible alone and not other added documents. (a long long discussion that probably warrants it's own thread when we start our independent theological scholars association)

Until we meet on the honorable battlefield of discusion again

Peace

Michael

You two are just so fun to read. I don't think I ever witnessed a more gentlemanly debate. I'm envisioning televising this, you guys in black tuxedos, Waterford crystal glasses at each podium....

Aw, shucks, man.

As I will hold to my opinion that there is no chronological referrent between the verses in question, which renders, at least to my mind, the Roman Catholic view to be the most reasonable. And, again, we must agree to disagree.

And my point is that there is no differentiation between faith in the Church begun by Christ and faith in Christ himself.

However, if the Protestantized view of church is the correct one, that is the Catholic Church is NOT the true Church begun by Christ, why would God have allowed His people to wander in ignorance for 1500 years, being led by a sham of a church, condemning millions to hell simply because they never knew the difference? I do agree that sheer chronological weight has no bearing, as the Jews have been wrong about Christ for as long as the Catholic Church has been around. But when taken in context with other arguments, it does buttress the argument that the Catholic Church is the Church begun by Christ.

Do I put Foxe in the same category of contemptible bigots like those at Chick Publications. No, absolutely not. My point is that Foxe was not writing with a purely religious agenda. He was scarred from the persecution of Protestants under Mary (which I roundly condemn, by the way ) and saw the accession of Elizabeth to the throne as a chance to turn the tables on the people (Catholics) who persecuted his friends. At least that is how it reads to me and to Foxe scholars, most of whom acknowledge the polemical nature of his writing.

I don't see you that way. Noncatholic, yes. Anticatholic? Absolutely not!

Oh, goody, goody, goody. I can hardly wait!!! Sola Scriptura is always fun to debate!

Actually, I had in mind something more like the old show "Firing Line." Just so long as I can wear the tweed jacket and lean back in my chair with a clipboard with a stopwatch on it. Civility and politeness cost absolutely nothing, and are essential to debates of this type.

Just my tuppence.

Andy

[quote=AndyLucy And my point is that there is no differentiation between faith in the Church begun by Christ and faith in Christ himself.[/quote]

And my point is that the 2 are mutually exclusive. (obviously if I believed that the Roman Catholic Church is what you believe it to be this might not be so) However, I do not believe that. I believe the Roman Catholic Church (appart from doctrine)to be no different than any other man made institution. It is man's creation. Faith in Christ is faith in God, faith in the Roman Catholic Church is faith in man and all that goes along with that.

[quote=AndyLucy However, if the Protestantized view of church is the correct one, that is the Catholic Church is NOT the true Church begun by Christ, why would God have allowed His people to wander in ignorance for 1500 years, being led by a sham of a church, condemning millions to hell simply because they never knew the difference? I do agree that sheer chronological weight has no bearing, as the Jews have been wrong about Christ for as long as the Catholic Church has been around. But when taken in context with other arguments, it does buttress the argument that the Catholic Church is the Church begun by Christ.[/quote]

Using why to build your case is not a strong position. Why does God allow Satan to exist or why does God allow evil to exist. Why did God create us in the first place. Saying that God allowing the Roman Catholic Church to exist for 1500 years unopposed (I would dispute that time frame as you and I have a basic point of contention about when the Roman Catholic Church actually came in to being) I would also dispute the unopposed part as this argument is based on the Roman Catholic Church not recognizing anyone outside of it's walls as Christian. Yet another point that I would dispute, based on the fact that the Roman Catholic Church later reversed it's decision on whether these people were Christians which seems to translate that anyone previous to this recognition was outside of salvation but once the Roman Catholic Church recognized them they were inside of the fold.
So this is why I think this argument has no weight
1.) God allowing an organization to exist and claim to be his instrument is no evidence that it is. God in the Bible says that false prophets will come and he will allow them to exist.
2.) I dispute the fact that no Christians existed outside of the Catholic Church until the Catholic Church decided that they did.
3.) I dispute the date of origin for the Roman Catholic Church in addition to this. (*BTW have you ever read Foxes book in it's entirety?)

[quote=AndyLucy Do I put Foxe in the same category of contemptible bigots like those at Chick Publications .[/quote]

Well that's a relief. But for God's grace we could be right there with them. We all have our prejudice.

Finally dismissing Foxes history because he may have had anti-Catholic sentiments allows me to dismiss the Roman Catholic version of history for the same reasons. They are prejudiced (obvious pro Roman Catholics if I've ever seen one) Obviously all history comes with some measure of prejudice (not necesarily bigotry)

Peace

Mikel

But the Catholic Church was not started by man, but by the Son of Man. To have faith in Christ is to have faith in the Church he founded. Did Christ found the Baptist church? No. The Methodist church? No. The Mormon church? No. Only the Catholic Church can trace its lineage, through a 2000 year unbroken line of succession, to Peter, to whom the Keys of Heaven were given.

One could make the same argument about the 39,000+ Protestant denominations, ie, that they are all false prophets, especially as they tend to disagree among themselves on significant theological matters. The problem is that Christ didn't start those churches. He did start the Catholic Church.

The Church treats this as a matter of definition. Today, the more ecumenical Church does recognize those previously listed as heretics, etc, as seperated brethren. The Church of the period did not. The Church of the period saw them as flouting the authority of the Church, established by Christ, thereby denying Christ's authority. It is a matter of temporality and definition.

I believe (unless I am mistaken Please correct me if I am wrong!) that you mark the beginning of the Catholic Church as being after the Edict of Milan in 313. Is that correct? This being the case wouldn't one expect to find Catholic practices and beliefs, such as veneration of the saints, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, a sacrificing priesthood or prayers for the dead to have arisen *after* that point? When one examines the writings of the early Church Fathers, such as Iraneus, Tertullian and Ignatius of Antioch all mention these practices and beliefs as existing prior to the 4th century. Additionally, the office of the Papacy is bestowed on the man elected the Bishop of Rome. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. (and yes, he was actually in Rome- for a definitive examination of the evidence (forensic, historical, anthropological and archaeological), see Jonn Walsh's The Bones of Saint Peter) The succession is unbroken (stretched at some points, but unbroken, nonetheless). Of course, this all rests on whether one believes that Christ invested Peter with the Keys. Hmmmm.

Yep. A facsimile of the 1570 edition. One published in his lifetime, that was not worked over by bowdlerizing editors. I have also read a collection (albeit a short one) of his sermons. FWIW, the sermons were much more vitriolic than the Book of Martyrs, but that is sort of to be expected.

Amen. A bigot for the sake of bigotry is bad. But bigots who make money from their hatred are contemptible.

I don't dismiss Foxe's work historically. I feel it to be a significant contribution to the field of martyrology. However, his personal inclinations must be taken into account when examining his work for either historiographical or theological merit. Just as St. Alphonsus Liguouri's inclinations must be taken into account when examining his work, Victories of the Martyrs (he was obviously pro-Church ). When I read Foxe, I read him with an eye to what he was wanting to accomplish, ie, to discredit the Catholic Church to bulwark the Protestant reign of Elizabeth I. When I read Liguouri, I keep in mind that he was writing during the late 18th century, a time of almost fanatical devotion to the cult of martyrs in Italy. Motivation and context are important in evaluating an author's work, whether it be secular or religious. But I think I am preaching to the choir here.

Just my tuppence.

Andy