The Dark Ages Myth

[ViaCrucis]

Vicarius Filii Del,

Not a papal title.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Radagast]

I was referring to the period between the Renaissance and the rise of European nationalism as a transition from the middle ages to the early modern period. If I were to give a more narrow time frame, I'd say the late 15th, maybe early 16th century for the actual end of the medieval period.

Sorry. My mistake.

But c. 1500 is pretty much the conventional date for the end of the Middle Ages, isn't it?

 

[Armoured]

Indeed the times were "dark" all the way through Tyndale in the 16th century. As long as the RCC hid the scriptures from the public is how long the dark ages lasted, and that was a long time. No matter how many attempts to erase this time period it will never happen. I even look at our time as still in the dark ages because of all the history that the vatican has stolen through the times of their treachery. The vatican has no right to keep the true history form the public, they stole it during their conquests.

That's not what "the Dark Age" means, and no one is trying to erase anything. You're using a term with a specific and well understood meaning. Use it correctly or not at all.

 

[Radagast]

I did not say that they should let people in, but they can copy all relevant data that pertains to our human heritage.

The Vatican library and archives are open to scholars. If some of the books were sold to private collectors, this would no longer be true.

Another black spot in the catholic church (Roman Empire) is their handling of important information and such. Not only did Julius Caesar burn the Alexandrian library but Nero burned the library in Rome. I admit that these emperors were not the catholic church but the popes did step up onto the throne of the Caesars in around 538 AD.

Huh? You can't be serious!

 

[Armoured]

Huh? You can't be serious!

That's not even the weirdest, most ahistoric anti-Catholic nonsense out there. Read some of Chick's more fevered offerings, for starters.

Some people really can't get over the fact that "The Roman Empire" and "The HOLY Roman Empire" have similar sounding names, despite being entirely separate political, geographic and religious entities. When your fundamental premise is so flawed, there's really not much hope for subsequent accuracy.

Julius Caesar (d-44 BC) somehow being responsible for the destruction of the Library because of Catholicism is a new one on me, though.

 

[masmpg]

Where I live the SDA's have camps, churches, special stores for their food, etc. Why don't they sell these and donate to the starving? You seem to be caught in a worldly trap, where wealth and poverty are the equivalent of good and evil. The odd thing is that in Jesus' time there was an even larger concentration of wealth in Rome and yet he never mentioned doing what you advocate.

C'mon, the SDA denomination, one of the smallest denominations has an organization called ADRA which is the first on the scene of most disasters in the world. The tiny SDA denomination does more to help the poor than many denominations combined. But this is not about who does more. It is about those who profess to do do what Christ says are accountable to minister to the poor, that is why the poor will always be with us. They are a test for those with the means to help them, ESPECIALLY supposed beneficent Christian churches. Besides in Jesus time Rome did not profess to serve Jesus like the RCC professes today.

 

[masmpg]

Catholics and Lutherans use the numbering of the Decalogue which St. Augustine came up with. In the 16th century John Calvin came up with a different numbering, that's the numbering that most Protestants use today.

The first commandment, as has been known by Christians in the West for the last 1,600 years is as follows:

"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments."

And the second is as follows:

"You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name."

You'll notice of course that Exodus 20 doesn't number the commandments, the numbering of the Decalogue is something that later biblical expositors did, and Jews, Catholics/Lutherans, Orthodox, and Protestants all have slightly different ways to number the Decalogue.

What you do with this information is up to you. But as for the claim that Catholics "removed the second commandment" that is an objectively false statement.

-CryptoLutheran

Your numbering is not what is on the vatican website. On that site you will see clearly that the second commandment is not even there. The way you wrote it you combine the first and second, but when you read it from the horses mouth, their own web site there is a big blank where the second commandment is suppose to be. There is no excuse around this. I use to attend catechism every week, and they do use and encourage the catechism, which is the statement of their doctrine, over the bible. If it came down to who is correct the bible of the catechism the catechism would win. That is why the reformers were excommunicated because they tried to show these errors.

I am not trying to argue with you, but I present these things in full support of sola scriptura, a doctrine that catholic church does not support. I urge people to rely on faith and the conviction of the Holy Spirit for salvation not any man made interpretation, opinions, nor commentaries like the catechism. This is the only reason I write these things. Not to down anybody, or denomination. The way to dispel darkness is to admit light. I try to do that, but sometimes admitting light consists of exposing the darkness.

 

[masmpg]

Not a papal title.

-CryptoLutheran

I am finding that out but I am also finding that the internet is being heavily censured. I am certain that I saw that title on a catholic web site years ago, but cannot find it now. Google admitted years ago that they deleted 500,000 pages from its search engine. They delete whatever they do not agree with. I am certain that they have deleted many more sites since they admitted doing it.

 

[masmpg]

Not a papal title.

-CryptoLutheran

Why would a Lutheran defend the pope? I thought you followed Martin Luther's teachings, which are very adamant against the pope. If he saw where his church has gone he would role over in his grave.

 

[masmpg]

That's not what "the Dark Age" means, and no one is trying to erase anything. You're using a term with a specific and well understood meaning. Use it correctly or not at all.

Are you going to give me some sort of catholic dictionary definition of what the dark ages was? I try to be as polite as possible on here. I appreciate all comments, but...

 

[masmpg]

The Vatican library and archives are open to scholars. If some of the books were sold to private collectors, this would no longer be true.



Huh? You can't be serious!

Did I mention selling any documents from the archive? I did mention copying them for public use! What is so wrong with that? This attitude of "it belongs to the church" and not humanity is very selfish and is not even a Christian attitude. Think about it. If there is history locked away from the peering eyes of the public, and that history has everything to do with our lives then to keep it hidden is out of line for an organization that professes to be Christian, and follow Christian principles. I know why it is hidden, and their dark past is too horrifying for the public to really know, but there is other history that could help humanity toady, at least give us a broader view of our past instead of the "dark ages" shrouded in such mystery.

What is really mind boggling is the fact the the "dark ages" was a time of educational darkness. People were kept in a perpetual state of forced ignorance, and you know who was the government of that time? The church run state of the roman catholic church. Did you know that people were burned at the stake just for owning a bible in the "common language"? This was not done by anything other than a religious church run state.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Your numbering is not what is on the vatican website. On that site you will see clearly that the second commandment is not even there.

My numbering is what is presented on the website:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm

What you call the second commandment is what Catholics, Lutherans, and others in the West have called part of the first commandment. The second commandment is "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain"

The way you wrote it you combine the first and second, but when you read it from the horses mouth, their own web site there is a big blank where the second commandment is suppose to be.

No, what the site does is show the passages from Exodus and Deuteronomy, and then shows the standard short form used in catechesis. What you are calling a "big blank" is what people who understand text formatting call spacing.

There is no excuse around this.

No excuse is needed. Just basic reading comprehension.

I use to attend catechism every week, and they do use and encourage the catechism, which is the statement of their doctrine, over the bible. If it came down to who is correct the bible of the catechism the catechism would win. That is why the reformers were excommunicated because they tried to show these errors.

I suspect that you know remarkably little about the Reformers or the Reformation, it has been my consistent experience around here that SDAs know almost nothing about what Luther and co. taught, believed, or what they were about. For example, the Reformation was not a protest against the Catholic Church. That's not even what the term "Protestant" means or what it refers to.

I am not trying to argue with you,

Regardless, you are presenting false information and I am offering correction based on easily verifiable facts.

but I present these things in full support of sola scriptura, a doctrine that catholic church does not support.

Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with this. This is about how people have enumerated the Decalogue, which isn't something Scripture does. When you speak of the "second commandment" you mean as John Calvin numbered the Decalogue in his Institutes. For Catholics and Lutherans what you call the second commandment we call part of the first commandment.

I urge people to rely on faith and the conviction of the Holy Spirit for salvation not any man made interpretation, opinions, nor commentaries like the catechism. This is the only reason I write these things. Not to down anybody, or denomination. The way to dispel darkness is to admit light. I try to do that, but sometimes admitting light consists of exposing the darkness.

You're not exposing darkness. You're just repeating the false claims and misinformation which the SDA has a reputation for repeating. If you want to dispel darkness and admit light, then stop believing the lies of your church and read some actual history. But as long as you subscribe to a dogmatic adherence to known lies and misinformation, the only one dwelling in darkness will be yourself.

If that sounds harsh, well, sorry; but I have over the years engaged in countless debates with other Seventh Day Adventists who not only repeat the same claims ad nauseam but who when presented with well researched and established facts insist on remaining ignorant and rejecting anything that doesn't fit into their preconceived world view. After a while it becomes tiring and frustrating trying to help educate people who repetitively refuse to learn anything.

The Catholic Church has not removed the second commandment, they just number the commandments differently.

There is no such thing as "the dark ages", that term refers to a period between the fall of the Western Roman Empire until about the 10th or 11th century, the concept of "dark ages" refers exclusively to the lack of written, historical material--therefore it is regarded as historically "dark"--that is, there isn't anything we can really know. That doesn't apply to the period between the 5th and 11th centuries, we know a lot. The term "dark ages" doesn't refer to spiritual darkness, nor does it refer to political, scientific, or technological darkness. The only "darkness" which the term "dark ages" ever referred to was the lack of historical records, and since we actually have a great deal of written material from that period, the term "dark ages" simply doesn't apply and is no longer used by serious historians.

The Roman Empire is not the Holy Roman Empire. The Roman Empire fell in the West with the Gothic invasions, but continued on in the form of what we call the Byzantine Empire until the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans in 1453; we call them the Byzantines, they called themselves "Romans". The Holy Roman Empire has its genesis with the crowning of Charles the Great (Charlemagne) "Emperor of the Romans" by the Pope; since Charles had reunited the Frankish territories divided with the death of his father Pepin; but Charlemagne's kingdom wasn't called the Holy Roman Empire, his was the Frankish Empire. The Frankish Empire split again, and it was in the 10th century that Otto I of East Francia conquered the Magyars and again restored the lands of the Frankish Empire, Otto was crowned by the Pope, "Emperor of the Romans" and his territory became known as the Holy Roman Empire. This "other" Roman Empire in the West was viewed by the actual Roman Empire based in Constantinople as an insult, and was one of the numerous issues which eventually paved way to the Schism of 1054.

The Popes didn't have real civil power until the Donation of Pepin which gave the Roman bishop a parcel of land in Rome, and later the forged document known as the Donation of Constantine was used to extend that land to include what became known as the Papal States, of which Vatican City is all that's left. No, the Popes never occupied the seat of the Caesars. The last emperor in the West died in the 5th century, and Charlemagne and Otto I were crowned "Emperor of the Romans" in the 8th and 10th centuries respectively.

The Reformation was not a protest against the Catholic Church. Luther, a university educated monk, while in Wittenberg became bothered by what he was hearing from the indulgence preachers, especially Johan Tetzel; in response he wrote a letter appealing to Archbishop Albert of Mainz speaking of his concern, and nailed 95 Theses on the church door in Wittenberg (in Latin, mind you) as a formal request for debate. Luther intended the Theses to be taken up for academic debate in an academic setting, not for them to spread far and wide--but someone (not Luther) translated the Theses into German and then published them using that new fangled moveable type printing press and they became disseminated. It seemed by some that Luther was challenging the authority of the Church, and the Pope, which wasn't Luther's intent, and things began to get out of control.

Luther desired reform, theological, ecclesiastical, and clerical reform; he believed that there were certain things which had entered--recently--into common belief and practice which violated the basic teachings of the faith, and that there were a number of abuses which needed correcting; the sales of indulgences, the lack of an educated clergy, not administering the Eucharist in both kinds, and clergy holding civil office.

The Reformation was about internal reform of the Catholic Church, it wasn't a protest of the Catholic Church, nor was it a condemnation of the Catholic Church. Luther was a faithful Catholic until the day he died, and Lutherans today still confess faith in Christ's one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Our Confessions are clear that we have departed in now wise from the faith and practices of the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome (Augsburg Confession, Article XXI, 10-15).

The term "Protestant" was applied to the German elector princes who formally protested the decision of the Second Imperial Diet at Speyer, the incident was known as the "Protestation at Speyer" and the princes who formally protested the Diet became known as "the Protestants". It was a protest of a political decision by the Emperor. That is where the term "Protestant" comes from, and that is what was protested.

Those are just a few things worth considering.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I am finding that out but I am also finding that the internet is being heavily censured. I am certain that I saw that title on a catholic web site years ago, but cannot find it now. Google admitted years ago that they deleted 500,000 pages from its search engine. They delete whatever they do not agree with. I am certain that they have deleted many more sites since they admitted doing it.

Frankly, that sounds like a tin foil hat kind of paranoia.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why would a Lutheran defend the pope? I thought you followed Martin Luther's teachings, which are very adamant against the pope. If he saw where his church has gone he would role over in his grave.

This is precisely what I mean from my earlier post about the kind of misinformation and lack of understanding I see from SDAs.

Firstly, I'm not even "defending the pope", I'm defending truth.

Secondly, I highly recommend you learn some very basic information about the Reformation.

Thirdly, Lutherans don't follow Martin Luther.

Fourthly, Lutheranism doesn't identify itself on the basis of being "not Catholic", just the opposite in fact. Lutheranism is Catholicism. Lutherans are Catholics. That there was a schism between Rome and Lutherans is not something to be celebrated, but something to be lamented. The errors of Rome do not represent some kind of apostasy as some imagine, it merely represents errors. And prayerfully we should hope and long for restoration of our unity and communion together as the Body of Christ, not celebrate our divisions and revel in our pride. Christ desires His Church to be whole.

Did you know that Luther once said that if the Pope accepted the doctrine of Justification he would gladly bend the knee and kiss the Pope's ring?

Because the Reformation wasn't about the Pope. The Reformation was about the Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Are you going to give me some sort of catholic dictionary definition of what the dark ages was?

Just a regular dictionary is fine.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Did you know that people were burned at the stake just for owning a bible in the "common language"?

I can think of literally one example of this, and that is William Tyndale.

Small problem with Tyndale though, Tyndale was executed by order of the English Crown, which had already separated from Rome because Henry VIII separated the English Church and declared himself the head of the English Church. Also, Tyndale wasn't executed for owning (or even translating) a Bible in the common tongue; Tyndale was considered a heretic and heresy was still punishable by the English government.

Perhaps you have in mind John Wycliffe; except Wycliffe died of natural causes and wasn't declared a heretic until years after his death.

Perhaps you could name these people who were burned at the stake "just for owning a Bible in the common language".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[masmpg]

I can think of literally one example of this, and that is William Tyndale.

Small problem with Tyndale though, Tyndale was executed by order of the English Crown, which had already separated from Rome because Henry VIII separated the English Church and declared himself the head of the English Church. Also, Tyndale wasn't executed for owning (or even translating) a Bible in the common tongue; Tyndale was considered a heretic and heresy was still punishable by the English government.

Perhaps you have in mind John Wycliffe; except Wycliffe died of natural causes and wasn't declared a heretic until years after his death.

Perhaps you could name these people who were burned at the stake "just for owning a Bible in the common language".

-CryptoLutheran

WOW!!! ARE YOU MISINFORMED. You only read the catholic version of information that you consider truth. I have been studying history, reformation, protestantism, and the bible for a long time. Probably since before you were born.

 

[ViaCrucis]

WOW!!! ARE YOU MISINFORMED. You only read the catholic version of information that you consider truth. I have been studying history, reformation, protestantism, and the bible for a long time. Probably since before you were born.

Misinformed about what? Tyndale? Parliament passed the Act of Supremacy in 1534 which declared Henry VIII the supreme head on earth of the Church of England--and the British monarch to this day still holds this title by the way--and Tyndale was burned at the stake in 1536, by the authority of the English Crown.

Or am I misinformed about John Wycliffe? Wycliffe wasn't executed, he died of natural causes in 1384, and was posthumously declared a heretic in 1415 at the Council of Constance.

If by "catholic version of information" you mean the established facts of history, then yes that is what I consider true.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Radagast]

If there is history locked away from the peering eyes of the public

AFAIK, it's available to historians.

What is really mind boggling is the fact the the "dark ages" was a time of educational darkness

No serious historian uses that term.

 

[Radagast]

I can think of literally one example of this, and that is William Tyndale.

Small problem with Tyndale though, Tyndale was executed by order of the English Crown, which had already separated from Rome because Henry VIII separated the English Church and declared himself the head of the English Church.

I can think of a few others who might be described this way, but they were also executed under Henry VIII.