The church in Rome

[SabbathBlessings]

The existence of the Bibles, translated by so many Catholics, is a matter of the historical record. The persecution of Catholics, starting with Saint Peter, has gone on into modern times. Many Catholics lost their lives trying to preach the Gospel. There really has been a cover-up in history, here in the U.S. about the KKK persecution of Catholics, and about the depths of the Protestant persecution of Catholics in Ireland. Few people know that, for example, in Dachau, of the 2,720 clerics held about 95% were Catholics. Twice I have been in foreign countries when they have celebrated Guy Fawkes day, celebrating the killing of a Catholic. I do not forget, but I forgive. This religious hatred persists among religions, Jesus did not separate the wheat from the tares.

Like I said, history has a way of rewriting itself.

 

[Valletta]

Like I said, history has a way of rewriting itself.

Indeed. Few know of the dedication of the monks in laboriously copying Holy Scripture over a period of years. A priest in a monastery, and a monastery might just possess one copy of the Bible, would have to memorize long passages before being able to go out and preach the Gospel to the masses. The people came also to rely upon the monasteries for their very physical existence. In England the monasteries were eventually seized and the land distributed to wealthy Protestants. I asked one lady in Ireland how she felt about the oppression, and she really did not want to speak negatively. But she said as a little girl she could not understand why the doors of her church were chained and they had to hold mass in the cold, wind, and rain. But we forgive, this is what Jesus teaches us.

 

[Fervent]

You owe a great debt to the Catholic Church--no Catholic Church, no Bible. The truth that is that Catholics spread the Gospel during the Dark Ages. And so many Catholics translated Biblical text into the common languages of the people. After Latin surpassed Greek as to the common language of the people, the Latin Vulgate under the direction of Saint Jerome became by far the standard Bible. "Vulgate" comes from "vulgar" or "common," meaning the common language of the people. Eventually Latin morphed into various languages such as Italian, Spanish, and French, and then came more translations by Catholics. In England long before Wycliffe and Tyndale, there were many translations of Biblical text by Catholics. To mention just a few of them, Venerable Bede, a Catholic monk, is perhaps the best known for his translation in the 700s. King Alfred the Great had not finished his translation of Psalms before he died, that would have been in the 800s. Now a lot of Biblical texts by Catholics have been destroyed, remember Protestants in England seized Catholic monasteries and gave the land to wealthy Protestants. But some do exist, you can find some of Alfred’s translations in a manuscript dated as around 1050. These are in the English of the Saxons: The Illustrated Psalms of Alfred the Great: The Old English Paris Psalter When the Normans took over the English changed, the paraphrase of Orm is dated around 1150 and is an example of a Catholic translation into Middle English. The Catholic Church has strongly defended the Bible, and took action over the centuries to prevent those who would add or subtract from the Word of God. Catholics had to flee England at one time in order to publish an English version (the Douay Rheims, they did so in France and suffered severe consequences for trying to smuggle English Bibles to the people of England. Eventually a Catholic named Gutenberg introduced the printing press, and, of course, the first book he printed was the Bible.

You know they're called the dark ages because of the repressive and oppressive politics of the Catholic Church, right? So holding the church up as the champions of Biblical preservation and disseminators of the gospel during that time is a bit...odd...to say the least. Then again, I suppose forced "conversions" and heretic hunts did technically "spread" the gospel.

 

[Valletta]

You know they're called the dark ages because of the repressive and oppressive politics of the Catholic Church, right? So holding the church up as the champions of Biblical preservation and disseminators of the gospel during that time is a bit...odd...to say the least. Then again, I suppose forced "conversions" and heretic hunts did technically "spread" the gospel.

There are many anti-Catholic slurs and I am aware that anti-Catholicism still thrives today in some Protestant circles. It seems no matter how many times various anti-Catholic stories are dis-proven that the stories are re-circulated. Hatred between religions shows that Satan is very much at work. On this subject you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out who created all of those Biblical translations and copied by hand the Word of God before the Protestant reformation..

 

[Fervent]

There are many Catholic slurs and I am aware that anti-Catholicism still thrives today in some Protestant circles. It seems no matter how many times various anti-Catholic stories are dis-proven that the stories are re-circulated. Hatred between religions shows that Satan is very much at work.

Recognizing the fallen nature of the Roman church is not anti-Catholicism. Especially as far as it goes in making an honest assessment of the (mis)conduct of the "church" as a political force. It is a fact of history that the secular power of the "church" was weilded to force a homogeneity and suppress dissenting voices as well as the power of the church being used by all manner of scoundrel at every level of the institution.

 

[prodromos]

millions of Christians killed over their religious beliefs in Rome

Somebody made up this figure and you happily repeat the lie. What kind of a Christian does that make you?

 

[Valletta]

Recognizing the fallen nature of the Roman church is not anti-Catholicism. Especially as far as it goes in making an honest assessment of the (mis)conduct of the "church" as a political force. It is a fact of history that the secular power of the "church" was weilded to force a homogeneity and suppress dissenting voices as well as the power of the church being used by all manner of scoundrel at every level of the institution.

While the head of the Catholic Church, Jesus, is sinless, the popes have all been sinners. And governments, which often took on the religion of the leader, whether Catholic or Protestant, could be brutal. The freedom of speech that was once enjoyed in the United States has been the exception, not the rule. As I've said, Jesus did not separate the wheat from the tares, so there have been all kinds of abuses in all religions. As to the Bible, an example is when Catholics had to flee England to publish the Douay-Rheims Bible in France. Catholics faced torture or death in trying to distribute the Bible to those in England. Likewise when Catholics kings or queens ruled they could be just as brutal. Satan wants us to repeat that hatred, to only blame those of other beliefs.

 

[Fervent]

While the head of the Catholic Church, Jesus, is sinless, the popes have all been sinners. And governments, which often took on the religion of the leader, whether Catholic or Protestant, could be brutal. The freedom of speech that was once enjoyed in the United States has been the exception, not the rule. As I've said, Jesus did not separate the wheat from the tares, so there have been all kinds of abuses in all religions. As to the Bible, an example is when Catholics had to flee England to publish the Douay-Rheims Bible in France. Catholics faced torture or death in trying to distribute the Bible to those in England. Likewise when Catholics kings or queens ruled they could be just as brutal. Satan wants us to repeat that hatred, to only blame those of other beliefs.

This seems like a tu quo quo, certainly there was a lot of ugliness on the part of protestants in their treatment of catholics. The problem is when you forward an institution as Christ's representative on Earth and that institutions conduct looks anything but Christian it doesn't help that some within the institution have in fact been faithful. The history of the catholic church isn't completely anti-Christ as some are prone to claim, but neither is it unformly Christian in truth. It's a mixed institution, and saying they are "sinners" trivializes the depth of corruption seen within the church in the period known as the dark ages.

 

[Valletta]

This seems like a tu quo quo, certainly there was a lot of ugliness on the part of protestants in their treatment of catholics. The problem is when you forward an institution as Christ's representative on Earth and that institutions conduct looks anything but Christian it doesn't help that some within the institution have in fact been faithful. The history of the catholic church isn't completely anti-Christ as some are prone to claim, but neither is it unformly Christian in truth. It's a mixed institution, and saying they are "sinners" trivializes the depth of corruption seen within the church in the period known as the dark ages.

I could not say whether the "depth of corruption" among Catholics back then was greater or lesser than the corruption within in your religion today. Who am I to judge? Why the pre-occupation with sins of Catholics?

 

[Fervent]

I could not say whether the "depth of corruption" among Catholics back then was greater or lesser than the corruption within in your religion today. Who am I to judge? Why the pre-occupation with sins of Catholics?

There's no pre-occupation with sins of catholics, and frankly your question just seems like a really lame attempt at deflection.

 

[Jipsah]

Like I said, I prefer to stick with the scriptures!

I don't know of any Christian sect or denomination that doesn't say that. But they most of them have some scriptures that they like and some that they don't, and they mostly pay attention the ones they like.

I have seen history be re-written too many times, which is why we are told to follow God's Word, this is where we can place our trust.

The interesting thing to me is all the Scripture that some Protestant churches see fit to discard or ignore, and others, that were given specifically to the Jews in the Old Testament, that they dig up, dust off, and claim that Gentile Christians have to follow as well. They've just pulled out a little subset of the Law of Moses that they declare still has to be observed by Christians. I find that at best intellectually dishonest, and at worst...well, bad.

You can tell a lot from what different groups choose to believe in Scripture, and what parts they choose to studiously ignore, or "explain away".

 

[Jipsah]

Like I said, I prefer to stick with the scriptures!

The ones your group likes, anyway.

I have seen history be re-written too many times

A whole lot of that happened in the 19th century. Just sayin'

, which is why we are told to follow God's Word

After necessary editing, or course.

 

[JSRG]

You know they're called the dark ages because of the repressive and oppressive politics of the Catholic Church, right? So holding the church up as the champions of Biblical preservation and disseminators of the gospel during that time is a bit...odd...to say the least. Then again, I suppose forced "conversions" and heretic hunts did technically "spread" the gospel.

As I understand it, the term "dark ages" was first used--albeit in Latin--by a Catholic writer named Baronius, who called it "saeculum obscurum". His reason for that was because in the time period in question (which for him, was the late 9th century to the mid 11th century) didn't have as much in the way of written records as other periods. Nothing at all to do with "repressive and oppressive politics of the Catholic Church". Just a statement of the number of writings.

Later on, "dark ages" got expanded in popular uses to refer to a larger period, and gained the connotation of the age in question being backwards (making it derogatory) and therefore was often used with an anti-Catholic or anti-Christian tinge. But that wasn't why they were called the dark ages, which came about because of the number of writings, not anything else. Modern historians usually aren't very fond of the term because of it giving some incorrect connotations to the period, as well as the fact its timeframe is too vaguely defined to be particularly useful (unlike things like Early middle Ages, Late Middle Ages, High Middle Ages, which have clearly accepted beginnings and endings).

 

[Jipsah]

Most would say their doctrines can be based in scripture alone, not on Tradition

Except that the canon of Scripture itself is a matter of tradition. And Protestants for the most part follow their own traditions based on the teachings of whoever founded them.

, and they did not "develop" in the manner you mentioned.

Right. They got them from whatever Leader they chose to align with, and then, and then modified them as seemed expedient ever since.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with the point, but that would largely be the response. Perhaps outline a doctrine that you see developed within a denomination?

Which denomination?

 

[Fervent]

As I understand it, the term "dark ages" was first used--albeit in Latin--by a Catholic writer named Baronius, who called it "saeculum obscurum". His reason for that was because in the time period in question (which for him, was the late 9th century to the mid 11th century) didn't have as much in the way of written records as other periods. Nothing at all to do with "repressive and oppressive politics of the Catholic Church". Just a statement of the number of writings.

Later on, "dark ages" got expanded in popular uses to refer to a larger period, and gained the connotation of the age in question being backwards (making it derogatory) and therefore was often used with an anti-Catholic or anti-Christian tinge. But that wasn't why they were called the dark ages, which came about because of the number of writings, not anything else. Modern historians usually aren't very fond of the term because of it giving some incorrect connotations to the period, as well as the fact its timeframe is too vaguely defined to be particularly useful (unlike things like Early middle Ages, Late Middle Ages, High Middle Ages, which have clearly accepted beginnings and endings).

The popular usage is the more salient one for its meaning than its original intention, though thank you for providing that information. Modern restraint in the term doesn't change the rampant issues of simony, oppression of "heretics" who often were vindicated by theological progress, abuse of the laity by the clergy, etc. The phrase took the connotation of backwardness for a reason, even if the term saw polemic employment.

 

[Jipsah]

I don't buy into the theory that "the church" which I am assume you mean the RCC is in control of God's Word, history actually shows otherwise, keeping God's Word hidden called the dark ages, but God prevailed.

Who was preserving God's Word before the Protestant Reformation, or until the micro-sects like the SDAs cropped up in the 19th and 20th centuries?

 

[Jipsah]

There’s always been a remnant who have faithfully kept the Sabbath

Generally Jews.

1st Century | Sabbath Truth. We were warned after the disciples left there would be savage wolves not sparing the flock, so not sure why one would want to follow what happened after they left instead of following Jesus

Which charge can belodged against any group of believers with whom yiou disagree, which includes most of us.

There is no sunday sacredness,

Other than the fact that our Lord Christ rose from the dead on the first day. No big deal, you reckon?

it is a tradition of man that came from Pagan sun worship

Sorry, that's simply rubbish.

I’m not going to debate this further

Just as well.

if you can find where it says the Sabbath is not a commandment of God

The same place it says you shouldn't keep all the rest of the law that you simply disregard. More than a little schizophrenic, innit? When did God enumerate the parts of the Law He no longer cared about? I mean, y'all can't work on Saturday and you can't eat shrimp, but somehow the rest of the Law no longer obtains. How'd that happen?

or the first day is God’s new day of worship,

The only one Gentiles were ever told to keep.

His new holy day, the day He set aside sanctified and blessed.

He chose to rise on the 1st day of the week, though, didn't He? Isn't that a kind of a big deal?

 

[Jipsah]

I have studied it and do not come up with the same conclusions you have

Imagine that! When your studies have been restricted to anti-Catholic polemics and self-congratulatory SDA whoop-whoop then no other conclusions are likely, are they?

 

[Jipsah]

Why the pre-occupation with sins of Catholics?

It's alway easiest to worry about the mote in someone else's eye.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Indeed. Few know of the dedication of the monks in laboriously copying Holy Scripture over a period of years. A priest in a monastery, and a monastery might just possess one copy of the Bible, would have to memorize long passages before being able to go out and preach the Gospel to the masses. The people came also to rely upon the monasteries for their very physical existence. In England the monasteries were eventually seized and the land distributed to wealthy Protestants. I asked one lady in Ireland how she felt about the oppression, and she really did not want to speak negatively. But she said as a little girl she could not understand why the doors of her church were chained and they had to hold mass in the cold, wind, and rain. But we forgive, this is what Jesus teaches us.

The church that changed times and law Dan 7:25 was the one doing the persecuting not the ones being persecuted. As stated, history has a way of rewriting itself. People can claim anything, but if we stick with God’s version of His commandments and the example Jesus lived out for us, and His Word, it will be our safeguard to not being deceived. Thanks for the chat and take care.