Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

re Note 1029.0 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> Why in God's name is there so much negativity directed at Catholic Christianity?
> I don't understand it and I don't like it.
  
        Well, for starters:  it's big, it's prominent, it's the
        closest thing we have to a "world order", it's a truly
        world-wide denomination, and as such it takes a global view
        that sometimes is at odds with American nationalism, it has a
        lot of doctrines that the "sola scriptura" crowd are not
        likely to agree with, there (probably) is a remnant of
        anti-Catholic bigotry running in U.S. culture...

        Bob

.0> Then came the claim that the Roman Catholic Church was a false church.

didn't jesus say that church is where people are gathered together in his 
spirit? maybe the young evangelist is contesting the fact that the catholic 
church, as the large institution which it is, is still a church.

.0> Why ... is there so much negativity directed at Catholic Christianity?

by this do you mean catholic christians or the catholic church as institution?

as regards negativity directed at the vatican, presumably this is due 
to the undemocratic decision making in the institution and the vatican's 
unyielding conservative positions on birth control, women priesthood, 
celibacy for priests and so on.


andreas.

 I'd like to know how an evangelism session included discussing American
 military might (my question is aimed at the young evangelist)..




Jim

    In 1029.2 Andreas writes:
    
    > as regards negativity directed at the vatican, presumably this is due
    > to the undemocratic decision making in the institution and the
    > vatican's unyielding conservative positions on birth control, women
    > priesthood, celibacy for priests and so on.
    
    Tradition is the democracy of the dead:
    
    "But there is one thing that I have never from my youth up been able to
    understand.  I have never been able to understand where people got the
    idea that democracy was in some way opposed to tradition.  It is obvious
    that tradition is only democracy extended through time.  It is trusting
    to a consensus of common human voices rather than to some isolated or
    arbitrary record.  If we attach great importance to the opinion of
    ordinary men in great unanimity when we are dealing with daily matters,
    there is no reason why we should disregard it when we are dealing with
    history or fable.  Tradition may be defined as an extension of the
    franchise.  Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all
    classes, our ancestors.  It is the democracy of the dead.  Tradition
    refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who
    merely happen to be walking about.  All democrats object to men being
    disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being
    disqualified by the accident of death.  Democracy tells us not to
    neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us
    not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father.  I, at
    any rate, cannot separate the two ideas of democracy and tradition; it
    seems evident to me that they are the same idea."
         -- G. K. Chesterton, _Orthodoxy_, Chapter IV
    
    What the Catholic Church teaches is what Catholics have believed for
    2,000 years.  Why should we oppose such an awesome majority?
    
    > didn't jesus say that church is where people are gathered together in
    > his spirit? maybe the young evangelist is contesting the fact that the
    > catholic church, as the large institution which it is, is still a
    > church.
    
    No, Jesus did not say that.  Jesus said we should worship in "spirit and
    in truth," but he did not thereby mean that it was every man for
    himself.
    
    That the Church of Christ is visible, and not invisible, is demonstrated
    by ample Scriptures.  First it is called a Kingdom in 1 Peter 2:9.  In
    Eph 2:12 it is called a commonwealth.  It is a building, with a
    foundation, the apostles and prophets, a holy temple, the household of
    God (Eph 2:20).  St. Peter says that we are living stones, being built
    up into a spiritual house (1 Peter 2:5).  By "spiritual" is not meant
    purely invisible, or without organization or structure or visible bonds
    of unity, but rather a divine, eternal house with a spiritual purpose.
    It is "Mount Zion", the "City of the Living God" (Heb 12:22, cf. Rv
    21:10).  It is the nation of Israel (Gal 6:16, cf. Rom 9:8, cf. James
    1:1).
    
    The Church has real authority: In Matthew 18:16, Jesus says that if a
    brother refuses to listen to "the Church", treat him as you would a tax
    collector or a sinner.  This implies that the Church has authority and
    that the Church has unity.  Authority, because it can cut off a member
    from its communion.  Unity, because for that sentence to be effective,
    it must be recognized by all the local churches.  The Keys of the
    Kingdom of Heaven -- which in Rabbinic terminology meant the power to
    govern over the People of God -- were given to Peter. We see the meaning
    of these keys in Isaiah 22:22: "In that day I will summon my servant,
    Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your 
    sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father
    to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place
    on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can
    shut, and what he shuts no one can open."  Note that the keys are given
    to Peter alone.  Note also what Isaiah says: "he will be a father to
    those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah," that is to say,
    to the Israel of God, the Church (Gal 6:16) and those who live in the
    City of God (again the Church).  This is one reason why we call the Pope
    the "Holy Father."  Peter, and later the rest of the Twelve, were also
    given the power of binding and loosing, which refers to the Rabbinic
    concept of "halakah," the authority to make rabbinical pronouncements,
    to exorcise, and to impose legislation, discipline, and excommunication
    on the People of God.  This authority is given to Peter to use for the
    New Covenant People of God.  Far from any hint that God intended to
    abolish the structure of the Old Covenant "Church", this confirms that
    in fact he intended the same design for his New Covenant Church.
    
    The church is also called "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1
    Tim 3:15).  This is hard to imagine unless there is some real, visible
    unity, agreement, and authority in the church instead of everyone doing
    his own thing and believing as he wishes.
    
    The imagery in the New Testament comparing the Church to the nation of
    Israel is very revealing.  First, it disproves the idea that somehow,
    between covenants, God changed his mind and decided that instead of a
    people under one spiritual authority with visible signs of unity, that
    he would abolish all that and establish a people which had nothing more
    in common than belief in Christ.  The fact that the Church is compared
    so often to Israel indicates that God definitely intended it to be
    modelled on Israel, that is, with a single spiritual governance and with
    a single doctrinal authority, united together in a _visible_ way.  To
    say that the Church of Christ is merely the collection of all true
    believers makes as much sense as saying that the Old Testament Nation of
    Israel was no more than the collection of all of Abraham's children
    scattered wherever they might be, whatever they might believe, whomever
    they might obey.
    
    One reference in the New Testament to the Israel of the Old Covenant is
    found in Jude 11.  Jude is talking about those who have departed from
    the "faith once for all handed on to the saints" (v. 3).  He compares
    them to the rebellion of Korah and denounces them.  Let's look at the
    Rebellion of Korah, Numbers 16.  This was a rebellion against Moses, the
    leader of the People of God.  A group comes to oppose him, and they say,
    "You have gone too far! The whole community is holy, every one of them,
    and the Lord is with them.  Why then do you set yourselves above the
    Lord's assembly?" (v. 3).  This bears a striking resemblance both to
    Modernists and Protestants, who deny the authority of the church and
    defend the rights of the individual believer to make decisions for
    themselves, instead of in agreement with the whole People of God.  In
    verse 10, we see that the rebels even tried to grab the priesthood
    illicitly.  In response to their rebellion, God consumed the sinful
    rebels by swallowing them, their families, and their possessions up into
    the earth (v. 32).  Apparently there was a similar rebellion in the
    early church, and St. Jude tells us under divine inspiration that this
    rebellion is just as sinful in the New Covenant as it was in the Old.
    Let us not incur the condemnation of Korah by rejecting the
    ecclesiastical authority which God has established.
    
    Eric
    

    Richard:
    
    Ironically, when we talk about the evils of the crusades and the
    inquisitions, we are condemning ancient catholic church policies.   
    
    I grew up as a Catholic.  I can honestly say that I have seen a great
    transformation in church doctrines and traditions and yet I see the
    catholic church as having further to go.  
    
    I believe the Catholic Church is largely responsible for the
    establishment of charities, ministries, schools, hospitals throughout
    the world.  I have met alot of men who have given there lives to God
    via the priesthood, forsaking all worldly posessions and devoting
    themselves to their faith.  You have to give credit where credit is due
    and I for one do this.
    
    What I do have a problem with is there stand on the various doctrines 
    which include the Immaculate Conception, Baptismal Regeneration, 
    Praying for the dead, Last Rights, Prayers to Saints, Confession for
    Absolution, Transforming the bread and wine into the actual body and
    blood, Venial Sins, etc.  It is the foundation of these beliefs that
    cause individuals to stray from the truth.
    
    -Jack
    
    

Re: .2 Andreas

>as regards negativity directed at the vatican, presumably this is due 
>to the undemocratic decision making in the institution and the vatican's 
>unyielding conservative positions on birth control, women priesthood, 
>celibacy for priests and so on.

This would account for left wing negativity but not right wing negativity
as in .0.

I've never really understood the radical right wing Protestant hostility
to Catholicism, which has been an unfortunate fact of American religious
life since at least the 19th century.  The Ku Klux Klan, for example, was
directed not just against blacks but also against Catholics.  From my
perspective, the Catholic Church and right wing Protestants are both
conservative.  Why would one group of conservatives hate another group of
conservatives?  All I can guess is that some Protestants take the historic
split with the Catholic Church on matters of doctrine very seriously.
Maybe another aspect was that many European immigrants were Catholic, so
anti-immigrant sentiment carried over into anti-Catholic sentiment.

Re: .3 Jim

> I'd like to know how an evangelism session included discussing American
> military might (my question is aimed at the young evangelist)..

I'm not the young evangelist :-), but: Some people make no distinction
between their right wing religious views and their right wing political
views.

Re: .4 Eric

>    Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all
>    classes, our ancestors.  It is the democracy of the dead.  Tradition
>    refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who
>    merely happen to be walking about.

Why stop with a democracy of the dead?  Kings and emperors are dead, and
they wielded absolute power while they were alive.  By this logic,
shouldn't they continue to wield absolute power now that they are dead?

Personally I'm quite content to be part of a "small and arrogant
oligarchy" of people who are walking about.

				-- Bob

    
    There is another fallacy one can make w.r.t. "democracy" and all of the
    pet theological issues of those who advance it.
    
    Americans in general have a very myopic view of the world, one which is
    very Americo-centric.  Americans think the world revolves around the
    United States, that we are the best country, and that what we want is
    what's best for the world.  But such a concept, bad enough in foreign
    policy, is far more pernicious when it bleeds over into the theological
    sphere.  Those who push theological democracy with the hopes of changing
    the church to accept modernist doctrine neglect to consider that there
    are only 56 million American Catholics, a very small proportion of the
    world total of 1 billion Catholics.  What makes someone think that, if
    he had democracy, everyone in Ireland, and Africa, and China, and
    Ukraine, and Russia, and Eastern Europe, and India, and South America,
    would agree with him?  How does he know that he is not erroneously
    conditioned by his own culture?  What makes him think that he will get
    what he wants by pushing democracy?  Were it ever to happen, I think
    American Catholics would get a rude awakening to discover that they are
    a minority, and that the majority of the Catholic Church throughout the
    world (let alone throughout the ages!), even among the laity, do not
    agree with them.  The world does not revolve around 20th century
    Americans, and neither does the Catholic Church.
    
    This is the same nationalism which Bob alluded to, and perhaps one
    reason why the Catholic Church is opposed so much, because it is the
    only power greater than the United States and refuses to give in to the
    lie that the United States is the most advanced society and knows what's
    best for the whole world.  We Americans are so used to having our way,
    and so indoctrinated from our youth with nationalist arrogance, that we
    get offended when someone doesn't recognize and respect our "greatness"
    and natural "superiority" to everyone else.
    
    Historically, anti-Catholicism has frequently stemmed from resentment
    that Catholics, or at least Catholicism, did not embrace American civic
    doctrines.  Catholic political candidates were opposed because of fears
    that they would be controlled by a foreign power (a monarch no less!),
    the Pope.  The Catholic view of authority and obedience to the worldwide
    church never sat well with the individualist, anti-authoritarian ethic
    on which this country was founded.  And so there has always been a
    certain amount of tension between Catholicism and Americanism.
    

    > Why stop with a democracy of the dead?  Kings and emperors are dead, and
    > they wielded absolute power while they were alive.  By this logic,
    > shouldn't they continue to wield absolute power now that they are dead?
    
    But we're talking about theology, and in the Catholic Church, the
    teachings of the Popes and other princes of the church -- the
    ecclesiastical analogue of kings and emperors -- still have as much
    authority now as they ever had.
    
    > I've never really understood the radical right wing Protestant hostility
    > to Catholicism, which has been an unfortunate fact of American religious
    > life since at least the 19th century. 
    
    The reason is that what you call the "radical right wing" used to be the
    mainstream, majority view among all Christians up until the advent of
    the moral rebellion of the 60's which liberals today are quite
    successfully managing to mainstream.  Protestants disagreed with
    Catholics on theological issues which were neither conservative nor
    liberal from a political perspective.  The division between the two
    groups, historically, has never been cleanly along the
    conservative-liberal lines, although there is one liberal doctrine,
    anti-authoritarianism, which Protestants have traditionally clung
    closely to (which is, after all, precisely why they are called
    "Protest-ants," those who protest.)
    
    Just a political comment, it amazes me that positions which were agreed
    upon by the vast majority of society and enforced in laws until 30, 20,
    or or even just 10 years ago are now called "radical right wing" beliefs and
    those who hold them intensely persecuted as enemies of human rights.
    Puts a different perspective on things.  I cannot help but suggest that
    this does violence to the meaning of "radical", which implies something
    which of its very nature is unusual, unheard of, or novel, none of which
    describe the positions of those who are called "radical rightists."
    
    
                                                                           

.4> I have never been able to understand where people got the idea that 
.4> democracy was in some way opposed to tradition.  

agreed. tradition is reconcilable with democracy.

in my country, switzerland, which was founded in 1291, we have an over
700 year old tradition of democracy - and many traditions survived into 
this century, such as that every able-bodied man was to defend his country
(unfortunately, this also meant that women weren't allowed to vote until
fairly recently, ie. 1971!!)

here, where the tradition of democracy sits deep, an unpopular bishop 
(mr. wolfgang haas) was appointed by the vatican. half of the clergy and
the church goers rebelled because they had not been consulted by the vatican.
the vatican was eventually forced to send 'vice-'bishops to respect the
will of its followers.

tradition is reconcilable with democracy, if and when democracy is tradition!

.4> It is obvious that tradition is only democracy extended through time.  

in this very democratic switzerland, the people are called to vote on
many things. now, even if i respected the will of my forefathers 700 years 
ago, who is to say how they would have voted on whether to permit genetic 
engineering??

time changes, issues change! and in best tradition with my forefathers,
all i can say, is, "democracy stays"!


andreas.

Eric,

By "radical right wing Protestants" I meant the far-right minority of
Protestants *today* who are anti-Catholic.  I think the majority of
Protestants today have no special animosity against Catholics.  Maybe I'm
just naive about this.  If about half of all Protestants are anti-Catholic
(for the "right" reasons) then I should have just said "right wing
Protestants".

I remember when I was in Africa talking to other missionary children who
were Southern Baptists;  I was surprised to hear them say that Catholics
weren't going to heaven.  I wonder how many Protestants think that today?

				-- Bob

re Note 1029.8 by NETCAD::EWANCO:

>     The division between the two
>     groups, historically, has never been cleanly along the
>     conservative-liberal lines, although there is one liberal doctrine,
>     anti-authoritarianism, which Protestants have traditionally clung
>     closely to (which is, after all, precisely why they are called
>     "Protest-ants," those who protest.)
  
        This is an example of one way in which the use of the
        "liberal vs. conservative" paradigm breaks down.

        From the perspective of the Catholic Church, Protestants were
        taking liberties with (and thus "liberal" with regard to)
        traditional Catholic teaching.

        On the other hand, the Protestant reformers always considered
        that what they were doing was reversing the liberties that
        the Catholic Church took with regard to what they considered
        to be original and authentic Christian teaching.

        Both would consider the other to be that greatest of sins,
        "liberal", on some issues.  Both would consider that the
        other departed from the original, correct position.

          
>     Just a political comment, it amazes me that positions which were agreed
>     upon by the vast majority of society and enforced in laws until 30, 20,
>     or or even just 10 years ago are now called "radical right wing" beliefs and
>     those who hold them intensely persecuted as enemies of human rights.
>     Puts a different perspective on things.  

        If you make that 50 years, there's a very similar situation
        in Germany right now!

        (Puts a different perspective on things.)


>     I cannot help but suggest that
>     this does violence to the meaning of "radical", which implies something
>     which of its very nature is unusual, unheard of, or novel, none of which
>     describe the positions of those who are called "radical rightists."
  
        You misunderstand the word radical -- it derives from the
        word for "root" and means essentially the same thing as
        "fundamental."   Of course, both have connotations in common
        use.

        Bob

.7> What makes someone think that, if he had democracy, everyone in Ireland, 
.7> and Africa, and China, and Ukraine, and Russia, and Eastern Europe, and 
.7> India, and South America, would agree with him?  

in switzerland every working adult pays church tax (same applies to germany
and other european countries as much as i know).

this means that the confession of each citizen is registered and part of
his tax money goes to the church of his confession. note that typically
only a VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE of the church tax payers are active church
goers. so the church makes most of its money by tax, levied by the state,
of tax payers who do not go to church!

consider the catholic populations in some european countries (italy, spain, 
portugal, france, germany, ireland, austria, switzerland, luxembourg).
now what if the catholic church were to make most of its income in these
democratic european countries? 

would not the sponsors get a say?


andreas.

      Both from a scriptural (my personal beliefs in prophecy) and
      a historical basis, I don't really have any fondness for the
      Roman Catholic Institution.
    
      We all know that a lot of nasty stuff happened many years ago.
      We all know that there are much less signs of nasty stuff today.
      A valid question is if the reason for the lack today is the lessened
      might of the Catholic Church.
    
      The creed that allowed for the atrocities in the past has not 
      changed.  The auto dei fei (celebration of the burning of heretics)
      is still there and is still one of the most solemn of celebrations.
    
      I'll not forget the blood of many martyrs that has been shed by
      this institution.  If we could awaken Huss and other martyrs, they
      might tell us a coupel things.
    
      Wylie's and d'Aubignes books on the Reformation are good reads.
    
      Many wonderful people in the church tho.
    
                                                      Tony

    perhaps the reformation of the catholic church itself is the result of
    the checks and balances brought about by the protestant Reformation.
    
    When their are viable options, the impact is a higher quality of both
    options.
    
                              Patricia
    
    Diversity is wonderful.

    Yes, but some diversity can be deadly...Hitlers third reisch for
    example.  Diversity in a church can be the same way, as we learned from
    the Jonestown incident on 1978!!
    
    -Jack
    
    P.S. By the way Patricia, real cute of you...recommending I become a UU
    in the Christian conference!!  They probably wouldn't want me! :-)

    Hitler didn't want diversity.  He wanted homogeneity and to rid the
    world of the 'inferior' others.
    
    Richard
    

    What I actually meant was that Hitler's ideology was quite diverse from
    most of the neighboring European countries.
    
    -Jack

    
    As I studied about Martin Luther he and many of the reformationists
    called the Pope the Anti-christ. 
    The problem I have with the Church are:
    They claim the following:
    
    1. Infallibility- an attribute of the Church of God whereby she is
    free from error in teaching doctrines of faith and morals.
    
    2. Penance- The sacriment of penance forgives sins through the
    Absolution of the Priest.
    
    3. Changing the Ten Commandments-They have removed the commandment
    that speaks of Idol worship and taked annother commandment and made
    it two. Also they claim to have the authority to change the 4th
    commandment from Sabbath to Sunday!
    
    I agree with Tony, as you study the Reformation Millions of people were
    put to death because they would not bow the Church. If I were to kill
    someone then turn around and feed fifty people I'm still guilty of
    killing. There are millions of Catholic people going to Heaven, please
    don't missunderstand me.
    
    Bruce  

re .16,.17

on a personal note, hitler is to blame that i am not a roman catholic.

the story in brief. my swiss grand-father, a staunch roman catholic, was 
so fond of hitler, that, when he heard that his son, my father, was dating
a jew, he threw out his son and disowned him. this man, my father, 
subsequently left the catholic church in disgust and became an atheist. 
he also proposed marriage to his jewish friend. but she had already made 
other plans, so that ten years later, my father married a german protestant, 
who then raised her children as such.


andreas.

re Note 1029.18 by DNEAST::MALCOLM_BRUC:

>     1. Infallibility- an attribute of the Church of God whereby she is
>     free from error in teaching doctrines of faith and morals.
  
        Of course, this claim is really no more extreme than the
        claim that a book -- the Bible -- is inerrant.

        (In fact, I am quite personally convinced that if God had
        intended us to base our faith on error-free doctrine, God
        would have had to establish a continuing error-free teaching
        authority in addition to, or above, a text.  Of course, I
        believe that our faith is based upon an error-free God, not
        error-free doctrines.)

        Bob

>    2. Penance- The sacriment of penance forgives sins through the
>    Absolution of the Priest.

This is not what the church teaches.

The forgiveness of sins is through the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.

Scripture is very clear that sins are to be confessed, not just to God
but to one another.  Scripture very clearly institutes the ministry of
reconciliation.  Scripture very clearly gives the apostles and their
successors the keys to the kingdom of heaven, with the power to bind and
loose.

/john

>    3. Changing the Ten Commandments-They have removed the commandment
>    that speaks of Idol worship and taked annother commandment and made
>    it two.

The Roman Catholics have removed no commandments.  The Ten Commandments are
Exodus 20:2-17.  The way they are numbered has nothing to do with their
content.  Here are three different numbering schemes; all have the same
content, the same commandments.

Chart of the numbering of the Ten Commandments, listing the verses of Exodus 20
involved:

         Jewish		     Roman Catholic	     Anglican and Protestant

I	 2    IAM	    2-6	  IAM,only,idols	2-3  IAM,only
II	3-6   only,idols     7	  name			4-6  idols
III	 7    name          8-11  sabbath		 7   name
IV	8-11  sabbath	     12	  parents		8-11 sabbath
V	 12   parents	     13	  murder		 12  parents
VI	 13   murder	     14	  adultery		 13  murder
VII	 14   adultery	     15	  theft			 14  adultery
VIII	 15   theft	     16	  false witness		 15  theft
IX	 16   false witness  17   covet wife		 16  false witness
X	 17   covet	     17   covet property	 17  covet

>   Also they claim to have the authority to change the 4th
>   commandment from Sabbath to Sunday!

With the notable exception of the Seventh Day Adventists, almost all
Christians believe that the Resurrection was an eighth day of Creation,
when God finally was able to fully rest.  This makes Sunday the new
Sabbath for the New Heaven and Earth created by God's definitive victory
over death.

/john

    John,
    
    Yes, forgiveness is through the cross.  But isn't the bone of
    contention here the method of obtaining that forgiveness.  For example,
    in the Church of Christ, one obtains forgiveness only through the
    waters of baptism.  In the Catholic faith, one obtains absolution
    through the mediation between ones confessor and Jesus.  
    
    Then again isn't Mary also an intercessor between the priest and
    Christ?  Sorry but this is what I was taught growing up!!!
    
    -Jack

>   in the Church of Christ, one obtains forgiveness only through the
>   waters of baptism.

And what of sins committed after baptism?

>   In the Catholic faith, one obtains absolution through the mediation
>   between ones confessor and Jesus.

The penitent confesses directly to God (the words are "to God and to you");
the confessor exercises the biblically ordained ministry of reconciliation,
giving counsel and confirming through absolution that God has forgiven the
sins of the penitent.

>    Then again isn't Mary also an intercessor between the priest and
>    Christ?  Sorry but this is what I was taught growing up!!!

Asking Mary to pray for you is no different than asking any other fellow
Christian to pray for you.  Scripture says that the prayers of a righteous
person are very effective; thus one should ask for the prayers of all those
who have gone before us.  And you should be praying for every Christian,
past, present, and future.

/john

Note 1029.3

> I'd like to know how an evangelism session included discussing American
> military might (my question is aimed at the young evangelist)..

Jim,

I cannot answer for someone else, either.  But the leap is really not a
great one, especially when you factor in morality and integrity.  I probably
influenced the exchange a bit.  It wasn't a monologue, you know.

Shalom,
Richard

  <<< Note 1029.5 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney:Card Holding Member of NAMBLA" >>>

	Interesting personal name Jack...


| Ironically, when we talk about the evils of the crusades and the inquisitions, 
| we are condemning ancient catholic church policies.   

	As well those policies should be condemned. 

| I believe the Catholic Church is largely responsible for the establishment of 
| charities, ministries, schools, hospitals throughout the world. I have met 
| alot of men who have given there lives to God via the priesthood, forsaking 
| all worldly posessions and devoting themselves to their faith. You have to 
| give credit where credit is due and I for one do this.

	Jack, I agree that most of the above has happened with the Catholic
church. But maybe you can give a few more examples of how/where the church
established the charities, ministries, schools and hospitals you talked about.
While I think they had a role is a lot of good things, you haven't quite gave
me enough information to have it equal "largely responsible" yet. Thanks!


Glen
    

re .27

Just open the Yellow Pages, Glen.

And when you include the Anglo-Catholic movement in the Episcopal Church,
you can include such famous hospitals as Boston's Children's Hospital,
which was started by the Sisters of St. Margaret shortly after my parish
brought them over from England and helped them build their convent on
Beacon Hill almost 150 years ago.

/john

    
    Reply to .21+.22
    
    I quoted .18 from the "Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine" By
    Rev. Peter Geiermann, C. SS. R.
    These were not my words. However I did paraphrase #3. Page 48
    "quote"Ten Commandments
    
    1. I am the Lord thy God; thou shall have no other gods before me.
    2. Thou shalt not take the Lord thy Gods name in vain.
    3. Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.
       ("Q." Which is the Sabbath day?)
       ("A." Saturday is the Sabbath day.)
       ("Q." Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?)
       ("A." We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic
        Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.)
     4. Honor thy father and mother.
     5. Thou shalt not kill.
     6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
     7. Thou shalt not steal.
     8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
     9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's Wife.
    10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods.
    
    Please not in Ex.20:5 is ommitted from these commandments. Isn't there
    a statue in the Church of Rome where (St. Peter) his toes are gone
    because of millions of people kissing his feet?
    Also vs. 17 of the same book and chapter is divided to make two because
    of the ommission of the third.
    No where in this (Catechism) book does it say NOT to bow down to any
    statue.
    
    Bruce  

    An interesting approach to making 10 commandments out of 9.
    
    An interesting approach to transfering the commandment to honor the
    Sabbath.  
    
    It sounds to me like all Bible Believers should workship on Saturday?
    
                            Patricia

    -last
    
    I couldn't agree with you more Patricia. I used to keep Sunday as
    my sabbath untill I read that quote! Now I keep the biblical Sabbath.
    
    Bruce
    

re .29

I would suggest you consult the official Catechism of the Catholic Church.

/john

    
    How many are there??
    
    Bruce
    

  Hi John and the Rest of Ya,

    I few thoughts regarding the Catholic Church especially with
    respect to the Ten Commandments...

    I have my Saint Josephs Catechism Guide handy!!  John, we 
    touched on this briefly maybe a month ago and I decided not
    to reply to the ten commandment part, but its being discussed
    again so I'll give it a go.

    To recap the last time we discussed this, I mentioned that the
    Catholic Church got rid of the 2nd commandment.  You stated I 
    was in error and that the Catholic 1st commandment is inclusive 
    of the scriptural 1st and 2nd.  This caused me to research just 
    a little.

    Anyway, all I did was read pertinent stuff from the Saint Josephs
    Baltimore Catechism Guide (which I bought in the mid 1980's).  I
    read its 1st commandment.  It was identical to the scriptural 1st.

    "I am the Lord thy God, you shall have no other gods before Me."

    So, here we have the scriptural 1st as well as the Catholic 1st
    being identical.  The scriptural 2nd contains the admonition to 
    not make graven images of anything in earth _or_ in heaven and not
    to bow down to them.  The Catholic 2nd reads like the scriptural
    3rd which is to not take the Lord's name in vain.

    How is one to find comfort in the assessment that the Catholic 1st
    encompasses the scriptural 1st and 2nd?

    If one is comfortable with this, one of two things must follow:

    1) God, in His writing of the 10 commandments, was unneccesarily
       redundant.  He wrote, with His finger, a commandment which He 
       never really had to write.  The 2nd was fully encompassed by 
       the 1st.

    2) God was not redundant.  Thus it must follow that _God's_ intended
       meaning of the 1st commandment is different than the Catholic
       Church's.  Thus He has the 2nd commandment which He does.  The
       Catholic Church thus interprets scripture in a different way than
       God intended.

    I am uncomfortable with either of these two options.  They are completely
    unacceptable to me.

    As a matter of fact, the Catechism Guide, following its giving of the
    Catholic 1st commandment, goes into a discussion that reads (to me)
    like support for why the 2nd commandment (scriptural) ought be discarded.

    Now to the Catholic 3rd, i.e. the scriptural 4th.  My Catechism Guide
    says that the Catholic Church changed the holy day from "Saturday to
    Sunday."  This is actually something that I believe only God can do for
    the creation record states that God sanctified the 7th day.  The Catholic
    Church is saying that it revoked the sanctified status God gave the 7th
    day and inferred that status to the 1st day.

    John, you stated INTERPRETATION (regarding day of worship).  That is 
    something that there are presently mutitudes of.  People have different 
    understandings of the word.  Apparently, your interpretation permits the 
    writing of the 10 commandments to be something other than God's writing 
    of them.  It would be accurate to say they have been presented (by the
    Catholic Church) with much more than a "jot or a tittle" change which 
    is something Jesus admonished us not to do!!

    I am of the camp that would favor presenting the Word of God JUST AS IT
    READS and I denounce presenting the word in anything other than as God
    gave it.  

    Interpretation is one thing.  Presenting the word of God is quite another.

                                                      Tony

      Hi Patricia,
    
        I am a Christian and I believe God wants His followers to 
        rest on the 7th day (sundown Friday to sundown Saturday).
    
        Presently, this discussion can often get a little legalistic.
        But...
    
        My understanding of prophecy includes the conviction that 
        the Sabbath commandment will unfold precious and deep truths
        pertaining to the everlasting gospel and in the endtimes, the
        inward experience of justification by faith (which will reach
        a certain 'fruition' - i.e. about time to reap!) will be accom-
        panied by the peculiar outward experience of 7th day Sabbath-
        keeping while the inward experience of justification by works
        (masquerading as justification by faith and which will reach a
        certain fruition) will be accompanied by the peculiar outward
        exp. of cessation of labors on Sunday.
    
        I believe prophecy gives these days these spiritual meanings.
        If any man can make one thing holy (as in the 1st day), he
        can to some extent experience holiness all on his own outside 
        of the word (and thus grace) of God.  Such is the essence of
        justification by works.
    
                                                  Tony

re Note 1029.30 by POWDML::FLANAGAN:

>     It sounds to me like all Bible Believers should workship on Saturday?
  
        Is "worship" what is mean by "keeping holy"?

        I keep my Saturdays just about as holy as my Sundays
        (however, I usually go to church only on Sunday).

        Bob

    Which day on a calendar to observe the Sabbath hardly seems worthy of
    the vehement negativity toward Catholicism that's come to my attention.
    
    After all, "Was man made for the Sabbath or the Sabbath for man?"
    (paraphrasing Jesus)  Exactly which is more important?  Human beings
    or a designation on a calender representing a rotation of the Earth?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

>How is one to find comfort in the assessment that the Catholic 1st
>encompasses the scriptural 1st and 2nd?

Well, first you should go back to your bible, where you will find no numbers
assigned to the Ten Commandments.  Then you should go back to the chart I
provided, where you will see that Jews also number the commandments a bit
differently than you do.

Then you should get the official universal Catechism of the Catholic Church,
and open it to paragraph 2083, where you will find:

			The First Commandment

	I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt,
	out of the house of bondage.  You shall have no other gods before
	me.  You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness
	of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth
	beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not
	bow down to them or serve them.

Then if you read paragraphs 2129-2132, you will find a discussion of "You
shall not make for yourself any graven image", which explains why making
a statue of a saint or even a representation of the incarnate Lord is not
a violation of the first commandment which proscribes idols.

I am sure you don't think that it is a violation of the commandment to have
a picture of yourself or your children or your parents or grandparents, and
to look at it and fondly recall something about the person depicted.

Now let's discuss Sunday.  You wrote, of the change:

>This is actually something that I believe only God can do ...

And so he did.

>The Catholic Church is saying that it revoked the sanctified status God gave
>the 7th day and inferred that status to the 1st day.

No, that is not what the Church is saying.  Again, I would suggest that you
consult the official Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Paragraph 2175 states: Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath
which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial
observance replaces that of the sabbath.  In Christ's Passover, Sunday
fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's
eternal rest in God.  For worship under the law prepared for the mystery
of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:

	Those who lived according to the old order of things have come
	to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day,
	in which our life is blessed by him and by his death.

			-- St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. 110), see also
			   1st Corinthians 10:11.

We know for certain that the early Christian Church in the time of the apostles
had already moved the weekly observance from Saturday to Sunday.

>Apparently, your interpretation permits the writing of the 10 commandments
>to be something other than God's writing of them.

This couldn't be further from the truth.

/john

Note 1029.34  -< Thoughts On Catholicism wrt the Ten Commandments >-

>    1) God, in His writing of the 10 commandments, was unneccesarily
>       redundant.  He wrote, with His finger, a commandment which He 
>       never really had to write.  The 2nd was fully encompassed by 
>       the 1st.

Tony,

As I'm certain you're aware, redundancies do appear in the Bible.
You are of the school that God personally wrote the whole Bible, are
you not?

Shalom,
Richard

      Hi Richard,
    
        That's why I was thoughtful enough to include the adjective
        "unnecessarily"!!
    
        Actually, the commandments were not exactly repeated in Deut
        5.  The Sabbath commandment is a notable exception.  In this
        case given for the reason of deliverance of bondage from Egypt
        (which I believe symbolizes given for the reason of redemption
        which then encompasses the cross, resurrection, High Priestly
        ministry of Christ, etc).
    
        John, I'll reply to you time permitting.
    
        This one was quicker!   :-)
    
                                                   Tony

>Note 1029.40

>        That's why I was thoughtful enough to include the adjective
>        "unnecessarily"!!

I caught that, Tony. But what constitutes "unneccesarily" is kind of moot.
    
>        Actually, the commandments were not exactly repeated in Deut
>        5.  The Sabbath commandment is a notable exception.

I knew this as well.  I started to include the variations in my reply and
then changed my mind, not wanting to further derail the topic.

Shalom,
Richard

  Hi John,

    After reading your mail, I am less in disagreement with the matters
    I complained about.  I still believe that one ought present the
    ten commandments as scripture gave them - word for word, every jot
    and tittle intact.  I also believe that a reading of the 10th would
    strongly suggest that the command to not covet is _one_ command.  That
    the Lord provides a string of things of which to not covet and it seems
    to me to be a stretch to suggest that this is two commandments and 
    therefore also that the first commandment is as you and the Catholic 
    Church suggest.

    Exodus 20:17
    You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your
    neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox,
    nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.

    How in the world can one honor the sequence of this verse and split it
    into coveting wife + coveting goods?  The first thing mentioned is "house",
    then "wife", then other things with "nor his..." as that which immediately
    follows "wife."

    To split vs 17 into 2 commandments would seem to require retaining sequence.
    As far as the Jewish commandments are concerned, I don't take a lot of
    stock in that as they lacked the discernment to recognize the Messiah.
    I don't see how "I am the Lord thy God" can be considered a commandment.
    Neither of your defenses do much for me.  But, the following does a little:

    �Then you should get the official universal Catechism of the Catholic
    �Church and open it to paragraph 2083, where you will find:

    It was nice to see that their official universal catechism said what it
    did, but I did what I would expect any 'good' Catholic to do. The Baltimore
    Saint Josephs Catechism Guide is a well known work.  Perhaps the most
    popular Catholic literature in the states.  We all had them.  This guide
    stated the commandments just as I gave them.  I guess you are saying 
    that I should have ventured beyond this highly popular 'guide.'  I'm not
    certain what your response is to my observation that this guide states 
    that the church changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. 

    The above is an example of what I do not consider to be a balanced 
    dialogue.  If you had been able to make some mention of the colossal 
    mistake of the Catholic Church to allow millions of the Catechism Guides
    to be in the households of church members.  To make no note whatsoever
    about this book is beyond me.  To me, when someone cannot at least mention
    (acknowledge) a mistake like this Catechism guide; that smacks of such 
    sentiment that it probably doesn't matter what is brought to the table.
    Impartial dialogue includes owning up to mistakes where they are made
    even should they occur on the side one is defending.

    By the way (and this is important), I carefully read the catechism that
    you presented and it gave reasons for the observance of Sunday, BUT IT 
    DID NOT venture into the cause of the change.  In other words, everything
    you mentioned could be consistent with the Catholic Church changing the
    day of worship for the reasons given in that Catechism OR it could have
    implied that scripture details the change.  Either way is possible all the
    while what you wrote in that Catechism can be true.  Here's what you wrote:

�Paragraph 2175 states: Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath
�which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial
�observance replaces that of the sabbath.  In Christ's Passover, Sunday
�fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's
�eternal rest in God.  For worship under the law prepared for the mystery
�of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:

�	Those who lived according to the old order of things have come
�	to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day,
�	in which our life is blessed by him and by his death.

�			-- St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. 110), see also
�			   1st Corinthians 10:11.

I'll stop here and continue...

 Continuing On...

    By the way, I've something to offer you to show me.  Show me from the
    Bible and the Bible alone (no outside source, no history, just the
    word of God and nothing else) that the 1st day of the week is the
    Lord's day.  (But, Jesus does declare Himself Lord of the Sabbath.)

    Clearly, my own studies have led me to different conclusions than you
    have.  For one rather stunning example...

    During the Council of Trent, often termed the counter-Reformation council,
    there was quite a battle over whether to adopt the Protestant concept of
    sola-scriptura or of scripture + the tradition of the church.  The disa-
    greement waged for years.  It was not resolved until the bishop of Reggio
    opted for scripture + tradition.  The BASIS (and this is KEY) for his
    position was that the Catholic Church, by virtue of tradition, changed 
    the holy day from Saturday to Sunday.  He stated that this change had
    no scriptural warrent whatsoever.  It was FROM THIS ARGUMENT that a many
    year debate was concluded.  Scripture + tradition was championed on the
    basis of Rome being the cause of change of worship from Sabbath to Sunday.

    You have stated that the apostles disregarded the 7th day Sabbath and
    observed the 1st day in its stead.  I do not believe that is the case.
    I really don't want to go through a lengthy history study on this, but
    there are some wonderul historic works that document 7th day Sabbath-
    keeping as a known practise throughout history and of course including
    the early centuries.

    My main point is left unsatisfied however.  If one gives the 10 command-
    ments, one ought give them as scripture supplies them, leaving every
    jot and tittle intact.  The word "seventh" belongs in the package that
    we call the ten commandments.

    You gave reasons for A CHANGE.  Your reasons lie in the realm of INTER-
    PRETATION.  There are many dear Christians who don't interpret the same
    way.  One person is Tony Camuso who has frequented the Christian Conf.
    I have communicated with him on occasion.  Relative to most people I know,
    he is a very spiritual Christian brother.  Somehow, with all his background
    of Sundaykeeping and study, he painfully came to the eventual conclusion
    that the 7th day Sabbath REMAINS.  In addition, there are several whose
    interpretation of Romans 14 is that all the days are the same.  That the
    1st is no better or worse than the 7th or the 4th or any other (an inter-
    pretation I happen to disagree with).

    My point is that you have entered into the realm of INTERPRETATION and
    from that it appears that you advocate not giving the 10 commandments as
    God gave them.

    My main point is to quote scripture just as it reads and as (I believe)
    the Lord commands us to do.  I can accept that we understand things 
    differently, but we ought give scripture just as it reads.  If you want 
    to give someone the 10 commandments, give it to them from Exodus 20 or
    Deut. 5.  Anything other than that is replacing the words of man for
    the word of God.

    And finally, you have not persuaded me that the Catholic church does 
    not assert that she changed the day of worship (though if it suits her
    interests, she may say what she once did not.  

    For centuries they claimed the change.

    I didn't dig for obscure literature John.  St Josephs Catechism Guide is
    a popular work.  Probably millions of them.  I just walked in a Bible
    store and bought it - not knowing what it would say.

                                                           Tony

Hi Tony,

I'd like to correct a number of misconceptions in your post.

> I'm not certain what your response is to my observation that this guide
> states that the church changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.

The Church never changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, on its own
authority.  The Lord did, and handed it onto the Apostles, from which we have
received it by Tradition.  I do not believe that the church has any authority
to change this day, and it has never celebrated it in any other way.

In other words, it is not inaccurate to say that the Church "changed the day
of worship", but this must be understood in the sense that the church was
merely obeying the command of the Lord, not doing so on its own authority; in
the same way as we might say that the church stopped following the Mosaic law,
or that the church added to the Scriptures the New Testament books.  But it
must not be conceived as if someone several centuries after Christ decided
Saturday was inconvenient and ordered Sunday to be kept on his own authority.

>     By the way, I've something to offer you to show me.  Show me from the
>     Bible and the Bible alone (no outside source, no history, just the
>     word of God and nothing else) that the 1st day of the week is the
>     Lord's day.  (But, Jesus does declare Himself Lord of the Sabbath.)

Oh, I will readily concede that it can't be proven from Scripture alone, and
this is a very effective argument for illustrating to Sunday-worshipping
Protestants the contradiction in their believing in Sola Scriptura but
worshipping on Sunday, since Sunday worship can only be defended by regarding
Tradition as authoritative, as we do.  In this sense, the Saturday-worshipping
Protestants are far more consistent than the Sunday-worshipping Protestants
are, as an article written in the 19th century in a Catholic newspaper by a
respected Catholic author argued.

I think a very powerful argument for Saturday-worship can be made from
Scripture alone.  But Sola Scriptura is a heresy, often used to justify a large
number of errors; Arius used the Scriptures alone to "prove" that Jesus was not
God, and refused to listen to the Tradition of the Church which said the
contrary.  Most of the early heretics argued their heresies from Scripture.
Since we reject Sola Scriptura, and make no claims to prove everything
conclusively from Scripture as Catholics -- since this demand itself is
unscriptural -- it makes no difference to us that you _can_ "prove" it by
Scripture alone.

>     You have stated that the apostles disregarded the 7th day Sabbath and
>     observed the 1st day in its stead.  I do not believe that is the case.
>     I really don't want to go through a lengthy history study on this, but
>     there are some wonderul historic works that document 7th day Sabbath-
>     keeping as a known practise throughout history and of course including
>     the early centuries.

An argument I regard as historically fallacious; at home I have a copy of a
very lengthy list of the earliest Fathers, from the first, second, and third
centuries to the later centuries, that bear witness to the fact that
universally the early church celebrated Sunday as the Lord's Day and the
principal day of worship for the People of God, just as St. Ignatius and
St. Justin testify:

St. Ignatius of Antioch, To the Magnesians, 110 A.D., 8-9:

Do not be led astray by wrong views or by outmoded tales that count for
nothing. For if we still go on observing Judaism, we admit we never received
grace. The divine prophets themselves lived Christ Jesus' way. That is why they
were persecuted, for they were inspired by his grace to convinced unbelievers
that God is one, and that he has revealed himself in his Son Jesus Christ, who
is his Word issuing from the silence and who won the complete approval of him
who sent him.
    Those, then, who lived by ancient practices arrived at a new hope. They
ceased to keep the Sabbath and lived by the Lord's Day, on which our life as
well as their shone forth, thanks to Him and his death, though some deny this.
Through this mystery we got our faith, and because of it we stand our ground so
as to become disciples of Jesus Christ, our sole teacher.

Justin Martyr, Apology, I.66-67, 2nd century:

    The Sunday Assembly

    Furthermore, after this we always remind one another of these things.
    Those who have the means aid those who are needy, and we are always united.
    Over everything which we take to ourselves we bless the Creator of the
    universe through His Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit.

    On the day called after the sun [Sunday] there is a meeting for which all
    those dwelling in the cities or in the countryside come together.  The
    records of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as
    time allows.  When the reader has stopped, the one who is presiding
    admonishes and encourages us by a sermon to the imitation of those good
    examples.

    Then we all stand up together and lift up our prayers and, as I said
    previously, when we have finished our prayer, bread is brought forth and
    wine and water.  The one who is presiding offers up prayers and
    thanksgiving according to his ability and the people acclaim their assent
    with ``Amen.''  There is the distribution of and participation on the part
    of each one in the gifts for which thanks has been offered, and they are
    sent to those who are not present through the deacons.

    We all come together on the day of the sun since it is the first day, on
    which God changed darkness and matter and made the world.  On that day,
    Jesus Christ our Savior arose from the dead.  They crucified him on the day
    preceding that of Saturn, and on the day of the sun he appeared to his
    Apostles and disciples and taught them these things which we have presented
    also to you for inspection.

> During the Council of Trent, often termed the counter-Reformation council,
> there was quite a battle over whether to adopt the Protestant concept of
> sola-scriptura or of scripture + the tradition of the church.  The disa-
> greement waged for years.  It was not resolved until the bishop of Reggio
> opted for scripture + tradition.  The BASIS (and this is KEY) for his
> position was that the Catholic Church, by virtue of tradition, changed the
> holy day from Saturday to Sunday.  He stated that this change had no
> scriptural warrent whatsoever.  It was FROM THIS ARGUMENT that a many year
> debate was concluded.  Scripture + tradition was championed on the basis of
> Rome being the cause of change of worship from Sabbath to Sunday.

If it is true such an argument raged, the bishops would have had to be pretty
ignorant, given the constant witness of the church that Tradition was
authoritative as well as Scripture:

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180-199, 3, 4, 1:

"When, therefore, we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek among others
the truth which is easily obtained from the Church.  For the Apostles, like a
rich man in a bank, deposited with her most copiously everything which pertains
to the truth; and everyone whosoever wishes draws from her the drink of life.
For she is the entrance to life, while all the rest are thieves and robbers
[cf, John 10:1-10].  That is why it is surely necessary to avoid [heretics],
while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church,
and to lay hold of the tradition of truth.  What then? If there should be a
dispute over some kind of question, ought we not have recourse to the most
ancient Churches in which the Apostles were familiar, and draw from them what
is clear and certain in regard to that question?  What if the Apostles had not
in fact left writings to us?  Would it not be necessary to follow the order of
tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?"

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180-199, 4, 33, 8:

"The true gnosis [knowledge] is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient
organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation
of the body of Christ according to the successions of bishops, by which
successions the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere;
and the very complete tradition of the Scriptures, which have come down to us
by being guarded against falsification, and which are received without
addition or deletion; and reading without falsification, and a legitimate and
diligent exposition according to the Scriptures, without danger and without
blasphemy; and the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than
knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and more honored than all the other
charismatic gifts."

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 1, 10, 1-2, 180 A.D.:

"The Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is
disseminated throughout the whole world, yet is guarded, as if she occupies but
one house. . . She, harmoniously, proclaims [the truth] and teaches it and
hands it down as if she possessed the one mouth.  For, while the languages of
the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and
the same. . .

"Nor will any of the rulers in the churches, whatever his power of eloquence,
teach otherwise, for no one is above the teacher; nor will he who is weak in
speaking detract from the tradition."

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3, 3, 1, 180 A.D.:

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every [local] church who may wish to
know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been
made known throughout the whole world. . . We are in a position to enumerate
those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our
own times: men. . . to whom they were committing the self-same
churches. . . They wished all those and their successors to be perfect and
without reproach, to whom they handed their authority."

Tertullian, The Fundamental Doctrines, 220-230 A.D., 1, Preface, 2:

"Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings
of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their
predecessors.  The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through
an order of succession from the Apostles, and remains in the Churches even to
the present time.  That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way
at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition."

Tertullian, The Demurrer Against the Heretics, A.D. 200, 19,3:

"Wherever it shall be clear that the truth of the Christian discipline and
faith are present, there also will be found the truth of the Scriptures and of
their explanation, and of all the Christian traditions."

St. Augustine, _De Baptismo contra Donatistas_ Book 5: 31.:

"But the custom which is opposed to Cyprian may be supposed to have had its
origin in apostolic tradition, as there are many things which the universal
Church holds, and therefore are fairly believed to have been enjoined by the
apostles, which do not appear in their writings." 

St. Epiphanius of Salamis (circa 374), _Panacea Against All Heresies_: 

"It is needful also to make use of Tradition; for not everything can be gotten
from Sacred Scripture. The holy Apostles handed down some things in the
Scriptures, other things in Tradition."

St. John Chrysostom, _Homilies on the second ep. to the Thessalonians_ 
(5th century):

"'Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been
taught, whether by word or by our letter' (2 Thes 2:15). From this it is clear
that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there was much also that
was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of
belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of
belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further."

St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitoria [2, 1], circa 434 AD [Jurgens 2168]:

    With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently
    inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how
    I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way,
    distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of
    heretical depravity. I received almost always the same answer from
    all of them, that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds
    and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain
    intact and sound in a sound faith, it would be necessary, with the
    help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner:
    first, of course, by the authority of the divine law; and then, by
    the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

    [2] Here, perhaps, someone may ask: "If the canon of the
    Scriptures be perfect, and in itself more than suffices for
    everything, why is it necessary that the authority of
    ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?" Because, quite
    plainly, Sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not
    accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. The same
    passage is interpreted in one way by some, in another by others,
    so that it can almost appear as if there are as many opinions as
    there are men. Novatian explains a passage in one way, Sabellius
    in another, Donatus in another; Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius in
    another; Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian in another; Jovinian,
    Pelagius, Caelestius in another; and afterwards in still another,
    Nestorius.  And thus, because of so many distortions of such
    various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic
    and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm
    of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning.

    [3] In the Catholic Church herself every care must be taken that
    we may hold fast to that which has been believed everywhere,
    always, and by all (1). For this is, then, truly and properly
    Catholic. That is what the force and meaning of the name itself
    declares, a name that embraces all almost universally (2). This
    general rule will be correctly applied if we pursue universality,
    antiquity, and agreement.  And we follow universality in this way,
    if we confess this one faith to be true, which is confessed by the
    whole Church throughout the whole world; antiquity, however, if we
    in no way depart from those interpretations which, it is clear,
    our holy predecessors and fathers solemnized; and likewise
    agreement, if, in this very antiquity, we adopt the definitions
    and theses of all or certainly of almost all priests and teachers.

St. John of Damascus, _On the Divine Images_, 1st Apol. 23:

"The tradition of the Church is not only passed on in written documents, but
has also been given in unwritten form.  In chapter twenty-seven of St. Basil's
book of thirty chapters written to Amphilochious concerning the Holy Spirit, he
says `Among the carefully guarded teachings and doctrines of the Church,
thereare some teachings we received from written documents, while others we
receive secretly, for they have been handed on to us from the apostolic
tradition.  Both sources have equal power to lead us to righteousness.  No one
who values the seasoned discipline of the Church will dispute with this, for if
we neglect unwritten customs as not having much force, we then bury much of the
Gospel which is vitally important.' ... What is the origin of the three
immersions at baptism, or praying toward the east, or the manner in which we
celebrate the eucharist?  Therefore the holy apostle Paul says: `So then,
brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us,
either by word of mouth or by letter.'  Therefore, since so much that is
unwritten has been handed down in the Church and is still observed now, why do
you despise images?"

    If we accept that Scripture is not 100% inerrant, and we also accept
    that it would be chaotic if every person for themselves could define
    which scriptures were true and which were not, then we need something
    to ground our examination of Scripture on.
    
    In this I believe the Catholic Church has a theoretically acceptable
    answer.  The church as an organization of believers has that
    responsibility.
    
    If someone, were really true to the theory of inerrancy, they would
    worship on Saturday and wear Hats to Church(IMHO).  I do not believe
    that we should wear hats to Church or necessarily worship on Saturday.
    The question is really a question of authority and faithfulness to that
    which we claim to believe.
    
    The one very real objection to the Roman Catholic Political
    Organization is its institutional sexism.  The RCC systematically
    excludes more than 50% of its adult membership from decision making in
    the church bodies.  It excludes more than 50% of its adult membership
    from all the significant leadership positions.  Since I believe that
    institutional sexism is evil, I need to protest this practice of the
    RCC.
    
    Although, theologically I have sympathy with much that is Catholic
    including its more Universal Doctrines, I could never become a
    participant in a Faith Community that practiced this degree of
    institutional sexism.
    
    In Feminist Theology, many women are talking about a amorphous
    organization called "WomanChurch".  The idea is that Women in a
    community of Faith, can develop a adequate and fully sufficient
    theolgoy in communion with other women of Faith.
    
    
                          Patricia

      Hi Eric,
    
        You are consistent.  It is Sundaykeeping Protestants who 
        would have an especially hard time with your replies.
    
        I am well aware of the 19th century literature which you
        speak of.
    
        I'm not sure where I lie with respect to sola scriptura.  I
        know that Luther had a much more encompassing view than Pro-
        testantism today has.  I just happen to not accept the Tradition
        of the Catholic Church argument, but I am sure that any individual
        can be blessed with inspiration - all the while I believe it could
        not contradict the scriptures.
    
        In your citations of first day worship, it doesn't do me any good
        unless Paul, Peter, James, Jude, John, Luke, or Jesus Christ Him-
        self could also be cited.
    
        I truly am not persuaded by what men may have done - even if they
        did so a scant few years after Christ walked this earth.
    
                                                   God Bless,
    
                                                   Tony

	"This church for all its sinfulness and oppression, is as much
mine as the pope's or the priests'.  It is my inheritance.  Its mysteries,
rituals, and struggles all belong to me.  It seems clear to me that God
has to struggle to touch people's live from within our broken and
inadequate institutions.  God does not flee our churches because they
are sinful -- God, on the contrary, is ever busy in impossible and
improbable places."

				-- Edwina Gateley
				   THE WITNESS, Oct 1994

    It's always amazed me who most frequently speaks against Roman
    Catholicism.

    Richard
    

    Okay...I'll bite.  Who most frequently speaks against Roman
    Catholicism?
    
    We know radical womens groups and gay activist groups loathe the
    church.  We know the fundamentalists challenge the doctrines of the
    church...so who is it???
    
    -Jack

    I think it's fairly obvious even here.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

| <<< Note 1029.50 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| We know radical womens groups and gay activist groups loathe the church.  

	Jack, I can't speak for the womens activists groups, but for the gays,
it is not all churches they may loath. The RR type and beyond maybe. But gay
activists, even the radical ones, have seen the church be a great place. 


Glen

    Richard:
    
    I like you alot brother...I respect your opinions and position...but...
    
    
    I HATE IT WHEN YOU DO THAT!!!!!
    
    
    No, it isn't obvious to me.  I am a mental midget at times (Watch it
    Glen!! :-))   You made a statement that more or less said....Hmmm,
    well, we know who the catholic bashers are in this conference don't
    we?!  The answer is no I don't...please clarify.  And if it's types
    like me, then point that finger right at me because maybe its a blind
    spot in my walk with God.  Always open to criticism...considering I
    like to shell it out at times!! :-)
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1029.53 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>



| I am a mental midget at times 

	AT TIMES!!??? heh heh

| Always open to criticism...

	Well you should be considering you set yourself up for it all the
time.... heh heh....


Glen

    I knew that was coming!

re .51, richard you speak in riddles! or are you just jumping to the defense
of the roman catholic church a bit too quick?
i mean the size she is, she expects to live with criticism.



andreas.