Roman/Italians converted by the teachings of Apostle Paul

[Albion]

This seems to be an argument against Bible alone.

I don't see why. It's a simply case of misusing a verse. It's not an argument saying that the verse we were referring to isn't valid.

If Paul told them to hold fast to these teachings and did not enumerate them in his letter, then his oral teachings were the source of his doctrine.

You can say that, but then what are they? We are not at liberty (nor is the church) just to "pencil in" whatever we would like Paul to have had in mind when referring to those "traditions."

He didn't say that what he had told them was the complete and full list of all doctrine, only that they should maintain his teachings.

Well, he doesn't even say that. Paul says that they should hold fast to those traditions they had been given. For all we know, he was referring to some traditional practices that come from the Old Testament. For a certainty, he was not referring to doctrines that had yet to be known by anyone (such as the two examples I gave before).

This would imply that they should teach others and teach their children and so keep these teachings from being lost.

Yes, that is the case with traditions, but we still cannot point to this verse and say that it justifies setting up a second set of doctrines (after those we derive from Holy Scripture) and considering that to be a second stream of divine revelation alongside the Bible...all because of the existence of the word "traditions" in the New Testament.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Is it possible that the converts to Christianity in Rome or other areas of Italy are the origins of the Waldensians? It would be interesting to know the linage of those early Italian Christians that did not follow the formation of the Catholic church and were the earliest Reformers. Any research done on this subject?

There's a denomination in Italy called Chiesa Valdese...which is the denomination you speak of.
It dates back to the 1100's.
Wikipedia has info....can't link from here.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You may very well be correct (I think). I've never been Catholic but I have developed an interest in the history of the early Church and the Apostles. From my understanding of the Catholic Church doctrine there are numerous practices and beliefs that are not only void in the Bible but opposed. I'm no scholar but I'll list the key differences that I feel are contradictory to the Holy Bible below. The exercise is not to-rebuke but to understand how such differences developed. Obviously history is well documented in the serious and deadly events leading up to the Reformation and years following it. It was clear that the Church and Papacy did many things to prevent the common man from having access to the scripture (why). I'm quite certain the belief of Indulgences was not part of Peter's Gospel. This exploitation by the Church was wide spread and fought to preserve by the Papacy. The long held belief of the infallibility of the Pope which we all know is a lie due to the uncovered scandals over the past several centuries. The worship of Saints, Celibacy (Peter was married), the Pope having supremacy over the Bible, the elevation of Mary and several other things not supported in the Bible.

It's clear that something changed from the time of Peter and Paul and the Catholic Church doctrine leading up to the Reformation. It seems to me that the Catholic faith and the Mormons are similar in that the Pope using Church history has developed requirements and practices outside of the scripture much like the Mormons have done with the Mormon Bible. I do not support adding or taking away things from the Holy Bible. Those things are from fallible man.

A few questions to consider...
Did Jesus leave us a rule of faith?
His only actual rule was "Go out into all the world and teach all that I have taught you. " To further that thought, he said "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." and "Whoever hears you hears me." In doing this, he gave teaching authority (which we call Sacred Magisterium) to the apostles and their successors. The teaching authority of the Church is the rule of faith. Christ conveyed this in his oral teaching to the apostles and they to their successors. This is called Sacred Tradition, and it produced such things as the doctrines of the Trinity and the contents of the Bible. St. Paul tells us "The tradition I received from the Lord (orally) I hand on to you. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul also tells us "If anyone has another practice, know that we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God.
Finally, Jesus told the apostles that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide them in all Truth.

The Church did nothing to deny access to Sacred Scripture. First, books were rare, second most people were illiterate. So they required the Scriptures to be read to them. And if you understand what Indulgences are (repentance, give alms to the poor, pray for the remittance of your sins), you see that indulgences were corrupted by some who claimed to represent the Church. You also have to understand that infallibility is not a constant thing for the Pope. Only when he's teaching from His chair on matters of faith and morals to the entire Church. So you see, tthe scandals of the Church have nothing to do with that.
We don't worship the Saints. We venerate them. Celibacy is a gift of the priest to God for the honor of serving Him completely. I don't know what you mean by the Pope having supremacy over the Bible. I know of no such thing. Mary is the highest of the Saints and holds a special place as the mother of God. All Catholic doctrines are supported by Scripture, but that is not necessary. There was no Bible before the Catholic Church.

 

[GodsGrace101]

A few questions to consider...
Did Jesus leave us a rule of faith?
His only actual rule was "Go out into all the world and teach all that I have taught you. " To further that thought, he said "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." and "Whoever hears you hears me." In doing this, he gave teaching authority (which we call Sacred Magisterium) to the apostles and their successors. The teaching authority of the Church is the rule of faith. Christ conveyed this in his oral teaching to the apostles and they to their successors. This is called Sacred Tradition, and it produced such things as the doctrines of the Trinity and the contents of the Bible. St. Paul tells us "The tradition I received from the Lord (orally) I hand on to you. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul also tells us "If anyone has another practice, know that we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God.
Finally, Jesus told the apostles that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide them in all Truth.

The Church did nothing to deny access to Sacred Scripture. First, books were rare, second most people were illiterate. So they required the Scriptures to be read to them. And if you understand what Indulgences are (repentance, give alms to the poor, pray for the remittance of your sins), you see that indulgences were corrupted by some who claimed to represent the Church. You also have to understand that infallibility is not a constant thing for the Pope. Only when he's teaching from His chair on matters of faith and morals to the entire Church. So you see, tthe scandals of the Church have nothing to do with that.
We don't worship the Saints. We venerate them. Celibacy is a gift of the priest to God for the honor of serving Him completely. I don't know what you mean by the Pope having supremacy over the Bible. I know of no such thing. Mary is the highest of the Saints and holds a special place as the mother of God. All Catholic doctrines are supported by Scripture, but that is not necessary. There was no Bible before the Catholic Church.

I agree with all you've stated except the fact about indulgences.
These were used to gain money for the CC but I don't know when it began...certainly hundreds of years after Jesus.

I'd say it was the practice that most led to the reformation...which was needed in some sense but also caused many deaths, the splitting of the church, and the many Protestant denominations we are left with today - thus muddying up what the truth really is since there are so many opinions; even by scholars/theologians.

People were taught that indulgences could be used either for themselves or for a loved one.
The right amount would get a loved one out of purgatory.
It was definitely misused and since I don't know the specific history of this practice, I can't comment fully, but the Pope of the time COULD HAVE put an end to it,,,which was not done.

I do know that the CC is trying to get away from this practice, but the older and the traditional Catholics are having a difficult time getting "up to date".

 

[Root of Jesse]

I agree with all you've stated except the fact about indulgences.
These were used to gain money for the CC but I don't know when it began...certainly hundreds of years after Jesus.

Well, no. Almsgiving, prayers for others and fasting were always done for the remission of sins, even in the OT. The Catholic Church never authorized or promoted the sale of indulgences. An itinerant preacher without the authority to do so, suggested that giving money would get people out of purgatory. Clearly an abuse of his position.

I'd say it was the practice that most led to the reformation...which was needed in some sense but also caused many deaths, the splitting of the church, and the many Protestant denominations we are left with today - thus muddying up what the truth really is since there are so many opinions; even by scholars/theologians.

I don't know if it was the practice that most led to the reformation, but it certainly is the one most discussed today. There were many abuses in the Church. The Truth is that the Catholic Church is always reforming, in fact, Luther was a Catholic reformer before he split from the Church, and hindered the Catholic movement of reformation.

People were taught that indulgences could be used either for themselves or for a loved one.
The right amount would get a loved one out of purgatory.

They were told that, but the people dispersing the information were doing so illicitly.

It was definitely misused and since I don't know the specific history of this practice, I can't comment fully, but the Pope of the time COULD HAVE put an end to it,,,which was not done.

Possibly, but the Church seems to always move either too fast or too slow.

I do know that the CC is trying to get away from this practice, but the older and the traditional Catholics are having a difficult time getting "up to date".

Actually, you may still pray, give alms, and fast and gain indulgences, if all the other conditions are met.

 

[fhansen]

Either the early Roman Catholic Church is lying or the Apostle Paul is lying. Romans 15:20. We know from Paul's own writing that he himself was in Rome. There is no place in scripture placing Peter in Rome. His own writing is in contradiction to the early Roman Catholic doctrine. I believe that the Roman Catholic Church created the story of Peter being in Rome and being the foundation of the Catholic Church and being the first Pope due to their misunderstanding of Matthew 16: 16-18.

This opinion is the unfortunately sad result of the Reformation, which introduced novel heresies. Both the ancient eastern and western churches taught the gospel of Jesus, James, John, Paul, et al. And continue to. Anything else is more or less pop-mythology, revisionism, ignorance, speculation, and just plain error in any case-and definitely not based on any kind of serious study of history.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Well, no. Almsgiving, prayers for others and fasting were always done for the remission of sins, even in the OT. The Catholic Church never authorized or promoted the sale of indulgences. An itinerant preacher without the authority to do so, suggested that giving money would get people out of purgatory. Clearly an abuse of his position.I don't know if it was the practice that most led to the reformation, but it certainly is the one most discussed today. There were many abuses in the Church. The Truth is that the Catholic Church is always reforming, in fact, Luther was a Catholic reformer before he split from the Church, and hindered the Catholic movement of reformation.They were told that, but the people dispersing the information were doing so illicitly.Possibly, but the Church seems to always move either too fast or too slow.Actually, you may still pray, give alms, and fast and gain indulgences, if all the other conditions are met.

I've always known that Luther was struck by Ephesians 2:8
By GRACE are we saved THROUGH FAITH, and not of our works....

I also know that the CC believes this although many associate the CC with works salvation - but I guess we shouldn't get into that.

IOW, Luther really disliked the indulgence doctrine/s, as, quite frankly, so do I. The reason is that a saint was instructed by God re indulgences (can't remember which one or there might have been more than one) and, as I'm sure you'll agree, there can be no new revelation after Jesus - He is the ultiimate and last revelation from God - and the most perfect.

I just don't believe any church has the right to establish new rules, as if God phoned them and told them to do so.

I agree with almsgiving and I can't remember anywhere in the O.T. where the Hebrews/Jews/Israelites were told to pay money to save someone's soul - although this concept was not really present in the O.T.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I've always known that Luther was struck by Ephesians 2:8
By GRACE are we saved THROUGH FAITH, and not of our works....

I also know that the CC believes this although many associate the CC with works salvation - but I guess we shouldn't get into that.

IOW, Luther really disliked the indulgence doctrine/s, as, quite frankly, so do I. The reason is that a saint was instructed by God re indulgences (can't remember which one or there might have been more than one) and, as I'm sure you'll agree, there can be no new revelation after Jesus - He is the ultiimate and last revelation from God - and the most perfect.

I just don't believe any church has the right to establish new rules, as if God phoned them and told them to do so.

I agree with almsgiving and I can't remember anywhere in the O.T. where the Hebrews/Jews/Israelites were told to pay money to save someone's soul - although this concept was not really present in the O.T.

Well, it's not establishing a new rule. I agree, some who were considered authorities got out of line. But indulgences is nothing new.

The roots of indulgences can be found in the biblical teaching on penance. Jesus instructed the disciples to exclude the impenitent from the fellowship of the Church, but to forgive those who seek forgiveness. (Matthew 18:15ff) St. Paul likewise told the Corinthians to expel the immoral brother, but to readmit him after due penance. (1 Corinthians 5; 2 Corinthians 2:5-11) Many other passages of Scripture command the Church to correct, admonish, and punish the immoral, the disobedient, and the factious. (2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15; Tit. 3:10; 1 Tim. 5:20; Galatians 6:1-2)

The ancient Church kept up this practice. Penance and absolution were a public affair, sometimes lasting for years. Disputes raged, however, over how long penance should last and under what circumstances it should be reduced. Would a quick “I’m sorry” do for a murderer, apostate, or adulterer? “Hard liners” (like Tertullian and Novatian) argued that some sins were so severe they should never be forgiven. (They appealed to Hebrews 6:4-8 in defense of their views.) Others, like Pope Calixtus (d. 222) were more lenient, and extended absolution to everyone.

Under St. Cyprian (210-258), the North African Church offered another perspective. Christians had long valued the intercession of the saints and martyrs. Through Christ, their merits and prayers were of extraordinary value. (James 5:16; Revelation 5:8; Revelation 7:14-15) What if those saints, martyrs, and confessors (those in prison for their faith or on their way to martyrdom), offered their sufferings on behalf of the penitent?

It’s very important to grasp what was being suggested. No one thought that Christ’s sufferings were insufficient. No one thought that the penitent or the martyrs could buy their way into heaven. They were concerned simply with the temporal punishments due to sin, not the eternal consequences of unremitted guilt. It was a matter of the disciplinary action of the Church, excluding and admitting from communion, and the conditions for that readmission. The question was whether the merits of the saints could be applied towards remitting only the temporal punishments.

This is where things get complicated for non-Catholic Christians. They are not accustomed to distinguishing between the guilt of sin and its temporal consequences. Nor are they used to thinking in terms of vicarious merit. And yet, both ideas are deeply biblical. 2 Samuel 12 and 2 Samuel 24 both teach that God demands satisfaction for sin even when the guilt has been previously remitted. Likewise, we find vicarious merit and suffering throughout Scripture. (Genesis 18:32; Colossians 1:24).

In Cyprian’s day, some of the confessors began handing out indulgences in their own names, or on their own authority. Sometimes, they gave them out as “blank checks” on which penitents could write their own names. St. Cyprian’s response was truly astonishing. He did not deny that these libellus (as they were called) had value. Rather, he demanded that the granting of indulgences should be subject to the authority of the bishop.

In Cyprian’s day, the Church recognized that sin has a temporal consequence, to which the Church’s authority and intercessions apply. The Church fathers also believed deeply in the communion of saints, and that the weaker members can share in the merits and gifts of the stronger. They applied this biblical logic to the problem of penances. It was a small step to apply it as well to the sufferings of those in purgatory.

The Church, following the Jewish practice, has always offered prayers for the dead. (2 Maccabees 12: 38-46) From this, and from what we know about penance, purity, and some suggestive scriptures (Matthew 5:25-26; 1 Cor. 3:11-15), the fathers inferred the doctrine of purgatory. The important thing to remember is that purgatory is a temporal punishment. As such, it is subject to the merits and intercessory prayers of the Church. These can be directed through the practice of indulgences.

Indulgences are not a “get out of hell free card.” They are not a license to sin. Rather, they are how the Church can direct the prayers and merits of the faithful to the spiritual benefit of poor souls. They are grounded in the biblical teaching on Church discipline and the communion of saints. They emerged in the earliest years of the Church with the approbation of her holiest doctors and saints. Rightly understood, they are a beautiful testament to the solidarity of all Christians, to our union in Christ.

(Thanks to the article by Dr. David Anders The Logic of Indulgences - Dr. David Anders, who explains things so beautifully.) (calvin2catholic.com)

 

[GodsGrace101]

Well, it's not establishing a new rule. I agree, some who were considered authorities got out of line. But indulgences is nothing new.

The roots of indulgences can be found in the biblical teaching on penance. Jesus instructed the disciples to exclude the impenitent from the fellowship of the Church, but to forgive those who seek forgiveness. (Matthew 18:15ff) St. Paul likewise told the Corinthians to expel the immoral brother, but to readmit him after due penance. (1 Corinthians 5; 2 Corinthians 2:5-11) Many other passages of Scripture command the Church to correct, admonish, and punish the immoral, the disobedient, and the factious. (2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15; Tit. 3:10; 1 Tim. 5:20; Galatians 6:1-2)

OK on the above,,,but what does this have to do with indulgences?


The ancient Church kept up this practice. Penance and absolution were a public affair, sometimes lasting for years. Disputes raged, however, over how long penance should last and under what circumstances it should be reduced. Would a quick “I’m sorry” do for a murderer, apostate, or adulterer? “Hard liners” (like Tertullian and Novatian) argued that some sins were so severe they should never be forgiven. (They appealed to Hebrews 6:4-8 in defense of their views.) Others, like Pope Calixtus (d. 222) were more lenient, and extended absolution to everyone.

Right. This goes slightly into the history of confession (auditory).
To this day very serious sins could only be forgiven by the Bishop of a locality (Parish) - actually Pope Frances has abolished that practice and now any priest could forgive any sin.
Hebrews 6:4-8 is a great example of how the church, in general, comes to have a greater understanding of scripture and also its practices.

Under St. Cyprian (210-258), the North African Church offered another perspective. Christians had long valued the intercession of the saints and martyrs. Through Christ, their merits and prayers were of extraordinary value. (James 5:16; Revelation 5:8; Revelation 7:14-15) What if those saints, martyrs, and confessors (those in prison for their faith or on their way to martyrdom), offered their sufferings on behalf of the penitent?

I've learned a little about this from a Catholic hermit (?) I've studied with (along with about 15 other persons) but I truly cannot understand how we offer our sufferings for another. I THINK this is one of the gifts that the congregation can offer at Mass before Communion,,,I really can't remember.
But, yes, I fail to understand this altogether.

It’s very important to grasp what was being suggested. No one thought that Christ’s sufferings were insufficient. No one thought that the penitent or the martyrs could buy their way into heaven. They were concerned simply with the temporal punishments due to sin, not the eternal consequences of unremitted guilt. It was a matter of the disciplinary action of the Church, excluding and admitting from communion, and the conditions for that readmission. The question was whether the merits of the saints could be applied towards remitting only the temporal punishments.

Only the temporal punishments of the saint or of anyone to whom it could be attributed??

This is where things get complicated for non-Catholic Christians. They are not accustomed to distinguishing between the guilt of sin and its temporal consequences. Nor are they used to thinking in terms of vicarious merit. And yet, both ideas are deeply biblical. 2 Samuel 12 and 2 Samuel 24 both teach that God demands satisfaction for sin even when the guilt has been previously remitted. Likewise, we find vicarious merit and suffering throughout Scripture. (Genesis 18:32; Colossians 1:24).

You say God demands satisfaction for sin.
Isn't Jesus our satisfaction for sin?
Any atonement theory you wish to discuss will say that Jesus paid for our sins (in one understanding or another).
This is exactly why I say that it would seem that Jesus' death would seem not to be sufficient in the Catholic theology.

In Cyprian’s day, some of the confessors began handing out indulgences in their own names, or on their own authority. Sometimes, they gave them out as “blank checks” on which penitents could write their own names. St. Cyprian’s response was truly astonishing. He did not deny that these libellus (as they were called) had value. Rather, he demanded that the granting of indulgences should be subject to the authority of the bishop.

In Cyprian’s day, the Church recognized that sin has a temporal consequence, to which the Church’s authority and intercessions apply. The Church fathers also believed deeply in the communion of saints, and that the weaker members can share in the merits and gifts of the stronger. They applied this biblical logic to the problem of penances. It was a small step to apply it as well to the sufferings of those in purgatory.

I understand that the saved were saved by the church...
But today even the CC understands that salvation is a very personal issue so the strength of a person cannot be given to another (in a spiritual sense). It would make everything you state above moot.
May I be allowed to say that the CC has kind of dug itself into a hole...of which it is trying to escape.
I think many more changes will be on the way....these doctrine cause conflict among even the Catholic believers.

The Church, following the Jewish practice, has always offered prayers for the dead. (2 Maccabees 12: 38-46) From this, and from what we know about penance, purity, and some suggestive scriptures (Matthew 5:25-26; 1 Cor. 3:11-15), the fathers inferred the doctrine of purgatory. The important thing to remember is that purgatory is a temporal punishment. As such, it is subject to the merits and intercessory prayers of the Church. These can be directed through the practice of indulgences.

Do you know that children (catholic) are more afraid of purgatary than hell?


Indulgences are not a “get out of hell free card.” They are not a license to sin. Rather, they are how the Church can direct the prayers and merits of the faithful to the spiritual benefit of poor souls. They are grounded in the biblical teaching on Church discipline and the communion of saints. They emerged in the earliest years of the Church with the approbation of her holiest doctors and saints. Rightly understood, they are a beautiful testament to the solidarity of all Christians, to our union in Christ.

(Thanks to the article by Dr. David Anders The Logic of Indulgences - Dr. David Anders, who explains things so beautifully.) (calvin2catholic.com)

Yes, I know that an indulgence is not a get out of hell free card.
I do believe in the communion of saints.
It's nice that you understand it so well...


P.S. how do I separate the paragraphs to which I want to respond the way you did?
Nothing I tried worked and I remember doing this on this site....

CLICK TO EXPAND

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yes, I know that an indulgence is not a get out of hell free card.
I do believe in the communion of saints.
It's nice that you understand it so well...


P.S. how do I separate the paragraphs to which I want to respond the way you did?
Nothing I tried worked and I remember doing this on this site....

CLICK TO EXPAND

Quote or /quote in square brackets. The slash ends the quote,

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yes, I know that an indulgence is not a get out of hell free card.
I do believe in the communion of saints.
It's nice that you understand it so well...


P.S. how do I separate the paragraphs to which I want to respond the way you did?
Nothing I tried worked and I remember doing this on this site....

CLICK TO EXPAND

To your first question "What does it have to do with indulgences?" Well, indulgences are all about penance.
Regarding redemptive suffering, you can suffer in several ways. You can complain about it, and make others miserable, you can suffer in silence assigning no purpose to it whatsoever, and another thing you can do is suffer for the benefit of others, as Christ did for all of us on the cross. That is the ultimate.
Indulgences is all about temporal punishment. So, if you get into an auto accident, and your victim decides to forgive you, don't you still have to make his car right? That's like temporal punishment.
Jesus is not satisfaction for our sins. His sacrifice was about forgiveness. When you injure your skin, you can treat it with antibacterial cream and a bandaid, but the wound still exists until it is repaired.
I don't know if you're aware, doctrine is doctrine. Cannot be changed. Could be better understood. But your comment about alienating Catholics, didn't Christ do this in John 6? Did he chase after anyone and try to explain what he meant? In fact, when the rich young man asked Jesus for a formula for salvation, Jesus told him, effectively, 'you already know what to do.' So, no, doctrine won't change. Execution and closing loopholes would, such as how the Church never sold indulgences, yet Tetzel found a way to suggest it. Well, the Church restated, more emphatically, that indulgences could not be sold.

If children are more scared of purgatory than hell, they don't understand that purgatory is at the entrance to heaven, while hell is eternal damnation.

 

[The Liturgist]

It's clear that something changed from the time of Peter and Paul and the Catholic Church doctrine leading up to the Reformation. It seems to me that the Catholic faith and the Mormons are similar in that the Pope using Church history has developed requirements and practices outside of the scripture much like the Mormons have done with the Mormon Bible. I do not support adding or taking away things from the Holy Bible. Those things are from fallible man.

Firstly, the Roman Catholic Church was never as divergent as the Mormons. Indeed, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Methodism, Calvinism, and traditional Protestantism in general agree with it on most issues, and there are also strong similarities with the three Eastern communions (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East).

What actually went wrong in the Roman Catholic Church was a process starting with interference from secular rulers like Charlemagne, which lead to the insertion of the filioque into the Nicene Creed, which the Orthodox regard as heresy, leading to the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople St. Photius severing communion with Rome for a few centuries, and then the development of Papal Supremacy in response to the interference of secular rulers. The Eastern Orthodox Church rejected this doctrine and was excommunicated and anathematized. Somewhere along the way, the Roman church stopped serving Holy Communion to the laity in both species (both the bread and wine, consecrated in the sacrament of the Eucharist as understood by Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, and many Anglicans as the body and blood of our Lord - the Catholics altered there practices so that only the celebrant of the mass would partake of the blood of our Lord, and in solemn masses, the laity did not even receive the body).

Also, the Roman church, which had been one of the first to introduce a vernacular liturgy, replacing Koine Greek with Latin to better evangelize the average citizens of Rome who were less likely to have an advanced education in a Rhaetor (a Roman college for the elite youth) and know Greek, in the second century, became opposed to the use of vernacular languages other than Galgolithic (a Slavic dialect related to Church Slavonic), but felt only Latin, Greek and Hebrew should be used in Divine Worship, because the sign posted over the head of our Lord on the Cross saying “The King of the Jews” was written in those three languages (more likely Aramaic than Hebrew, but the two Semitic languages in the Western church were not differentiated except by specialized scholars).

Finally, after the schism with the Orthodox, the doctrine of Purgatory and Indulgences appeared, which the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East all reject, along with the filioque and Papal supremacy.

However, the Roman Catholic Church started improving after the Lutherans broke away; the sale of indulgences was stopped almost immediately, by Pope Pius V, and the church began increasing accommodation of vernacular language and communion in both kinds, especially in the Eastern Catholic Churches. It was continuing to improve, in my opinion, until Pope Francis came to power and began his destructive liberal papacy.

 

[Andrewn]

The only surviving religion that is definitely Gnostic is Mandaeism from Iraq, which venerates John the Baptist and regards Jesus Christ our Lord and God as a false prophet.

Many years ago, I did considerable reading about this strange sect. They are commonly labelled "Gnostics" because the word "manda" means "knowledge" in Aramaic but they have no connection to other historically Gnostic sects and no doctrinal similarity. And they claim to follow John the Baptist and identify themselves with the Sabians who are mentioned in the Quran but this is probably only to avoid Muslim persecution! John the Baptist himself proclaimed Christ.

If they're neither Gnostics nor followers of John the Baptist, who are the Mandaians and who are the Sabians ? I know this is not the subject of the thread.

 

[The Liturgist]

Many years ago, I did considerable reading about this strange sect. They are commonly labelled "Gnostics" because the word "manda" means "knowledge" in Aramaic but they have no connection to other historically Gnostic sects and no doctrinal similarity. And they claim to follow John the Baptist and identify themselves with the Sabians who are mentioned in the Quran but this is probably only to avoid Muslim persecution! John the Baptist himself proclaimed Christ.

If they're neither Gnostics nor followers of John the Baptist, who are the Mandaians and who are the Sabians ? I know this is not the subject of the thread.

I can PM you about it but having studied them in great detail I think my description is all you need to know, in that unlike, say, the Druze, they historically have not viewed Christians as a threat nor made any grand attempt to conceal their doctrines. This is in contrast to some “takfir” sects like the Druze or the Alawi where we really know remarkably little about their belief systems, or religions like that of the Yazidis where there is much written information and some openness to outsiders, more than the Druze, but the written information is of uncertain authenticity or veracity and a complete survey of their hymns, which are the main source of doctrine, and the caste of singers, has not been done. In the case of Mandaeans we have their liturgical books, their scriptures, and we probably know as much as we can.

 

[fhansen]

Is it possible that the converts to Christianity in Rome or other areas of Italy are the origins of the Waldensians? It would be interesting to know the linage of those early Italian Christians that did not follow the formation of the Catholic church and were the earliest Reformers. Any research done on this subject?

Rather than trying to run down some sketchy speculative historical rabbit trails your time would be better spent, IMO, in finding out more about what the early Catholic Church actually taught, especially on justification: what it actually means to be right in the eyes of God as this is the crux of the difference between Catholic and Reformed theology. At the same time compare that to the teachings of the Eastern church and the ECFs.

 

[The Liturgist]

There's a denomination in Italy called Chiesa Valdese...which is the denomination you speak of.
It dates back to the 1100's.
Wikipedia has info....can't link from here.

It dates back to France in the 1100s. The Waldensians then wound up in Piedmont, before persecution and a bloody massacre of 15,000 of them, who I regard as martyr-saints, forced the rest to flee to Switzerland where they sought refuge under the Calvinists. In the US there are several parishes of ethnic Waldensian (Vaudois) immigrants, the most prominent being the Waldensian Presbyterian Church in Valdess, NC.

The Waldensian Church in Italy probably contains a few descendants of the original Vaudois people from France, but is mostly just Italian converts to Protestantism. This is even more the case since the Waldensian Church in Italy merged with the Italian Methodist Church.

 

[Points To Ponder]

Rather than trying to run down some sketchy speculative historical rabbit trails your time would be better spent, IMO, in finding out more about what the early Catholic Church actually taught, especially on justification: what it actually means to be right in the eyes of God as this is the crux of the difference between Catholic and Reformed theology. At the same time compare that to the teachings of the Eastern church and the ECFs.

I find it enjoyable to research and study some things in early church history. I apologize if your not happy with what I spend my time looking at. Sketchy, speculative historical rabbit trails are so much fun though. I'll check in with you next time to make sure you approve of how I spend my time.

 

[Points To Ponder]

Firstly, the Roman Catholic Church was never as divergent as the Mormons

I agree.
We may have differences in how we see things but I want you to know I really appreciate your in depth knowledge and your willingness to share it. We must always remember that our kinship was made possible at the cross and by Gods grace our salvation by faith made us Brothers in Christ.

 

[fhansen]

I find it enjoyable to research and study some things in early church history. I apologize if your not happy with what I spend my time looking at. Sketchy, speculative historical rabbit trails are so much fun though. I'll check in with you next time to make sure you approve of how I spend my time.

Somehow I doubt you'll take your own advice there-wise it could actually be IMO. But keep studying. Cardinal Newman, a convert, once said that to know history was to cease to be, er, a "Protester" of Catholcism, to put it one way. At least of Catholic doctrine.

 

[Points To Ponder]

Somehow I doubt you'll take your own advice there-wise it could actually be IMO. But keep studying. Cardinal Newman, a convert, once said that to know history was to cease to be, er, a "Protester" of Catholcism, to put it one way. At least of Catholic doctrine.

I trust you know my response was in jest. The trouble with text is that its easy to insert a variety of emotion that is speculative and most likely false. Our ability to read between the lines is very limited. I truly hope to meet you one day in Heaven.