Anti-Catholic history lessonsgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
Hi Folks two questions from a family friend I got ino a deep discussion with over dinner (a retired army General, hardly the type who like to be disagreed with!)He provided me with a detailed history of the crimes of the Catholic church and while I would be the first to admit the failings of men acting in the name of the church I was able to refute most of his claims. Two of his "crimes" however I didnt know much about, any Church historians out there?
1 That the Catholic Church is not the first church. The first church was started by Jesus's brother James. He disputes that the resurrection took place and that Jesus is the son of God.
2. That a Pope (sorry I do not recall the name or date, perhaps 14th C. ) committed genocide against his own people, something the people of what is now Italy have never forgeiven the Church for to this day.
Anyone heard these ones before? Blessings
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 22, 2003
bump
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 22, 2003.
Hi Kiwi!Just off the cuff, I'd say these allegations are at best, bizarre!
1. a.) He disputes Biblical fact in disputing the Resurrection. Does he even believe in Christ's Divinity?
b.) He disputes historical fact in denying apostolic succession from JPII all the way back to Peter.
c.) All Catholics, believing in the perpetual virginity of Mary, understand that James was not Jesus' biological brother. There are so many good Catholic websites that refute this claim! The Biblical word for brother/sister is the same word as kinsman, and sometimes also referred to non-biological brethren. James' father is also mentioned in the Bible, and it isn't Joseph, I believe it is Zebedee. (I'm going by memory, not looking it up!)
If he couldn't get that right, I wouldn't place stock in the rest of his history either.
If this is a man who doesn't like to be proven wrong, then he should accept the infallible teachings of the Church, and he'd have nothing to worry about! ;)
(This isn't any great proof either way, but all the Italian-Americans I personally know are Catholic. Many of them still have family in "the old country," and some travel abroad regularly. I've never heard anti-Catholic rhetoric from them.) To say the people of Italy dislike Catholicism because of a crime committed against a pope of the 14th century...I'd sooner guess that if they're upset with the Vatican, it's probably over some teaching which they find difficult to accept, such as Humanae Vitae...But that is only my opinion.
-- Anna <>< (flower@youknow.com), March 22, 2003.
Hi Anna thanks for the information. He is agnostic but he swears that from the reading he has done there was a split in the christian church right from the death of Jesus. The folowers of James believed that Christ did not rise again nor that he was God and he belives this was just an invention of the catholic church at a later date. Crackpot sounding to me as well, I was just wondering if anyone had heard this "theory" before, especially if there is still a church today based on James.Blessings
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 22, 2003.
I have heard that theory many time (Christ didn't really rise), but I am not sure about a church based on James. Many of my atheist friends claim that he never rose and that this was an invention of the Christian faith to get followers. It has even beenm brought up in my University religion classes. But again, never heard of a "church of James".As for the other claim, I had never heard about it, but I am not very knowledgeable in that area either.
-- Prose (arpeggio69@hotmail.com), March 22, 2003.
Oh, and here is a website that has the six skeptical objections most frequently used by critics of Christ's resurrection.http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t008.html
-- Prose (arpeggio69@hotmail.com), March 22, 2003.
There is an interesting book by Robert Eisenman called "James the Brother of Jesus." Its important to keep in mind that if Eisenmen was Catholic, he would be considered a heretic. For what its worth Eisenman through his research views James as being the actual brother of Jesus, and as playing the primary role has head of the Jerusalem Church along with Peter, (Whom St. Paul refers to as the "Pillers.") According to Eisenman, he was at odds with St. Paul. James insisted on strict observance of the Jewish Law...i.e. circumsion, table fellowship, etc. Paul saw Jesus death and resurrection as establishing a new covenent and to some extent freeing early Jewish Christians from the law. Same Church, just some dissention in the ranks. Eisenman suggests that rift between James and Paul lead to his role in the early Church being purposely minimized over time, leaving the more moderate open minded Peter as the primary head of the Church. Again this is a super broad summary of Eisenmans 800 page book. It is certainly not Catholic doctrine, but it may explain how the idea of James being the head of a different Church could be understood by some. Jim
-- James F. Furst (furst@flash.net), March 22, 2003.
Kiwi- So good to see your still here and becoming established. Regarding the circa 1240's the followers of St. Francis of Assis had bcome so strong by 1420 the estimated numbers where over 80,000. A phenomenal sum by any standards of any age.The Franciscans felt the church was not following in the footseps of Christ by not being servants to the poor The first " official " act of Francis was to denounce his wealthy father for his Father in Heaven.
He stipped naked on the stairs fo the Catherdral with Bishop and populace in attendance and walked to s poorman asking to share his garments. He then moved into the cavesofwhich the poor lived and became a mendacant - owning no property or material goods and begging from door to door.
In the 14th century the Poped orderd the destruction of the Franciscan ih which a full 60,000 were mudered as they were a threat to the highler " elected " officials. Most moved to Spain/Portugal and survived.
The next uprising brought forward towards the abvious greed aand Cardinals was Martin Luther. WE must of know his story that of a Benitictine monk who questioned the authority of Rome.
Dark chapters indeed with much more to come up until World War 11 and the denial of any involvement of the Church in allowing The Holocaust to take root and then flourish.
One of the missed opportunities of the Church to admit roles denials and unofficial support of killing Jews as they were not part of the bosom of the church. This dated back to 1100's by the then Pope.
-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), March 23, 2003.
The traditional misunderstandings and battles were I thought between Peter and Paul. This issue af James is new to me.
-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), March 23, 2003.
jean,I have no info on the majority of historical data you provided, but Martin Luther was a bishop in the Augustinian order, (not Benedictine).
Pax Christi
-- Anna <>< (flower@youknow.com), March 23, 2003.
I think it is important to point out that "The Church" is not guilty crimes against humanity, nor against God, as she is guided always by the Holy Spirit, as promised by Jesus Christ.However, we have certainly experienced much evil and corruption in the ranks of our clergy...even popes! Acting as individuals, or groups, but not in the official capacity and name of Holy Mother Church.
It is further a testimony to the Lord that this Church which He entrusted to us, has survived despite the evil men that have tarnished Her image, not because of it! God is sooooo good to us!
Pax Christi.
-- Anna <>< (flower@youknow.com), March 23, 2003.
Thanks all, Jean likewise good to see you back Sir.
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 23, 2003.
Anna - Thank you for the correction. So much reading over the years - details become faded.
-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), March 23, 2003.
Jean, According to Eisenman, it is his opinion that James' "primary" role in the early Church was "supressed" because of his intractability with regard to maintaining the "The Law." James would have insisted that geniles become fully Jewish to be a part of the Church. Eisenman feels James oppositional views were in effect, written out of early Church documents. Eisenman backs up his findings with everything from the "Dead Sea Scrolls," and the writings of Josephus, to writings by early Church fathers, and certain inconsistancies in the New Testament. Most theologians disagree with Eisenman's conclusions. I'm no thologian but it was an interesting but overly long and complicated (for me) read. Jim
-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), March 23, 2003.
Jim - Thank you for the note.
-- j (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), March 23, 2003.
Regarding the historian Josephus - This past year listening to a lecture on early Roman history it was pointed this man wrote his " observations " a full 200 years after they taking place.Questions by some of us were " was/is he reliable? Answer - History is embellsihd with personal added views to please those who had hired them.
The period of 70BC - 340AD is perferated with what can only now be termed " misinformation. " Some view the four gospels as being politically acceeptable for the times.
Pre-Antioch and post Antioch were two different schools of orientation (s) towards the then new Christian way of life. I have often wondered where the term Catholic came from. My understanding was/is " They will be known as Christians - followers of Christ.
Again the terrible schism of Luther brought yet more confusetion on the understanding of what Christ attempted to relay to future Christians.
The beginning or genesis of Christianity was marred I feel by those wnating power over the then laity. I as often stated here am Pre- Antioch which some feel is humanist/modernist.
All I know is that I would feed anyone who was in need and not worry about his/her lifestyle for it is the sould of a human that is everlasting.
The political upheaval of 340 - 360 AD I believe is the period when the " official " church was established by man mad laws.
I ask those who are knowledgeable to help in this statemenet please. That is from a historical point of view.
-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), March 24, 2003.
I too am interested in how to reconcile history,... what actually happened, with what has come down to us as our Faith. What would early first century (after 70 CE) Christians think about the Catholic Church today. Would they recognize it? While I am interested, I also wonder if this an appropriate place to even discuss this potentially sensitive topic as some here may find it offensive. Jim
-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), March 24, 2003.
Hi Jim you bet this is the place to weed out flasehoods and myths from both sides and find the truth! Of course there will always be those who refuse to face up to the past and prefer to stick their heads in the sand in denial- "The church has done no wrong" types.Id love to hear any thoughts you had to offer, as I dont know much myself on the early church.
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 24, 2003.
Hey kiwi; I haven't read any of it myself, but a while back my wife was reading from the personal writings of Christopher Columbus relating to the voyages. She would tell me about it and indicated that it was clear that Columbus was a godly man that was very concerned about the Faith and moral living, about doing right and being right by the Church.It was many of his men that were the cause of disappointment. He would leave them someplace and put them in charge and come back and find them abusing everyone.
Always and at all times and places, if someone wishes to find fault they will find it, either in groups because of individuals, or in individuals because of sin.
Anything can always be held against anyone by everybody.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 24, 2003.
if someone wishes to find fault they will find itYeah I guess so Emerald I just know that some of the "traditional" Catholic versions of dark events in western history are anything but the complete truth and would like to hear from people who are experts in ancient history. Not a anti catholic witch hunt or anything just an open, transparent and "unsanitised" version of the past..ha I dont ask much !!!!! You know what I mean
Blessings
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 24, 2003.
If the apostles looked at vestments and pews and Benediction and rosaries and novenas, they might be a little puzzled at first. But the Apostles recognized that a Church is defined by what it believes. If they looked at the beliefs of the many churches which exist today, they would recognize the Catholic Church as their own in a minute. They would scorn the idea of sola scriptura, sola fide, and other recent traditions of men. They would run from any church which did not worship Jesus Christ's real presence in the Eucharist, or which denied the necessity of baptism for salvation, or the reality of the ordained priesthood. I could go on for another two paragraphs, but you get the idea.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 25, 2003.
Hi Paul Certainly they might feel more at home since Vatican II made the necessary changes as Pope John XXIII puts it, “to restore the simple and pure lines which the face of Jesus wore at its birth”;-).A few questions if youre still around tonight.
Do you have an opinion on Jims post about Eisenman's conclusions re James? Did a Pope once kill tens of thousands of his own people?
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 25, 2003.
Martin Luther was ordained a priest, not a bishop. He taught theology *(though he only had 3 years of studies himself).The Franciscans were never wiped out or harmed at all! You are confusing that with the Albigensian heresy - which was not Christian at all, but a syncrinistic mix of dualism and arianism. (They claimed, among other things that marriage was sinful, that the body and all things material were evil and ruled by the Devil, and that the soul only was made by "a god" - thus the dualism. Their concept of Christ was also mixed up - they denied the Incarnation, and the divine economy of salvation as taught by Christianity until then.
After debasing marriage etc. and prompting civil unrest in Italy and southern France, a crusade was launched against them (after St Dominic tried to preach to them peacefully).
The crusade was bloody but it was not a) genocide and b) it was a two- way affair - the heretics resorted to violence first and fought hard.
-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), March 26, 2003.
I am surprised to see the statement that Franciscans were murdered. In fact, as the previous person said, it was the heretics. The franciscans are the most devout catholics of all, following strict rules of poverty and love, and they aret the largest group of monks in the catholics world. Also, St Francis is considered as the saint of all saints. If you have read his biography, you would know well. St Francis who invented the order and had the stigmata, and ST Antony who joined, in the period of St Francis, from a benedictan order, are considered to be the most holy of all saints and whom God considered very speicial. Also, the Franciscans look after the catholic portion of the holy land. Please don't misunderstand about the franciscan order. His "craziness" and extreme desire to follow God's words literally were considered as stupidity in his period, but later they gave him a superhuman image, and those are things only he could have done, and even while he was living and weak, the then opoe said that he would have proclaimed him a saint right then, if laws didn't prohibit him. Also, he was made a saint only 2 years after his death, that too because some cardinals at that time spoke against making him a saint right after the moment he died, because that was unheard of. Also, the most important witness of St Francis's holiness and the miracles he performed, was the pope himself.
-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.
Also, St Dominic and St Francis were good friends and loved each other a lot, and St Dominic kept the rope that St Francis wore around his waist, passionately, unto his death.The miraculous and unbelievable life of St Francis' early followers could be read in the book "Little flowers of Francis Assisi", which was written by 3 of St Francis's most devout followers and friends, who very so pure at heart. You could read about the actual miracles. It may seem unbelievable, but it is an example to know how God treats those who give up everything and follow him. The book could be downloaded in various formats from the excellent catholic e-book site www.cce.org. I recommend this book to everyone.
-- Abraham T (Lijothengil@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.
Thank you, Abraham.
I just wanted to let you know that St. Anthony of Padua was not a Benedictine monk, but an Augustinian friar (in his native Portugal).
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 22, 2003.
Thank you J.F. I lost my memory :) Also, the web site is www.ccel.org Sorry for the mistake.
-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), April 22, 2003.