A Timely Reminder

“The Church founded by the Redeemer is one, the same for all races and all nations. Beneath her dome, as beneath the vault of heaven, there is but one country for all nations and tongues; there is room for the development of every quality, advantage, task and vocation which God the Creator and Savior has allotted to individuals as well as to ethnical communities. [….] Whoever tampers with that unity and that indivisibility wrenches from the Spouse of Christ one of the diadems with which God Himself crowned her; he subjects a divine structure, which stands on eternal foundations, to criticism and transformation by architects whom the Father of Heaven never authorized to interfere.”

That’s from Mit Brennender Sorge Pope Pius XI’s encyclical from March of 1937 (the date is important, if you want to know the context).

In other words, Jesus Christ came for all nations, and all nations are brought into one family within the Church. Therefore, (and here, Pius XI says it best):

“Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community – however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things – whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.”

So we can literally say that ideologies of racial supremacy (like Nazism) are a form of anti-Christianity idolatry. Just a reminder.

Oh, and in case this point was too subtly made, the pope issued this encyclical in German. (To my knowledge, it’s the only encyclical in history for which the official language was German.)

98 Comments

  1. J.H. racial supremacy (like Nazism) is a form of anti-Christian idolatry.

    B.B. Papal supremacy is likewise anti-Christian idolatry, as when Boniface VIII said that it was “altogether necessary for salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

    1. (sigh) If you come here to learn, welcome. If you want to challenge, OK. But leave your disrespect and superior attitude at the door.

      1. Glenn: (sigh) If you come here to learn, welcome. If you want to challenge, OK. But leave your disrespect and superior attitude at the door.

        BB: Oh be quiet Glenn. I wrote ONE sentence, and from THAT, you judge me to be disrespectful and “superior in attitude”. In fact, my statement WAS a challenge. A challenge to THINK and that it be a catalyst to get up off your lazy butt and do some research! I told you that the RC demand to bow your knee to the Pope as the key to unlock heaven’s gate is “ANOTHER GOSPEL” (2 Cor 11:4) which will not save you or anyone else on this thread who believes such nonsense. And I equated it, quite rightly if I do say so myself, with the anti-Christian idolatry mentioned in the article.
        So what did you have to offer that might lead ME to consider your position? NOTHING. Zip. Nada. Zilch. I take it you are one of the slaves of Rome who has agreed to check in your brains with the Vatican hat-check girl and submission to the Pope for eternal life. Fine. Except for one thing.
        Jesus does not want you to do that!
        The Messiah broke through the curtain of this world to satisfy God’s justice, so that we, leaning on HIS righteousness by fulfilling the law in our room and stead, may be found, “NOT having a righteousness of our own” (Phil 3:9), by trusting in the “obedience of the One” (Rms 5:19) instead. And if that wasn’t enough, he takes the infinite penalty which our sins so richly deserve in a finite period of time on the cross. That is what is called, a “savior”.
        Submission to the Pope, good works, marian dogmas, eucharist eating…all HAVE NO SALVIFIC EFFICACY to address our sin debt, nor do they provide us with the righteousness we need to stand before a thrice holy God.
        If I am “disrespectful”, it is because God does not respect RC doctrine. This is theological war indeed, which you apparently are not interested in fighting because you do not know how to wield the sword of the word of God. That being so, the picture next to your name is does not typify you at ALL.

        1. “….the Vatican hat-check girl….”

          That’s the second time you mentioned the Vatican hat-check girl. Probably won’t have a lot of luck there, once they get to know you – Italian women are pretty perceptive. I suggest you expand your fantasy life into other areas. Maybe somewhere in Arkansas?

          Yo soy refutando….

        2. Your incorrigible disrespect comes only from the safety that you find behind your keyboard. Without that, you’d have nothing to say.

    2. “He who hears you hears Me; he who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent me.” (Lk 10:16)

      Christ very explicitly delegated the authority He’d received from the Father to the Apostles, and to the Church they founded at His direction–a Church that is headed by Peter’s successor, the Roman Pontiff. You want to go to the Father? You have go through Jesus (Jn 14:6). You want to go to Jesus? You have to go through the Church.

      This is not “anti-Christian idolatry.” It’s taking Christ at His word.

      1. LV: “He who hears you hears Me; he who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent me.” (Lk 10:16)
        Christ very explicitly delegated the authority He’d received from the Father to the Apostles…

        BB: True

        LV: and to the Church they founded at His direction–a Church that is headed by Peter’s successor, the Roman Pontiff.

        BB: FALSE! No Bible scholar on EARTH, let alone anyone in antiquity (except the Pope when he decided to self-appoint himself infallible in 1870) ever used Luke 10 to validate the supremacy of the RCC. You are deluded. Desperate for ammunition, Catholics will try to turn any verse of Scripture into their favor because the Bible simply NEVER comes right out and says what they want it to say. If the Catholic position were true, God must always speak with cottonballs in his mouth.
        Thankfully, the sword of the word of Spirit (Scripture) stabs your position to death, for we see the very same general theme used elsewhere, and neither in those places do they imply the future existence of the RCC with a Roman Pontiff at its head. READ IT and wake up…

        The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day (John 12 :48).

        Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.” (Jn 13:20).

        “Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me”
        (Matt 10:40)

        “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.” (Mk 9:37)

        Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you
        (1 Thessalonians 4:8)

        LV: This is not “anti-Christian idolatry.” It’s taking Christ at His word.

        BB: You are refuted.
        If you believe that it is necessary for salvation to be subject to a man in Italy TO TAKE AWAY YOUR SINS AND TO GIVE YOU A RIGHTEOUSNESS THAT IS NOT YOUR OWN according to Phil 3:9, you will die in your sins because you have NEITHER.

    3. “Medieval papal claims proved politically unsustainable, leading to disaster and long-term powerlessness. They reached their peak in Boniface VIII’s bull Unam sanctam (1302) defining […] that it is “altogether necessary for salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff”. A few months later Boniface was struck in the face when French soldiers invaded his palace at Anagni. He died of shock, and soon afterwards Pope Clement V, a Frenchman, acknowledged French dominance by settling in France, eventually at Avignon, where the popes remained for seventy years, a “Babylonian captivity”. […]
      “The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought”, p. 511.

  2. Oh Barry –

    You don’t understand Catholicism. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ on planet earth. Only in your demented world is there a powerless church on planet earth. I guess you would have told the Apostles they were wrong if you lived during their time. Such intellectual pride on your part.

    1. TT: You don’t understand Catholicism.

      BB: I understand Catholicism VERY well thank you very much, and if I was given a exam, multiple choice or essay, to define your doctrines, I would get an A PLUS.

      AK: The Pope is the Vicar of Christ on planet earth.

      BB: And I am a monkey’s uncle.

      TT: I guess you would have told the Apostles they were wrong if you lived during their time.

      BB: Your statement presupposes that the apostles taught papal subordination for salvation, which all true Christians deny, so it is not a matter of “disagreeing with the apostles”, but rather, your twisted view of salvation!

      Paul said that if any tricksters come along preaching another gospel, that we were to reject them. We reject the tricks of the RCC. The chosen elect will always understand the essence of the gospel because they believe God when he tells us that the Scriptures are able to make us “wise unto salvation”—as well as being able to “fully equip” the man of God for doctrine. Since then, the “fully equipped” Christian does not read one blessed word for the need to bow our knee to Peter for salvation, the damnable requirement for papal subordination CANNOT be true. It “frustrates the grace of God” to the max (Gal 2:21). Peter himself would emphatically deny it as well, as shown when someone actually bowed their knee to him in Acts. He told that person to..

      “Get up, for I am only a man”

      To put our trust in man for salvation is again flatly repudiated when we read elsewhere, “CURSED is the man who trusts in man”. And yet, this is exactly what your church tells their congregants to do. As a result, we have it on the authority of the word of God that the RCC is cursed, plain and simple.
      You can quote Matt 16:18 till kingdom come, but it will do you no good at all.

      1. Hi Barry,

        I am genuinely interested in hearing your rendering of what occurred from 33AD to the 1500’s. We have Acts to tell us a short history, but following that I am curious as to what you think happened. There seems to be some disconnect from your interpretations and the church that existed for the first 14 centuries.

        Thank you kindly!

          1. BB,
            from the link you cite: “These four shifts are indisputable”, and yet, the author doesn’t make any serious attempt to prove them. No historic documents are presented in defense of his thesis, just opinions, unproven and contradicting the history of the early Church.
            Few notes:
            1) Acts 2:42, incidentally, shows the importance of “breaking the bread” together, practice of no importance to the majority of Evangelical denominations. Please see the Didache, first century document (well before the 180 AD date so important to Jon). It “constitute[s] the oldest extant written catechism, has three main sections dealing with Christian ethics, rituals such as baptism and Eucharist, and Church organization” (Wikipedia).
            2) Uniform Ministry, that Jon so vehemently opposes, is actually supported by 1 Cor 14 indicates: a well-oiled mechanism, with individual parts each performing a simple function but coming together in a sublime concert. See also Acts 6:1-6.
            3) Constantine did not declare Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire; Theodosius I declared it in 380 AD (Constantine died in 337 AD). As for the Church not being “suffering” anymore, please note the Diocletianic Persecution of 303–313 (just few decades earlier). What Constantine promoted were councils to define the orthodoxy of the Christian faith against the growing threats of heresies.
            4) “In light of this reality the early church did not trust in fixed forms to maintain and guard her existence” = this is priceless, coming from someone who holds the written Bible as the sole rule of faith.

          2. LLC: from the link you cite: “These four shifts are indisputable”, and yet, the author doesn’t make any serious attempt to prove them. No historic documents are presented in defense of his thesis, just opinions, unproven and contradicting the history of the early Church.

            BB: Excuse me, but I will be happy to deal with that comment when the day comes…(which it never will)… when you deal with what I said about Vatican 1 telling us that the church has “always” known “throughout the ages”, beginning “immediately” after Matt 16, that Peter was given universal jurisdiction over the entire church militant. Ummm…If that were so, how could the apostles argue amongst themselves afterwards who was the greatest, and why did Jesus not correct them in favor of Peter? Vatican 1 offers, as you say, “no serious attempt to prove it, no historic documents are presented in defense of their thesis, just opinions, unproven and contradicting the history of the early Church.”

            LLV: Acts 2:42, incidentally, shows the importance of “breaking the bread” together

            BB: ALL IT SAYS IS THAT THEY BROKE BREAD! Stop being so thick-headed and let the Scriptures breathe on their own. THEY HAD DINNER TOGETHER, period. But is simply not enough for you. Here yet again,, is still yet another desperate attempt to squeeze out of Scripture the notion of Transubstantiation. The Scriptures will have none of it and categorically REBUKES you!
            So let’s peel back the layer of your Catholic onion. It is the church’s position that when the Lord gave thanks and broke the bread to distribute to the crowd on two separate occasions, that these events prefigure the giving of thanks and breaking of bread at the Last Supper (CCC 1335).
            We say, NO WAY.
            A. Giving thanks before the miracle of the loaves was simply a part of Jewish tradition before eating (Matt 14:19, 15:36). Just because Jesus did the same thing at the Last Supper proves absolutely nothing. Likewise, there was no significance in breaking the bread in the eyes of the hungry multitude. He simply broke them as a means of dividing to the disciples so they could be distributed… period. Trying to equate the action of breaking bread and ***FISH*** for distribution to the crowds, as prefiguring the breaking of bread and ***WINE*** for distribution at the Last Supper, stretches credulity to the limits!
            B. The catechism simply assumes, without proof, that the breaking of bread with those on the road to Emmaus, was transubstantiated Eucharist bread (CCC 1329). They say because the two men recognized the Lord after eating the bread, that this signifies all future believers will recognize the Lord in the Eucharist as well. But this is pure eisegesis!

            Did you ever stop to consider that while Jesus was breaking bread, they could have noticed the nail prints in his hands and THAT’S how they knew him? Or, If it wasn’t the nail scars in his hands, why may we not suppose their eyes were opened to a brief glimpse at his resurrected body, which was akin to his appearance on the Mount of Transfiguration? These two possibilities are far more convincing and do away with them recognizing him as a result of Transubstantiation having occurred. WAKE UP!

            At the table with these men on the road to Emmaus, he took the bread, blessed it, broke it, gave thanks and dispatched it. During the miracle of the loaves, he took the bread, blessed it, broke it, gave thanks and dispatched it. Consequently, the breaking and blessing of bread was simply a common element of Hebrew hospitality; and since no Catholic on earth believes in transubstantiated bread at the miracle of the loaves, then it is out of order to presume it does in Luke 24 with the men on the road to Emmaus, or where we read of the same in Acts 2:46.

          3. BB: Did you ever stop to consider that while Jesus was breaking bread, they could have noticed the nail prints in his hands and THAT’S how they knew him?

            Do it say that in the Bah-bule? Nope!

            Yew are refruited!

            (P.S. when nailholes and side wounds are seen, **it’s noted:** Jn 20:27

        1. Dan Brown maybe would love this steaming pile of conjecture, because it validates for the theologically and historically ignorant, his basis for “The DaVinci Code.” But David, you’re right, it’s good to have some idea of the basis for other folks errant belief sets. Both for apologetics and entertainment.

          Former evangelical Rod Barrett, both in “Four Witnesses” and “The Apostasy that Wasn’t” demolishes the old “Constantine did it” canard using credibly sourced Church histories and accounts of the early Church fathers.

          1. AK: [the article was a] steaming pile of conjecture, because it validates for the theologically and historically ignorant…

            BB: Speaking of the theologically and historically ignorant, I pointed out more than once, with no response….(you know how that goes, when Catholics are left speechless, don’t you?) that Vatican 1 gave us, “under the guidance of the Holy Spirit”, an historically and theologically BANKRUPT set of events; namely that it was
            #1) universally known from the get-go at Matt 16:18, that
            #2) Peter was crowned king and head of the church.

            However, the Holy Spirit is not so “ignorant and theologically” obtuse so as to stand behind a completely unsupported view of history that cannot for a MOMENT be validated by any Encyclopedia on earth, let alone the biblical Text itself. The simple, yet powerful, evidence from the record so totally demolishes RC claims, that the charge of Catholics being mentally challenged is certainly warranted, or if not that, purposely left adrift by divine decree for his own good reasons (2 Thess 2:11-12).
            Again,

            a. the argument amongst the apostles as to who was the greatest, ELIMINATES any and all possibility that Peter was given “immediate jurisdiction over the entire church militant” as that OHHHH so NON-infallible Vatican 1 tells us.
            b. The complete absence of a papal or priestly office when the offices of the church ARE mentioned (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11-12) wrecks havoc with Vatican 1, which stupidly asserts the papacy is the “PLAIN” teaching of Scripture! “PLAIN”, my holy immaculate FOOT.
            c. Jesus (in Matt 20:25) utterly repudiates the form of government as portrayed by RC dignitaries down thru time…
            “IT SHALL NOT BE SO WITH YOU”.
            But in Catholicism, IT IS SO WITH THEM.
            d. Paul singles HIMSELF out as the standard of orthodoxy (1 Cor 4:17).
            e. Only Paul refers to himself as having a rod (a symbol of authority) 1 Cor 4:21.
            f. Paul is the only apostle who refers to his authority over ALL the churches (1 Cor 4:17; 7:17, 2 Cor 11:28) …wreaking havoc ONCE AGAIN with the ludicrous claim from Vatican 1 that Peter immediately received from Christ a primacy of honor over the whole church militant! When will you people wake up out of your spiritual coma???
            g. Paul said he was not a whit behind (or at all inferior) to the very chiefest (or most eminent) apostles (2 Cor 11:5 AND 12:11), and that,
            “He who worked effectively in Peter…worked effectively in me also” (Galatians 2:8) — putting himself on the same level as his spiritual brother.
            h. If Peter was Pope, why does Paul list Peter as one of the “pillars” in Jerusalem, and second after James at that? (Gal 2:9).
            i. If Peter was Pope, how could Paul say that among James, Peter & John, “what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality” (Gal 2:6).
            j. Rome DEFINITELY cannot escape Paul’s implicit charge of creating a “Corinthian faction” disruptive to church unity when it urges the “primacy” of Peter over Paul (1 Cor 1:10-13; 3:3-9).

          2. Ah, the Master of theological subjectivity, circularity, vacuosity and obscurantism strikes again! The dog-ears on the Jimmy White Cliff Notes must be big as the ones on a blue-tick…..

            I am ray-footed!

          3. AK: Ah, the Master of theological subjectivity, circularity, vacuosity and obscurantism strikes again!

            BB: As usual, you have failed to refute anything I said— which is not surprising, because both history and Scripture support me…to the uttermost. Seriously, how can you even look at yourself in the mirror with a straight face? Vatican 1 was clearly NOT infallible by tracing for us a completely phony historical analysis of a “universal church jurisdiction” under the leadership of Peter immediately after the last words of Matt 16:18 were spoken. IT IS A LIE, unsupported by both Holy Writ and any encyclopedia in any library in the world. Anyone who accepts this revisionist history can only be under the wrath of God who is ALLOWING you to believe “strong delusion” primarily because you refuse the simplicity of the gospel to trust in the unspeakable cross-work of Christ ALONE (2 Thess 2:11-12).

        2. Yeah, you wonder about the writer’s Christian faith when he basically says, the only way Christianity advances is by the sword…..interesting he quotes Eric Hoffer, the atheist ‘longshoreman philosopher,’ whose cynical though noteworthy defining thesis in his book “The True Believer,” was ‘movements turn into businesses, and business turn into rackets.’ You can see where the author of this rant was headed re: Catholicism.

          As if any Catholic claimed that his Church human leadership was immune from the world – far from it – and didn’t need the occasional intervention by saints to clean up…short of heresy and schism.

          The author seems to be expressing the idea that the Church disassociated from “real” Christianity when it built buildings and abandoned the ‘house Church” concept. And to achieve “real Christianity” we need to return to ‘the good old days.” To me, this is an interesting variation of the “Benedict Option” but for Evangelical Protestants.

          Rod Barrett, BTW, makes short work of the ‘good old days’ hypothesis in the books I mentioned. And house churches last only until Mama inevitably tires of cleaning up after the devout but growing mob and suggests ‘can’t we find somewhere outside to do this?’

          1. And house churches last only until Mama inevitably tires of cleaning up…..

            Now that’s good old fashioned Catholic common sense displayed! Actually, it still happens today in many parishes. People start small Rosary/ Divine Mercy/ Guadalupano, etc..groups at their homes until they get too large, and so they ask the local priest to let them gather in the Church…and for the very same reason you state above.

            …too much trouble cleaning up their homes before and after the weekly, or monthly, ‘pot-lucks’.

          2. “People start small Rosary/ Divine Mercy/ Guadalupano, etc..groups at their homes…”

            I see that here in Colorado Springs as well. Large thriving Hispanic community and they often set the standard for us Anglos (me, a Greek Anglo – hah!) on creative devotion.

      2. Bigoted Barry –

        Like I said, you don’t understand Catholicism and your posts keep proving my point. You probably think that everything the Pope says is infallible and us dumb Catholics must follow every word. Wrong.

        1. TT: Like I said, you don’t understand Catholicism and your posts keep proving my point.

          BB: And your posts keep proving my point that you cannot refute my points!
          Honestly TT, you are so full of hot air, if you were a balloon, you’d pop.

          TT: You probably think that everything the Pope says is infallible and us dumb Catholics must follow every word. Wrong.

          BB: Kindly stop trying to read my mind. I never ONCE intimated any such thing. By your even making that statement just proves that you’re desperate to find SOME flaw in my thinking, and failing to accomplish that, you have to revert to “hopeful monsters” such as I probably think everything the Pope says is infallible.
          Sheesh!

          1. BB: Kindly stop trying to read my mind.

            List of the Top 10 World’s Shortest reads:

            1. A Guide to Arab Democracies

            2. A Journey through the Mind of Dennis Rodman

            3. Amelia Earhart’s Guide to the Pacific Ocean

            4. Career Opportunities for Gender Studies Majors

            5. Kim Jong-Un’s Collection of Motivational Speeches

            6. Al Gore: The Wild Years

            7. Mike Tyson’s Guide to Dating Etiquette

            8. Ethics in Politics by Nancy Pelosi

            9. Ethics in Finance by George Soros

            10. Take a Guess…..

          2. “Good Things the Catholic Church Has Done in the Last Two Millennia” — by Barry Baritone? 🙂

            – Just a guess.

          3. …and the reason it is probably the very shortest read is because the entire book is only two words long.

            On page 1, the only page in the whole book, it reads:

            “aint one”

            It might be added that this book has, by proportion to it’s entire text– more spelling mistakes than any other book in world history.

            Mr. Baritone commented that he is having Cliff Notes publish an abbreviated edition for students, ready for the Fall school season. 🙂

          4. Good morning Al….

            I am sure it would be a NYT bestseller. Not hard to imagine an alliance of convenience between the main mouthpiece of the atheist left and the radical evangelical right, in their mutual but vain desire to bring down the One True Church. Hate – considered and focused or just plain ignorant – makes strange bedfellows.

            Just skimmed BBs post on apostolic succession. I am surprised he didn’t mention Pope Gregory the Great’s declaration against “Universal Bishops.” That’s a real gold nugget. I am guessing parster White deleted that one from Barry’s cliff notes because he’s had his a$$ handed to him so many times over it.

            If I wanted to spend a beautiful Sunday afternoon wiping the foam from a mad dogs muzzle I could easily reference the usual Church fathers like Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, and Irenaeus of Lyon – men who learned either from the Apostles or from those who did – on the structural validity of the Apostolic hierarchy. But why? I have dug into his basket of picked and wormy fruit, and handed him the head I found nestled in there, too many times to have any motivation to do it again, today anyway. I go back to my Orwell paraphrase on the lasting significance of what goes on the few centimeters of BBs brain. I am actually hoping he uses this opportunity to thunder on, and like the late Senator George Aiken’s pronouncement on what he felt we should have done about Vietnam, just declares victory and goes home.

            Bottom line, the dozens of seminarians, faculty and alumni of the Southern Evangelical Seminary who, after having discovered Church history and studied it without BB’s blinders, left in the 2000’s to swim the Tiber. Along with greats like Hahn, Kreeft, Eckman…etc. Just a little bit more in two millennia of continuity of validation of Matt 16:18….

            Absent that, there’s not much a non-moderator can do about the little dog over the fence that interminably yaps the same enervating, meaningless bark. I will continue to pick at his malapropisms and turn them into humor, just because **that* is fun and because I can….

          5. “….in my thinking,”

            Did we miss something? Must have blinked….well, eclipses also happen only once over multiple decades, I am sure we’ll catch BB’s next singularity.

          6. AK: Bottom line, the dozens of seminarians, faculty and alumni of the Southern Evangelical Seminary who, after having discovered Church history and studied it without BB’s blinders, left in the 2000’s to swim the Tiber. Along with greats like Hahn, Kreeft, Eckman…etc.

            BB: Another laugh of the day! As if “dozens of seminarians” meandering into the RCC proves a blessed THING. Neither does what Scott the con Hahn does, matter AT ALL. Yikes! That man is as lost as a coin thrown into the ocean never to be seen again. Tried to watch one of his videos and in less than 5 MINUTES I turned it off, as he baffoonishly started off by telling us that same old wive’s tale that Jesus gave himself up in sacrifice at the Last Supper! It is probably one of the most insidious doctrines Satan ever hatched, and you do believe it to your peril and doom.
            In any case, as usual, you fail to prove anything. A simple google search will reveal in less than 10 seconds that the RCC is on a spiral staircase DOWNWARDS as far as numbers go. But as usual, you throw the Bible under the nearest moving city bus to establish your doctrine and instead, prefer to use “numbers”, “traditions”, “popular opinion”, con-artist RC apologists and deluded young men entering the seminary!
            What a wasted life!

            AK: Just a little bit more in two millennia of continuity of validation of Matt 16:18

            BB: I have already proved beyond a shadow of a doubt at 1:56 pm that the “infallible” history dished out by Vatican 1 as it relates to Matt 16 is a complete lie. It is utterly irrefutable and disproves the infallibility of your church because God does not inspire clowns to speak in his name with bogus historical facts. Moreover, to suppose that there was a universal consensus on Matt 16 FOR 2,000 YEARS (!!!) that Peter was the Rock, is the height of stupidity and deceit. One only need read Augustine who rejected the “Peter principle” and said CHRIST WAS THE ROCK. That one witness alone blows your theory into a million pieces.
            It is deplorable how you drown the Bible in favor of public opinion. Then when it comes up for air, you take great pains to twist it like a dishrag, which is all the more inexcusable. Worst of all, you leave the erroneous impression that Matt 16 has some sort of paper trail of universal favor validating the papacy—when it most certainly does NOT. Amusingly, you just pick and choose those people who agree with you and put a muzzle on the ones who don’t!
            You certainly are a piece of work.

          7. OK…I have a few minutes and this one was too target-rich to pass up….

            BB: as he baffoonishly started..

            Spellcheck, please. It’s a small thing, but hurts your credibility (did I really say that…?)

            BB: I have already proved beyond a shadow of a doubt at 1:56 pm that the “infallible” history dished out by Vatican 1 as…is utterly irrefutable..”

            Either you need to check your grammar re: subjects and modifiers or for once, we agree.

            BB: As if “dozens of seminarians” meandering into the RCC proves a blessed THING. Neither does what Scott the con Hahn does, matter AT ALL.

            Nope…means nothing 😂

            SMS rector, in full spin control mode, said “all we lost is a few eggheads…” I’ll let that one sink in….

            BB: A simple google search will reveal in less than 10 seconds that the RCC is on a spiral staircase DOWNWARDS

            How about that, out there in Shameless Land? What do **your** 10-second Google searches show you? Barry the Hoarse got any chops?

            Lovely day, off to burn some gunpowder…done shootin’ here….barrel is draining and the carp are dead.

          8. AK: Spellcheck, please. It’s a small thing, but hurts your credibility

            BB: BAFFOON….is spelled correctly. I am convinced, that just like with your false accusations about spelling (hoping no one will notice), everything else you say is blurted out with the same desire no one will check you out. It is exactly why Catholicism thrives! RC foot soldiers just believe what crankpot theologians like Hahn the Con tell them! Then when Judgment Day rolls around, they hope to pass the blame to the Council of Trent or Hahn the Con who “taught me that Jesus gave himself up in sacrifice while he was at the dinner table, but right before he.. ATE himself, as Aphraates the Persian Sage wrote (c. 280 – 345 A.D.)…
            “He ate of His own Body and drank of His own Blood” (Treatises 12:6)

            When will the madness end?!

          9. AK: sigh…http://www.spellcheck.net/misspelled-words/baffoons

            Not the King’s English I learned, but if it makes you happy, hey, who am I to judge?

            BB: The link PROVES THAT BAFFOON is spelled with 2 F’s and 2 O’s you bozo, precisely what I wrote originally. I seriously think you must be on medication. Please wean off of it before contributing here any further, you’re only making a fool of yourself.

          10. Do they teach you to read wherever down home yew ere (phonetic spelling for your ease of comprehension)?

            Let me cut and paste, again, just-for-you….read slooooowly….and if I ever get any meds (63 and I take nothing but Ouzo ;), I’ll gladly share…it’s a Matt 25: 31-46 thing:

            **************************************

            Correct spelling for BAFFOONS

            ***We think the word baffoons is a misspelling**** (asterisks are AK’s). It could be just an incorrect spelling of the words which are suggested below. Review the list and pick the word which you think is the most suitable. For your convenience, we put a definition below each word.

            Buffoon
            A rude or vulgar fool.

            Buffoonish
            Like a clown; “a buffoonish walk”; “a clownish face”; “a zany sense of humor”.

            Baboons
            A genus of the subfamily cercopithecinae, family cercopithecidae, consisting of seven named species: p. ursinus (chacma baboon), p. cynocephalus (yellow baboon), p. papio (western or guinea baboon), p. anubis (anubis or olive baboon), p. hamadryas (hamadryas or sacred baboon), p. sphinx (mandrill), and p. leucophaeus (drill). some authors have recognized a separate genus for the drill and mandrill: mandrillus. the papio genus is geographically distributed throughout east and west africa, arabia, egypt, and the sudan..

            And AK’s addition…Barr-boon the Bicephalous!

            Sometimes Matt 11:25 applies. Then again, sometimes He hides stuff from those who, well, ain’t so bright.

            I am refungible!

          11. By the way…if +two dozen Catholic seminarians from, oh,say , Mount St. Mary’s in Emmitsburg, MD, suddenly grew hair on their foreheads, abandoned their cassocks for pompadours and cheap broadcloth suits, then crossed the Ouachita to become Fundavangelist parsons, would that also be:

            BB (paraphrased by AK): Another laugh of the day! As if “dozens of Catholic seminarians” meandering into the The First Full Gospel Charch o’Jesus of Barrfoon, AR,” proves a blessed THING.

            Youse are reforested!

          12. “It is probably one of the most insidious doctrines Satan ever hatched, and you do believe it to your peril and doom.”

            Oh, yes, I’m doomed. Even if your faith were true, Barry, Satan would still be so much better than your faith, thank you. But I guess denying your bibliolatrous faith [yes, you, like many others — Jews, Moslems, Mormons… — worship a BOOK] AND denying Satan is even more awesome.

      3. BB: ” Your statement presupposes that the apostles taught papal subordination for salvation”.

        No, he was just being ironic.

        BB: “Paul said that if any tricksters come along preaching another gospel, that we were to reject them.”

        Yes, there is a litany of tricksters, depending on your definition of tricksters. I would add Luther, Beza, Knox, Calvin, Joseph Smyth…

    2. “And was not the tower of Babel biblical account a description of great great cultural unity amongst people; but where that unity was lost due to the punishment of God because they ceased to follow Him as their penultimate King, guide and ruler? ”

      Love this comment, awlms….I think the Tower passage is one of the most relevant to our times. Technology is the new Tower…..and while I usually avoid anything that sounds like an apocalyptic pronouncement, it could easily be what God, in His righteous anger, uses to bring us down….

  3. All leaders are merely people who are given the power to make decisions on behalf of the populations that provided them that authority. We can understand this easily just by reading the history of the biblical kings Saul and David, which details how the people of Israel cried out for a single leader, a king, to guide them, and even against God’s counsel. Before this, there were also leaders, but they were tribe leaders and judges, and the people of God wanted a leader to rule all the tribes of Israel. They wanted national unity as so many other nations of their time possessed.

    We can see the reasons for Israel’s desire for a King, because as every people and nation of that time knew, the chances for their survival and well being would be much greater with such a leader to make decisions on behalf of whole population. Even in modern times, every corporation has a CEO, which is somewhat equivalent to a king in function and purpose. The role is the same, that is, to make the important decisions on behalf of the corporation, to keep unity and integrity amongst the many employees working there. So, having leaders, kings, CEO’s, presidents, prime ministers, Tsars, etc.. is actually a very natural thing for any population who wants to avoid perpetual anarchy, feuding, divisions, gang warfare, crimes, murders, and many other social evils that are inevitable otherwise, and which world history is only too rich in historical accounts and examples to demonstrate.

    And was not the tower of Babel biblical account a description of great great cultural unity amongst people; but where that unity was lost due to the punishment of God because they ceased to follow Him as their perultimate King, guide and ruler? And as a punishment for their rebellion, God separated mankind into many clans and languages, wherein they would war against one another in their division and competition for worldly lands, treasures and goods. He allowed mankind to be reduced to barbarism and disunity, warfare and genocide, nationalism and racism, and every other kind of social evil.

    Finally, with the advent of Abraham, God established by covenant ‘The people of God’ and taught them how to be unified amongst themselves by customs of worship and liturgical sacrifice. And at the same time, He promised that they would be a great and unified NATION, and would be a light to all the world demonstrating to them how they too could advance their civilizations in peace, freedom happiness, and true worship of God. They would be an example of a type of “kingdom of God” here on Earth.

    So, we see that unity amongst populations has always been a ‘natural’ goal for world civilizations.

    So, as cultural unity is desired by even barbarous and pagan nations, as well as promoted by God throughout the History of Israel….why should Protestants exult in their comparatively profound ‘disunity’ and ‘doctrinal disarray’? They portray and promote anything but what can be described by the term “kingdom of God”….and that is because a ‘kingdom’ presupposes great order, law and unity of purpose amongst the entire organization. And, of course, this would translate also into order and law regarding doctrinal beliefs and religiouss practice…very little of which is found in modern Protestantism, today. In this, the old term “herding cats” as a typology for Protestantism, generally come to mind.

    But, look at the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and how unified it is. A person can cross the world and make a friend at any liturgy in about 5 minutes of fraternal discussion after Mass. And I have actually done this.. gone to another country and speaking very little of their language, but making such friends almost instantly. I can know their faith and beliefs almost immediatley, for instance if they pray the rosary, or if they seem to be people who adhere to the faith as described in the Catholic catechism.

    But, where are the parallels of this with Protestantism. Again, the typology is more like the “herding cats” analogy or typology. Doctrinally, they each have a Bible and can go their own way. And, this even happened with the founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, to his great consternation and confusion. He couldn’t understand why they would want to split from his fellowship and start their own Churches, and so in frustration they would ‘excommunicate’ eachother. They asked Him, ‘Dr. Luther, do you want to be our pope?’. And after separation from Luther, the disunity only grew and spread.

    So…which Church actually appears to be a unified ‘kingdom’…the Catholic Church or the myriads of Protestant denominations?

    How easy it is to understand the saying of the Pope Pius XI, that Joe provides, above! And Protestants should listen well with all humility:

    “The Church founded by the Redeemer is one, the same for all races and all nations. Beneath her dome, as beneath the vault of heaven, there is but one country for all nations and tongues; there is room for the development of every quality, advantage, task and vocation which God the Creator and Savior has allotted to individuals as well as to ethnical communities. [….] Whoever tampers with that unity and that indivisibility wrenches from the Spouse of Christ one of the diadems with which God Himself crowned her; he subjects a divine structure, which stands on eternal foundations, to criticism and transformation by architects whom the Father of Heaven never authorized to interfere.”

    1. “But, where are the parallels of this with Protestantism. Again, the typology is more like the “herding cats” analogy or typology. ”

      Addendum, in agreement…Judges 21:25 was **not** a compliment….

      1. Hi AK,

        In an ideal world, there would be no need for kings, presidents, prime ministers, etc…
        The problem is that we are NOT living in an ideal world. Jesus, in His divine wisdom, obviously knew this, and so He provided organization for His disciples via the election of the 12 Apostles. This was to be the model to be replicated until the end of the world. Bishops, called by Him, were to guide the Church for all ages. And each would have his own sphere of control, his own diocese with which he was to be responsible. This is all witnessed in Church and world history.

        If Christ wanted a disorganized Church, one that wasn’t built stone upon stone as a monumental building might be, but was rather composed of scattered stones,or piles of bricks, as is the Protestant model, then the First Council of Jerusalem would never have been called or needed. St. Peter and St. Paul could have agreed that Paul would preach to the Gentiles whatever he believed (as Protestants do), and Peter would preach to the people of the Holy Land, that the Judaiser’s were perfectly legitimate and orthodox Christians. There would have been no attempt for Church unity, because they would think that it was not important, like the Protestants today.

        And, then, in the next few centuries, heretics would have been encouraged to express their vision of what Christ taught…instead of being suppressed by the Early Church Bishops, as indeed history shows happened in every century.

        So, the anarchical model that Protestants promote, such as is found in the article that BB links, above, is not the model of the early Church as happened in historical reality. The authentic Church that Christ established has always worked for unity amongst it’s members, even as far back as the Book of Revelations, and the admonitions to the 7 Churches of Asia. The Church fought hard against Heresy at every turn in the first few centuries which same heretical doctrines can be reviewed and studied to this very day, because it was all well documented by the early Church bishops and leaders. Their main objective was to avoid ANYTHING like we find in Protestantism today. And the Church adopted the term CATHOLIC for this very purpose, because it wanted to be UNITED and UNIVERSAL, from it’s very inception. That Ignatius of Antioch used this term ‘catholic’ back before 107 AD is of no little significance.

        Again, if Christ wanted anything similar to the Protestant hermeneutic, the early Church would not have fought so hard against heresy in the first 400 years of it’s existence. They would have not been concerned about unity, even as the Protestants today are not concerned about it.

        But, that’s not the way things happened… as we can witnessed with a review of about a mere 100 pages of Eusebius’ Church History, online. Thanks be to God!

        1. Can’t agree with you more on the ‘scattered stones’ vs the alternative concept. See my 12:57 response above. Humans have a need to gather together and build; it’s in our wiring. God “knew his customer (creation)” and gave us a structure at Matt 16:18 that would work for us.

          Anything else comes from….somewhere else…

        2. AWL: He provided organization for His disciples via the election of the 12 Apostles. This was to be the model to be replicated until the end of the world.

          BB: The peculiar RC “organization” to which you refer is NOWHERE mentioned when the offices of the church ARE mentioned (1 Cor 12:28, Eph 5:11-12). But do you care that the Bible does not support your case? Of course not.

          AWL: Bishops, called by Him, were to guide the Church for all ages. And each would have his own sphere of control, his own diocese with which he was to be responsible. This is all witnessed in Church and world history.

          BB: It is both disgusting and infuriating to read you make up history as you go along. Namely, where the HELICOPTER do you get the nerve to read the mind of Jesus Christ and say he intended for a bishop to have his own sphere of control? Who in the world cares if it played out in history? THAT WAS NOT HIS ORIGINAL INTENTION.

          The most primitive (and biblical!) concept that we can trace is that of utilizing a PLURALITY of elders—(exactly as my church employs!) according to the “Encyclopedia of Early Christianity” by church historian J.N.D. Kelly, as well as “The Concise Dictionary of Early Christianity” by Joseph Kelly (no relation). Even your own Cardinal Newman admitted, “While apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop or Pope; their power had no prominence, as being excercised by the apostles. In course of time, first the power of the bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the pope.” (An Essay on the Development of Christine Doctrine”, p. 149).

          AWL: each would have his own sphere of control,

          BB: “Word Meanings in the New Testament” by Ralph Earle. Under the word “Bishop” used in 1 Tim 3:1, we read

          “It literally means ‘overseer’. Turning to the N.T., we discover one fact immediately; there is no mention of any diocesan bishop [singular]. In the one church at Philipi there was “episcopoi” (bishops, plural) …Phil 1:1. The bishop was a local official, and there were several of these in each congregation. Furthermore, the “elders” (presbyteroi) and “bishops” (episcopoi) WERE THE SAME.
          [in Catholicism, the elder/priests serve the bishops!]
          This is shown clearly in Acts 20. In verse 17, it says that Paul called for the elders (presbyteroi) of the church at Ephesus. In verse 28, he refers to them as episcopoi –overseers (KJV)—“guardians” (RSV). The same people are designated by both titles. We shall find this same phenonenom clearly indicated in the epistle to Titus.
          In the N.T. church, each local congregation was supervised by a group of elders or bishops [plural!] and a group of deacons. When we come to Ignatius early in the second century about 115, we find a very different picture. Now there is one bishop over each local church, together with several elders and deacons. Here we see the beginnings of the episcopal hierarchy that flowered during the second century. But in the beginning, it was not so.”

          AWL: each would have his own sphere of control,

          BB: Not at FIRST big boy! When we combine these facts with a fair reading of the anonymous epistle traditionally attributed to “Clement”, we discover that the churches at Rome and Corinth did indeed have a plurality of elders, not a monarchical episcopate in the sense of either Bishop or Pope. The fact that ROME could write to Corinth and consistently use the plural of “elders” (the primitive and most biblical concept) and never once speak in the singular name of the “bishop of Rome” at the time, shows that Vatican 1 was out of their collective minds to boldly assert that the “primacy and jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was IMMEDIATELY and directly promised to blessed Peter”.
          Again, Vatican 1 was full of baloney, confirmed by Ferguson in his, “Encyclopedia of Early Christianity”, with J.N.D. Kelly to second the motion, saying with reference to an alleged early pope:
          “his actual functions and responsibilities can only be surmised, for the monarchial or one-man episcopate had not yet emerged in Rome”.

          AWL: each would have his own sphere of control,

          BB: Your singular bishop theory is yet again shot to pieces by, “The Concise Dictionary of Early Christianity” by Joseph Kelly (not J.N.D.) who reports that Rome did not even have a singular bishop until the year 140. Confirming what I already told you Ralph Earle said, Kelly says on p. 2 that it is likely that in the earliest Roman community, a college of presbyters rather than a single bishop provided the leadership.

          Thus, since what you said at the get-go was built on a cracked foundation, there is no need to go over the unreliable info that came after it.

          1. Hi BB,

            You might want to contact Joe again, as it seems that a troll/imposter is posting about you… as happened a few weeks back. He’s using TT’s screen name, below.

            ******************************

            But, regarding your understanding of Church History, above, you cite the following:

            “When we come to Ignatius early in the second century about 115, we find a very different picture. Now there is one bishop over each local church, together with several elders and deacons. Here we see the beginnings of the episcopal hierarchy that flowered during the second century. But in the beginning, it was not so.”

            And this is your problem. You consider Ignatius to be of little authority, and 107 AD to be late in the history of the Early Church. He actually lived during the time of the writing of the Book of Revelation, and Revelations mentions the ‘Church of Smyrna’, which Ignatius also wrote to (with Polycarp as Bishop thereof) in the early 2nd century. In the first 3 chapters of Revs., regarding ..”the seven churches which are in Asia, to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamus, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea”,… it describes ancient ecclesiology in good detail and can be seen as a sort of ‘exhortation’ to the wayward Churches of the East. Most notable, is that the Lord addresses the leaders of the Churches, and the leaders are discussed in the ‘singular’ person. i.e..:

            ” And to the ANGEL of the church of Smyrna write: These things saith the First and the Last, who was dead, and is alive: [9] I know thy tribulation and thy poverty, but thou art rich: …”

            So, you see, there are not ‘angels’ detailed here, but ‘angel’…that is ONE AUTHORITY for the Church of Smyrna.

            It might be added, that Smyrna was the Church that St. Polycarp led at about the same time as Ignatius led the Church at Antioch. Both were taught by Apostles in their younger years. And so, both are primary witnesses for an understanding of the true nature of the Church in the apostolic age.

            Regarding the early Church having more than one bishop in one city, this happens to this very day. Exactly when ‘auxiliary’ bishops appeared in Church history isn’t certain, but it seems that this is what your source, above, is talking about.

            In any case, everyone knows that the Early Church, before 100 AD was in the process of it’s early development. And there is nothing strange about this. But to insinuate that Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement, also, are not reliable early sources, is to ignore the great gift that God has given to us in these very histories.

            I guess that Catholics just ‘Honor our Fathers’ ( As the Orthodox do, also) to a greater extent than Protestants. We consider all early Church history to be important to study and understand. And, Eusebius’ Church History (320AD) is a good place to start learning it.

            And if you don’t believe Eusebius, or consider him to teach a heretical history, can you please explain. And also, exactly where is the Protestant history is written of these early times? Can you give me a name and details of early Protestant practice? I would truly like to read it, if only for curiosities sake.

          2. AWL: But, regarding your understanding of Church History, above, you cite the following:
            “When we come to Ignatius early in the second century about 115, we find a very different picture. Now there is one bishop over each local church, together with several elders and deacons. Here we see the beginnings of the episcopal hierarchy that flowered during the second century. But in the beginning, it was not so.”
            And this is your problem. You consider Ignatius to be of little authority…to insinuate that Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement, also, are not reliable early sources, is to ignore the great gift that God has given to us in these very histories.

            BB: I believe Iggy is in heaven, and I by no means meant to insinuate that he was an “unreliable” witness to the Christian faith. I believe he was simply wrong in this place, “For we all err in many things” (Jms 3:2). Need it be said that everyone who gets to heaven will get there with an IMPERFECT theology? Just because he may have been wrong in some places, does not mean that he embraced “another jesus and another gosepl” per 2 Cor 11:4, which I believe all Catholics do today. Having said that, what I DO object to is when the RCC starts to use him as an authoritarian witness for their peculiar doctrines, such as that surrounding the EUCHARIST….when he most certainly was not

            http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/07/27/eating-ignatius/

            AWL: In the first 3 chapters of Revs., regarding ..”the seven churches which are in Asia, to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamus, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea”,… it describes ancient ecclesiology in good detail and can be seen as a sort of ‘exhortation’ to the wayward Churches of the East.

            BB: And it would be just here, in the midst of their waywardness of false doctrine, that an exhortation to trust in one particular leader’s gift of infallibility, should have been mentioned. But it was not.

            AWL: Most notable, is that the Lord addresses the leaders of the Churches, and the leaders are discussed in the ‘singular’ person. i.e..:
            ” And to the ANGEL of the church of Smyrna write: These things saith the First and the Last, who was dead, and is alive: [9] I know thy tribulation and thy poverty, but thou art rich: …”
            So, you see, there are not ‘angels’ detailed here, but ‘angel’…that is ONE AUTHORITY for the Church of Smyrna.

            BB: I consulted 5 of my 10 commentaries on hand, and none of them agree with your supposedly “air-tight” case for a singularer bishop. They all reported words to the effect that, “various explanations have been offered for the identity of the angels”. The very first one I opened said, “Some say the angels were the bishops of the churches, but this explanation lacks biblical support”. Then when I brought Rev 1:20 up on google, it was confirmed that the identity of the angels was a bit difficult

            http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/revelation/revelation-1/revelation-1-20.html

            Consequently, since the RCC has failed to “infallibly” define each and every verse of the Bible, I trust you understand then that you are precisely on the same level as me when it comes to digging deeper into Scripture. So while your explanation may be “nice”, it is by no means, rock-solid, and in fact, does not even deal with the Biblical evidence I presented with regard to the plurality of elders.

            AWL: And if you don’t believe Eusebius, or consider him to teach a heretical history, can you please explain.

            BB: Again, because you hopscotched over what GOD has to say about “plurality of elders”, may I not take the same liberty and simply hopscotch over your question about E?

          3. Thanks for the respectful reply, BB.

            And such respect is important because we must be imitators of Christ as much as possible, and not just debaters of what He taught. So, as much virtue as possible should accompany everything we do, even as we see in history that this is the way the Early Church Fathers and saints conducted themselves in their writings. Moreover, Jesus Himself told us that we will be held accountable for every idle word that we utter, so there are consequences for such words if they don’t reveal the Holy Spirit, and the love of Christ,…even as the Scriptures do.

            Regarding St. Ignatius, he is only one of the first Church Fathers to detail the nature of bishops. Even your same source says: …. “Here we see the beginnings of the episcopal hierarchy that flowered during the second century. But in the beginning, it was not so.”

            So, that it ‘flowered’ means that the Church indeed followed THIS way in the earliest times of the Church. And the term ‘flowered does not evoke a sense of Apostasy….does it?

            Are we to reject this flowering of the Church at the time of Ignatius? Or do we not understand that before a flower actually blooms, it must form stems and leaves, all of which take time, and don’t resemble the ‘blooms’ but are still and integral and essential part of the plant cycle? Also, do we expect a child to behave as an adult? Then why should the ‘infant’ church be any different? And especially an infant Church founded in the smallest nation on Earth, and by a group of ‘fishermen’?

            To doubt the early Church, I think, is to really doubt Jesus’ promise that He will be with us intil the end of the ages. It really isn’t reasonable to doubt excessively about what we know today of the early Church, and particularly as presented by Eusebius. Maybe we can doubt about 10%-15%…this might be reasonable. But to think Eusebius was an agent of hell, is NOT reasonable. He might have made some errors, but his intentions were good, and he was respected for this work for centuries….even up to our present times.

            In my opinion, it is ludicrous to ignore the first 3 centuries and how they developed ecclesiastically. As I mentioned before, why do we trust ancient Biblical histories of one to two thousand B.C., for instance, and can’t trust the histories of Christs Church to the year 325 AD….300 years after Christ? It makes no sense. It would be better to doubt stories about Abraham and Moses then about Christ’s Holy Church of the first 4 centuries. And, the Lord’s Church at this time was filled with the blood of the Martyrs, as is read in chapter 8 of Eusebius’ history. Do we see such devotion to God even in the stories of the early patriarchs of Israel? And yet, we will put tremendous Faith in these ancient histories, even considering that most of which were transmitted by ‘oral tradition’ as they existed when the ‘alphabet’ wasn’t even invented in those early ages?

            So, as faith is a characteristic virtue of any Christian, He should not doubt when Justin Martyr teaches about Church practices, and Ignatius also, who himself was a martyr like the rest. And, we should trust the spiritual writings of Clement as well, and the other orthodox Fathers. And especially we should trust the early Church Councils, such as Nicaea I and also the Synod at Alvira, where ‘canon law’ was being developed. And the ‘Apostolic Constitutions’ should also be read and trusted, as this writing was very wide spread throughout Christianity in the early centuries and trusted and used for catechetical purposes by countless Churches in the early centuries, even as was was the work called ‘Apostolic Traditions of Hippolytus’. Both works were compilations of early Christian customs, prayers, sacramental practice, ordinations, moral teachings,etc…

            St. Thomas the Apostle was a famous doubter, who asked for explicit proofs regarding Jesus before believing in the resurrection of Christ. And there are still many people who have St. Thomas’ charism, and demand proofs in the same way. But, God also had other apostles and saints that were strong in both faith and spiritual insight. And they could put the pieces of the ecclesiastical puzzle together through both facts AND spiritual intuition (gifts of the Holy Spirit).
            So, faith in the early Church is easily seen by these people, who aren’t afflicted with the doubts of St. Thomas. We can read Ignatius as a child might read him, and understand in a simple way. And this goes for all the Fathers, and even though some were in error on minor points…this doesn’t present big problems, but shows that they were indeed real persons and capable of mistakes.

            To sum up. To doubt most of this Church history that is detailed in the works I cited above, and especially, to doubt the validity of ecumenical councils…..and then not to have a history of people that have real names and writings that support an alternative story of early Christianity, is ludicrous. At least a history of the 2nd-5th centuries should be given according to what Protestants really think took place back then, and including early writings and witnesses to support such history. But, I’ve never come across such a historical account, even in reviewing the many gnostic writings. So, it is not reasonable to claim a contrary history of Christianity with a Protestant bent without such proofs of real people in the 2nd to 5th centuries actually following it.

            Anyway, that’s my simple opinion.

            Anyway, that’s my opinion.

          4. awlms: Thanks for the respectful reply, BB.

            AK: Seconded. I was very pleased with BB’s reply this morning. No reason BB is not welcome here with that caliber of discourse, and it is humbly appreciated.

            One observation….whatever one may think of his theology, please reconsider use of the term “Iggy” for St.Ignatius. I leave it to you to decide if such a term is borderline disrespectful, given the following, or if anyone here could so bravely advocate for his own martyrdom- letter to the Romans, Ch 5:

            “May I enjoy the wild beasts that are prepared for me; and I pray they may be found eager to rush upon me, which also I will entice to devour me speedily, and not deal with me as with some, whom, out of fear, they have not touched. But if they be unwilling to assail me, I will compel them to do so. Pardon me [in this]: I know what is for my benefit. Now I begin to be a disciple. And let no one, of things visible or invisible, envy me that I should attain to Jesus Christ. Let fire and the cross; let the crowds of wild beasts; let tearings, breakings, and dislocations of bones; let cutting off of members; let shatterings of the whole body; and let all the dreadful torments of the devil come upon me: only let me attain to Jesus Christ.”

            There’s been plenty of disrespect to go around in this intended-to-be-holy place; maybe it starts ending now.

          5. AWL: Thanks for the respectful reply, BB. And such respect is important because we must be imitators of Christ as much as possible, and not just debaters of what He taught.

            BB: However, in discussions like this when you come across info that you perceive is immediately wrong, you have no other choice BUT to be thrust into an instant debate. You turn on the computer and our Host is giving us all the reasons why this or that is true as opposed to Protestants. Well? How am I supposed to react? Shall I throw him a bouquet of roses? Do you think I haven’t noticed how Protestant poster “Irked” conducts himself? Despite the fact that I think he’s much too soft on you and clearly doesn’t want to rock the boat (as we read of Eli being too soft on his sons with disastrous results), that’s HIS way, fine….he sins not. But neither is MY way wrong either, as Christ insulted the big boys 16 times in Matt 23 alone (which I haven’t even come close to doing here). If my emotions (i.e., the confidence I display in my position) are a catalyst to provoke you to further investigate, then it has accomplished its purpose.

            AWL: Regarding St. Ignatius, he is only one of the first Church Fathers to detail the nature of bishops. Even your same source says: …. “Here we see the beginnings of the episcopal hierarchy that flowered during the second century. But in the beginning, it was not so.” So, that it ‘flowered’ means that the Church indeed followed THIS way in the earliest times of the Church. And the term ‘flowered does not evoke a sense of Apostasy….does it?

            BB: I can’t speak for the author, but in my opinion, he is indeed evoking a sense of apostasy in light of his saying it was not this way from the start. Briefly, my view is that the Lord is warning us of a religious entity that would arise in the book of Rev which he is none too pleased with. The allusions to Catholicism are hard to ignore. Supposing my position to be true then, and to fulfill his prophecy of this coming to pass, it HAD to start early on. Thus, just as Moses said that the minute he left the scene, “I know you guys are gonna blow it”, so did Paul. Do we have evidence of this? Absolutely. As I said on another thread, “we read that the early Christians were… “putting up”… with false gospels (2 Cor 11:4), and that, “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you and turning to a different gospel….some are throwing you into confusion and trying to pervert the gospel…you foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you? (Gal 1:6-7; 3:1) Thus, they were under the influence of “false doctrine, myths, endless genealogies…wandering away, turning to meaningless talk…teachers of the law who do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm” (1 Tim 1:3-7). Indeed, the early church was RIPE with accepting a whole BUNCH of baloney, such as the church at Pergamos tolerating the doctrines of Balaam and the Nico’s. The church at Thyatira tolerating Jezebel, and do you not know of what is said of the church at Laodicea?”

            AWL: Are we to reject this flowering of the Church at the time of Ignatius?

            BB: I have already provided the evidence of not only a plurality of elders, but the indisputable fact that the office of bishop and elder were the SAME. Again, THEY WERE THE SAME. Catholicism, however equates the office of an elder with the NON-EXISTENT office of a sacerdotal priest, and makes it worse by uplifting the office of a “bishop” OVER an elder, who then rules over his own little part of town. All of this is completely unbiblical, and in light of their propensity to err, it’s not surprising this quick departure from church protocol deteriorated quickly. For God to prove yet again, that he can see the future like the back of his hand, these acorn seeds of error HAD to take root EARLY so that they could blossom into the counterfeit Christianity he foretold would begin to take root.

            AWL: To doubt the early Church, I think, is to really doubt Jesus’ promise that He will be with us intil the end of the ages.

            BB: The biblical acknowledgement of the early church’s failures does not mean that there has not always been a remnant of true believers!

            AWL: But to think Eusebius was an agent of hell, is NOT reasonable.

            BB: Excuse me, but I never once even mentioned E, let alone called him a devil,so you must be thinking of someone else. But now that you mention him, your point? Since your entire religious system is based on the “rock” being Peter, do you not know that E never mentions Peter as bishop of Rome? This is confirmed by von Dollinger. He was a teacher and theologian of RC history for nearly 50 YEARS! And what was his reward? The Pope ex-communicates him for speaking the truth! Now THAT’S a devil for you! Just before Vatican 1, V.D. published his “The Pope & the Council” and it was swiftly put on the index of forbidden books. Pius IX, who was about to take a vote on his being “infallible” could not…(heaven’s to betsy, no!) …have the voters on his payroll read such facts of history such as “Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius know nothing of special papal prerogative, or of any higher or supreme right of deciding in matters of doctrine.”
            Read the next few paragraphs beginning with that sentence here….
            https://books.google.com/books?id=x6QHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=tertullian,+cyprian,+lactantius+know+nothing&source=bl&ots=Q0d7Tk67It&sig=mMQWBS-A-d6Zo-BTq-gn32wvUAg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8wbOlgenVAhWB6SYKHR-cCK0Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=tertullian%2C%20cyprian%2C%20lactantius%20know%20nothing&f=false

            AWL: In my opinion, it is ludicrous to ignore the first 3 centuries and how they developed ecclesiastically.

            BB: Who’s ignoring? I’m letting the early church breath on their own, and like I just told you, the ecclesiastical structure as shown in SCRIPTURE, was not a “development”, but rather, a quick “departure” of what we read therein.

            AWL: As I mentioned before, why do we trust ancient Biblical histories of one to two thousand B.C., for instance, and can’t trust the histories of Christs Church to the year 325 AD

            BB: But in fact, I am not doubting ANY church history that’s recorded. The issue is simply: that which behavior or practice can be most closely associated with Holy Writ will be accepted, and what does not, will be thrown out. Is this not precisely what the RCC does when she picks and chooses which traditions support her case, and sweeps under the rug things like Augustine saying Christ was the rock of Matt 16?

            AWL: At least a history of the 2nd-5th centuries should be given according to what Protestants really think took place back then and including early writings and witnesses to support such history.

            BB: Protestants have no desire to rewrite history, unlike Vatican 1 which expects us to believe that all Christendom was “immediately” under a universal primary jurisdiction with the Fisherman at the steering wheel right after M-16. But the Bible simply does not support it for at least 25 good reasons too numerous to mention here; neither does Eusebius, von Dollinger or the early councils see the Pope as supreme ruler. Even Bishop Hefele, ALSO a professor of church history, at Vatican 1 offered lots of money if SOMEONE could come up with a clear Text from anywhere in the first 3 centuries which would refer to papal infallibility.

            No one ever claimed the loot!

          6. Hi BB,

            Yours is a very dismal view of the early Church, and the bishops that led them. From everything you have written, above, it seems that almost no published author of the first 4 centuries could be considered a ‘non-heretic’. And I would guess that you consider the entire ‘Desert Father Movement’ of the 3rd-6th centuries to be largely heretical as well, as these monks and hermits would gather for Mass on Saturdays and Sundays…. so history relates. The famous work titled “The Apostolic Constitutions” must also be a pile of heretical teachings, I’m surmising, as it is filled with details on the early Church’s liturgical life, sacraments, ordination rites, information on Bishops, etc… Likewise, your opinion necessitates that the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea also was a heretical sham….’pit of vipers’ type, historical event?

            The problem I see, is how you can trust these multitudes of heretics across the Roman Empire to canonize the authentic scriptures,…such as with the inclusion of the book of Revelations into the canon (after centuries of debate by the

            fathers on the subject)?

            And why are the Protestants of that age so invisible? Why didn’t they at least leave some letters, or writings, as did all of the other fringe groups…such as the gnostics, Arian’s, Pelagians, etc…?

            It seems that you are inventing a history of the Church that didn’t exist. But what is easy…is to criticize the Church of those early times. It’s easy because of the abundant history left from that age. But this is not the case with Protestant doctrines. I’ve never come across anything even vaguely Protestant in doctrine, except for a few ‘off the cuff’ quotes from some otherwise very orthodox priests and Fathers of that age (first 4 centuries).

            Jesus taught us to pray: “Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven”. But ancient Protestants seems to not have dwelt on Earth back then, because their existence is somewhat like the purported Mormons who it is claimed migrated to South America thousands of years ago. there’s on proof. Early Protestant existence is the same, as there is no physical proof of it’s existence either. Both are just ideas invented many 100’s of years later. Maybe the closest group to it back then might be either the Montanists, who were charismatic…. or maybe the Donatist’s who demanded rebaptism for heretics and unfaithful confessors during the Roman persecutions?
            Early Protestants are thus somewhat akin to Leprechaun’s it seems. Again, no proofs until the 1400-1500’s.

            But, please give a list of others if you have one, so I can look them up on wikipedia, the Catholic Encyclopedia, or other scholarly source. But I’ll need names. Ghosts, philosophies and fictitious pondering’s don’t have real names or biographies, any more than Hitlers ancient Arian super hero’s did. So, real names are what I’m interested in, not just theories on potential ancient Protestant ideas. A real treatise with a name behind it would do real well…if one actually exists. And if it doesn’t exist why not? Do only the heretics throughout history know how to write complex theological treatises? Why did authentic Christian writings, stop in the 1st century…as you seem to claim? What dried up the true Christian ink wells? And why? I know this is a monumental task for you, to find one treatise of Protestant doctrine, so I empathize with you on this challenge. I , myself wouldn’t want to search for one, it might take 20 years, or more, to find a few pages of real biographies and manuscript proofs.

            Best to you. I hope you can find some. I enjoy reading early Church history, as it is the beautiful story of Christ’s Mystical Body here on Earth.

          7. As well, Von Dollinger is a questionable source to cite for many reasons.

            He ignores Church fathers and writings that clearly bear out the antecedents of the declaration of Papal infallibility.

            His opinions were formed in a time of ferment in German history known as the Kulturkampf. His Catholicism was leavened with a form of nationalism that filtered into his theology – it’s not the first time this has happened, especially in Germany. The effect of this kind of cultural conditioning (he got his first ideas in a period when the concept of infallibility of **all** Church doctrine was being debated, a clear intrusion into temporal sovereignty – which as we know, the Church wisely found to be groundless and discarded) cannot be minimized.

            Interestingly, when he broke with Church over the infallibility issue, and was excommunicated, he was offered an episcopate with the schismatic “Old Catholics.” He refused, still loving Mother Church sufficiently not to give apparent endorsement to the schismatics. So the implication he was silenced and excommunicated by the Pope in some kind of conspiracy to clear the way for the dogmatic ruling is, well, conspiracy theory and conjecture that is pretty much without merit. In other words, his ideas had been anathematized and he himself shunned,so why did he then not go into schism with fellow believers? Your guess, but it seems Fr.V-D still felt the Church was the One True and not de-legitimized by the subject doctrine….

            John Henry Cardinal Newman is a much more accepted source of Church apologetics on papal infallibility. Starting off as a skeptical Anglican, he completely accepted the dogma and became one of its foremost apologists.

            https://the-american-catholic.com/2013/10/19/cardinal-newman-on-papal-infallibility/

          8. By the way,not sure where V-D got the idea that Eusebius doesn’t mention anything about Papal authority.There are several places, at the following references (so not to inflict another interminable cut-paste):

            – Eusebius, Church History 5:3:4
            – ibid, Church History, 5:4:1–2
            – ibid, Church History 5:23:1–24:11
            – ibid,Church History, 24:18

            Remember, these were events that happened before 325 AD, when Church History was written. Might early, Pilgrim….and way back then, people were documented as recognizing the primacy of the See of Rome.

          9. AK: Von Dollinger is a questionable source to cite for many reasons.
            He ignores Church fathers and writings that clearly bear out the antecedents of the declaration of Papal infallibility.

            BB: I utterly reject the assertion that an RC history professor and theologian of 50 years, be labeled, “questionable”.
            Now I would imagine that one of the reasons he may have left out some of the alleged antecedents of infallibility, is because they simply were not worth dealing with! No one in their right mind, knowing the context of these “antecedents” could ever use them in an effort to prove the “birth pangs” of infallibility (that is, if they were honest). Keating is a good example of scrapping the bottom of the barrel when he digs up Cyprian as an example, quoting him thus:

            “Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors come?” (p. 217). While Mr. C did indeed speak of the seat of Peter, he by NO MEANS understood this phrase as modern RCism does (namely, that of the Bishop of Rome). Mr. C, (as well as the N. African church as a whole for a span of centuries!) believed the “chair of Peter” referred to ALL BISHOPS IN ALL CHURCHES ACROSS THE WORLD. This is an inexcusable blunder on Keating’s part. Whatever Mr. C may have meant by “no errors come” from the chair, he certainly did NOT believe in a singular infallible Pope:

            “No one among us sets himself up as bishop of bishops, or by tyranny and terror forces his colleagues to compulsory obedience…”

            Let’s take another supposed “antecedent”, likewise by Keating on the same page, giving the erroneous impression that Augustine was subservient to the Pope at Rome.

            “Rome has spoken, the case is closed”.

            But in fact, AUGUSTINE NEVER SAID THOSE WORDS! What he did say was, “…for already on this matter two councils have been sent to the Apostolic see, whence also rescripts [reports] have come. The cause is finished, would that the error may terminate likewise.”

            Yet these errors, and many other phony “antecedents” continue to this day. They do indeed FAIL to make the papal case, and Von Dollinger is not to be condemned for his conclusions. In the case of Augustine, the topic is not the bishop of Rome or Rome’s authority, but that Pelagianism was a refuted error. Refuted, not by the bishop of Rome, but by all the Scriptural evidence leading up to his statement! Two councils had concluded this and the bishop of Rome had agreed.
            It was a matter of utter desperation for Keating back when he wrote his book, and for Catholics today, to put IN QUOTES, “Rome has spoken, the case is closed” and use these words, pulled like a rabbit out of a hat, to be used in the context of an apologetic for papal infallibility.
            The real “antecedent” which I notice you don’t mention, were members of the Pope’s fan club knowing all too well that the Bible was useless to prove the exclusive claims of papal power, so it’s no surprise they had to resort to fraud by concocting forgeries such as, “The Donation of Constantine” and the “The Isidorian Decretals” to blow up their flat tire theory into a running doctrinal vehicle.

          10. Regarding the “See of Rome”, which BB and AK are currently discussing:

            I wonder why Lucius, the King of Britain wrote to the Pope in Rome, Eleutherus, to request to become a Christian? Why didn’t he write to a Bishop closer to home? Maybe Tours, or Burgundy? But why Rome, and in a very early time in Church history?

            Here is what the Historian St. Bede, in about 700 AD, wrote concerning this event :

            ‘CHAP. IV. How Lucius, king of Britain, writing to Pope Eleutherus, desired to be made a Christian.

            “IN the year of our Lord 156, Marcus Antoninus Verus, the fourteenth from Augustus, was made emperor, together with his brother, Aurelius Commodus. In their time, whilst the holy Eleutherus presided over the Roman Church, Lucius, king of Britain, sent a letter to him, entreating that by a mandate from him he might be made a Christian. He soon obtained his pious request, and the Britons preserved the faith, which they had received, uncorrupted and entire, in peace and tranquillity until the time of the Emperor Diocletian.”

            Note that this is about 165 years before the Council of Nicaea I, which is pretty early in Church History. Often, theologians forget that things were also going on in the far western end of the Empire. But Rome seems to have been extremely important for the Western Churches. We note this in Augustine, Ambrose, Hippolytus, etc… And Eusebius details it quite a bit also, as AK noted in His references, above.

            It’s clear for those who study history: The Church at Rome was the dominant Church in ancient history, to which many other Churches sought guidance from….such as is demonstrated with the history of the conversion of the British people in the quote above.

          11. Barry: Good morning.

            We’ll agree to disagree on Von D. I think he’s an outlier, influenced by social conditions and other factors as I said. Your mileage may vary. Newman is a much more reliable and accepted source of doctrinal apologetic.

            IMHO, the Whitehorse blog relies on the metaphor argument (as well as authenticity) which Protestants often use to try and debunk the letters of Ignatius. We’ll just have to let the court of public opinion decide on whether the language is clear or metaphorical. The court of history has been consulted on this blog a few threads ago. I know how I view the evidence; again, your opinion I am sure differs.

            Al provides clear evidence from credible historians such as Bede on the primacy of the See of Peter from very early times. I have done as well with Eusebius. These are just some of the precedent/antecedents of the dogma of infallibility.

          12. AWL: It’s clear for those who study history: The Church at Rome was the dominant Church in ancient history,

            BB: What’s clear from those who study history is that the Roman church was merely one church among others (!!!). Its importance is not due to a divinely appointed papacy, but to practical factors. It was withour rival as the undisputed capital of the world. It was seen as the location of the persecution of the martyrdom of Peter, Paul and John. It was the place of resort for visitors from every land, the centre of commerce and one of the wealthiest cities. Many social and political factors converged in the development of the papacy. So yes, the early Roman church was prominent—but it was NOT papal.
            _________

          13. AWL: Yours is a very dismal view of the early Church, and the bishops that led them.

            BB: If you take the time to read the following article, you will find that my view of history is “SOBER” to the max. The author gets an A PLUS. Catholicism gets an F.
            This will be the last thing I submit on this thread because the evidence is so overwhelmingly against you, I don’t wish to humiliate you further.

            http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2016/07/absence-of-papal-views-among-earliest.html

          14. Al – do you feel humiliated? Not me…must be something wrong with me.

            On Barry’s “suggestion,” I referenced Keating’s “Authority of the Pope”…and part 1 was a veritable laundry list of Papal validation by early Fathers.

            Seems to be, along with your good examples, another case of lather-rinse-repeat.

          15. AK,

            When St.. Paul was converted to Christ, the Lord said to him: “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Who said: Who art thou, Lord? And he: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. It is hard for thee to kick against the goad.”

            BB is also kicking against the goad in the same way. That is to say, truth and true history is very hard to fight against, it is exhausting for them. On the other hand it is a light burden for those who follow the truth. Even children can accept and understand many theological principles and stories from Church history. And this is probably because since we are created in God’s image, we have some such capabilities built into us innately or instinctually. This is why all men know when they sin, whatever their particular belief system or faith is. It is also why Jesus says the “Harvest is great but the laborers few”, because people have the capacity of understanding when simply taught the faith of Christ.

            Anyway, it’s good to have other Christians to discuss these things with. So there’s no loss in such discussion. But a Christian manner of discourse is more pleasurable than just squabbling and joking. And we know this because the Father’s of the Church didn’t write in this manner, and Christ Himself didn’t joke much…if at all. Although some of the things He did were inherently humorous….such as sending Peter out fishing so as to pay the Temple tax. That’s pretty humorous, to say the least!

            Best to both you and BB….and any other lurkers here who are still following the conversation.

          16. Al:

            Yeah, I had to laugh when BB basically said, “Jesus was a bully so I get to be one too.” Whatever I was doing in those exchanges, I sure as heck was not claiming “imitatio Christi”….and yes, the eventual enervation was God’s way of telling me to lay off. Joe used the right word – hijack. I know I am guilty of feeding his insanity and the message of this fine blog gets obscured. Working on that…..

          17. o you think I haven’t noticed how Protestant poster “Irked” conducts himself? Despite the fact that I think he’s much too soft on you and clearly doesn’t want to rock the boat

            I just gotta say, I’m pretty sure this is the first time this has ever been said of me, and I’m finding it kind of hilarious.

      2. By the way, in my version of the Catholic Bible…the Douay-Rheims version…..there is no such Judges 21:25. Judges ends at 21:24. Not to say it makes a difference, as such divisions in the text weren’t added to the bible until the middle ages, ie. between 1551-1571 AD.

        1. That’s interesting, because the online (Biblehub) D-R has 21:25. I have a DR and love it, but it’s on my Nook…..used the RSV for my Biblical Studies course.

          I’ll check my Nook. Thanks!

    2. First off, you want “ultimate,” not “penultimate”, which means next to last.’

      Second off, remember that Babel confused languages. Do you remember a situation in the Bible where langagues were unconfused? Do you not realize that this is a sign of the significance of what happened there, the founding of His Church?

      1. Thanks for the definition, Mary. I thought it mean’t…a type of exaggeration of ‘ultimate’.

        Regarding Babel, the languages were mean’t to confuse and divide the populations, supposedly to allow true holiness and devotion to God to be planted into world civilization. And this indeed happened.

        And yes, the Holy Spirit did bring unity to the Church, but this does not mean that organization and authority was no longer need in the Church. On the contrary, organization was enhanced, with the establishment of the diaconate, almost immediately. And, as the infant Church grew, the organization also grew, and territories/dioceses were formed to maintain unity by allowing bishops to rule their own particular parts of the world, yet still maintaining ‘universal unity of faith’ in so doing. When doctrinal problems occurred, the Church would call synods together to try to settle disputes, following the example of the 1st Council of Jerusalem as a model.

        Eusebius Church History details many of the laborious efforts by the Early Church to maintain catholic doctrinal unity in the early centuries. Thanks be to God that the Church in it’s wisdom, wrote about and cataloged these events and doctrinal conflicts that occurred back then, as these provide great proofs useful for defending the truth of the Catholic Church.

  4. God grant all His followers stand united against racial supremacism. As Baptists, we stand beside you:

    “The Scriptures teach that Eve is the mother of all living (Genesis 3:20), and that God shows no partiality, but in every nation whoever fears him and works righteousness is accepted by him (Acts 10:34-35), and that God has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on the face of the earth (Acts 17:26)

    Therefore, be it RESOLVED, That we… unwaveringly denounce racism, in all its forms, as deplorable sin; and

    Be it further RESOLVED, That we affirm the Bibles teaching that every human life is sacred, and is of equal and immeasurable worth, made in God’s image, regardless of race or ethnicity (Genesis 1:27), and that, with respect to salvation through Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for (we) are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28).”

    1. I would love to see people of Christian faith lead the way to a society where discussions of race are considered archaic, irrelevant to anything but the most specific medical necessity…..

      1. It’s depressing that racism in the church is one of the very oldest problems we see recorded.

        It’s heartening that condemnation of that racism by the church is right there alongside it. “First for the Jew, then for the Gentile, for God does not show favoritism.”

        1. Interesting that the Western brand of racism in many ways started with the African slave trade. It – a judgement and culture that denigrated the black African as intellectually and genetically inferior – evolved to justify the continuance of that activity even through the Enlightenment. How else could the philosophically inclined gentlemen of the period justify to themselves the enslavement of an entire singular race?

          A Roman did not trouble himself with such matters. You were conquered, you are my property. You may be **a lot** smarter than me, and I am going to have you keep my books and teach my children; boy, I lucked out with this one, Decius is thinking.

          Can you imagine a 19th century Virginia plantation owner picking one of his slaves to teach his children **anything?** Of course, it was against the slave codes to teach slaves to read. Interesting tautology….they are too stupid to read, but we’ll make it illegal anyway.

          Believe it was. Scott Fitzgerald who said the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. Mandatory for racists. First-rate maybe, moral/ethical, well, another story.

          Same could go for the SS Sturmbannfuehrer who shoved kids onto boxcars, then went home and opened Christmas presents with his own.

          Satan is infinitely creative, in his ability to corrupt.

          1. I think racism is an offshoot of nationalism. It’s not merely a thing centered on color. For instance, in the past, the English hated the Irish, and it had nothing to do with the color of the skin. And the Irish also didn’t think too well of the Italians, even only about 50 years ago. That is, people often didn’t want their sons and daughters marrying outside of their own particular ‘ethnicities’, and this is just a few decades back (…just watch American Movie Classics to get an idea of this on screen).

            And a lot of this was due to millennia old feuds and nation building, with countless wars that lasted centuries to contribute. Economic competition, and especially that relating to the discovery of the New World, also didn’t help.

            So, racism and nationalism are intimately mixed. In a world that lacked widespread world travel, that’s just the way it was. People were comfortable with their own languages and customs, and very wary of those of others. In general, everyone loved, and also fought and died for…their own nation and people. It’s been going on since the beginning of humanity…. probably starting with Cain and Abel.

          2. Al:

            In other words, turf wars engender creative justifications, like racism. This is something I have also postulated. In the case of the slave trade, sustainment of an economic system based on what was an increasingly repugnant labor system required a creative (read: Satanic) justification, namely, “those people” are not fully human, and suited only for the lash, chains, and slave labor.

            I’d substitute ‘tribalism’ for nationalism in much of what you wrote. There is a difference, because nationalism can be cross-cutting of tribal characteristics. In the case of National Socialism (Nazism), Hitler, channeling his spiritual mentor, creatively combined both race and turf (blood and soil). The Communists,with the same inspiration, substituted ideology for race, blood, and soil with much the same result.

            Both belief sets were unalterably opposed to, and substitutive of, Christianity, the only place restless hearts can find rest (thanks, St.Augustine)..

  5. Barry Buffoonery-

    BB: My Personal Jesus said come unto me and worship me. 1 Hesitations 2:15. That means rejects all rational thought and history of this world. Only the present counts.

    TT: Your Personal Jesus??? Let me guess, you are also an audiophile and like Depeche Mode.

    BB: The Lord sayeth the Good Book is the book and read it as though it’s a recipe book for salvation. 2 Hesitations 6:66. The Bible is the only means that God has transmitted his Word to mankind. 4 Hesitations 16:125.

    TT: Heaven Help You.

    BB: I shall smite fake churches that proclaim a false gospel according to my baffoonery and ignorance. Barry Baritone 3:45.

    TT: Good luck with that nonsense.

    BB: I have superior exegesis divorced from reality, history or any complete reading of the Bible.

    TT: Change to inferior and I agree.

    BB: When trapped, I quote scripture out of context and my posts drone on and on hoping that nobody notices I have no idea what I’m talking about.

    TT: We finally agree!!! You have no emotional control and add nothing. At least others on this blog that aren’t Catholic can have a rational discussion.

    1. You only show, by your worthless combox, that you cannot overcome the Scriptural and historical evidence which proves that Catholicism is a pack of lies, equivalent to brittle egg shells just begging to be stomped on.

  6. Buck Tooth Barry –

    BB: Woe is thee who posteth like me in my graven imagine. I am the light in a world of Catholicdarkness. I have been given superior knowledge that no man, even Joseph Smith, can refute. If you taketh my posts and read the unreadable you will see the genius of my pride. I am incapable of rational thought in two sentences or less but I know more than Church Fathers who are remembered over 1,800 years later.

    TT: You’re a troll who wants nothing to do but try to show off your own intellectual arrogance. Please go away.

          1. I have to say I appreciate the irony in that, as he said, I do research a bit based on some of his references. The irony is that I then find the complete context of the quotes and come back to report the error. So BB is pretty much undercutting himself. When he references Catholic sources, he is almost always incomplete or out of context. When he reposts protestant sources like whitehorseblog, a little delving shows the theology and apologetic is like the Platte River in fall, a mile wide and an inch deep. Everything, no matter how clear or well-documented, is a metaphor or suspect, blah blah…unless it suits my narrative, then it’s literal and authentic.

            I remember Scott Hahn on his Lighthouse conversion CD, recounting his Protestant seminary days, when he was discussing in class the Catholicity of (as I recall) a passage in Matthew. The instructor agreed, then added something like…”if I trusted the authenticity of the book of Matthew. Personally I think it is suspect…”

            Yup…..

  7. Historical evidence that proves Catholicism is wrong? Only on planet Mars, not earth. There is nothing else that was on earth and has lasted. More childish nonsense.

  8. BB,
    Sorry for answering here.
    “Ummm…If that were so, how could the apostles argue amongst themselves afterwards who was the greatest, and why did Jesus not correct them in favor of Peter?” = In Matt 16:18, Jesus only gave, as you correctly say, “…universal jurisdiction over the entire church militant”. He said nothing about being the greatest, especially in human terms, as the Apostles were arguing in Luke 9:46 and Luke 22:24. In these terms, Peter is more consistent than Paul, since he never boasts his (God given, thus legitimate) primacy.
    “THEY HAD DINNER TOGETHER, period” = the Bible disproves you. Acts 2:42 mentions the Disciples doing 4 things together, all present in today’s Mass: teaching, fellowship, praying and breaking the bread. It does not mention “giving thanks”, therefore they were likely not “having dinner together”. As for Transubstantiation, never, in Jewish history, has anyone referred to the bread and wine as their flesh and blood; similarly, in the miracles of the feeding of the many, Jesus doesn’t say “this is my body”, “this is my blood”. The miracles you cite are simply precursors of the Eucharist. As for the disciples of Emmaus, the Bible remarkably says that they did not recognize Jesus from physical appearance, nor when He explains the Scriptures. They only recognized him at the breaking of the bread.
    You stand corrected.

    1. “THEY HAD DINNER TOGETHER, period”

      Funny, I was taught in Catholic Biblical School that *every word* of Scripture has significance, put there for a reason.

      Funny also, that for people who worship the Bible (in itself a form of idolatry), there’s so much in there of no significance.

  9. AK –

    Exactly the same thinking in our political climate today. I bet BB is a conservative in his political views but the way he thinks about politics is exactly the opposite way he thinks about theology. He’s a leftist. Make up facts, create a historical narrative that never existed, redefine words, ignore basic logic. It never dawns on him that what he detests about the Left is the exact same thinking he applies to theology.

    1. TT: Spot-on. BB has not yet posted a cut-paste screed which I have not been able to dig into, find the contextual or historical leave-outs or errors, and when I point out same, doubles down with condescending invective and rolling vowels. Just like trying to have a civil discussion with an Antifa worthy. Same mindset and tactics. He’s not here to present facts in civil discourse; he’s here to disrupt. My paranoid conspiracy theory is that someone like James White or Westboro’ites train minions and send them out to shout down Catholic websites, like George Soros dispatches busses full of rent-a-radicals – hence my ‘cliff notes’ comments, which you note he never really addresses. My evidence is the telltale sameness of language and tactics you see in multiples of these characters.

      Joe, that’s why you won’t see Barry do his own blog – he’s here to choke you out.

  10. Yep. Same nonsense as the Left but somehow he convinces himself that it’s okay in theological matters and not political matters. A friend of mine once said it’s impossible to be a conservative and not Catholic? Why? Because the same thinking one uses to be a political conservative is what is used to prove the veracity of Catholicism (ex. historical proof, rejection of relativism, rejection of nominalism, historical context of words, fidelity to authority, etc.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *