I've had it up to here ---


#1

…with folks wanting to claim that their doctrines and particular church organization are found in certain popular (infamously diabolical) medeival sects!!

Like, Baptists “claim” the Albegensians, Waldensians, and the Paulicans, and more. Now I found out that there are church of Christ people doing the same! Whose next, the Mormons? Why not?? How much more different can you be (Baptist vs. Church of Christ?) which were they?

Ok, I’m not particularly angry, I should say that. But I wonder, what are some good solid, contemporary to the times writings that speak of those groups? There have to be some. I just haven’t looked hard. I don’t want to be terribly misled.

Well, here are some referenced from newadvent’s piece
TER-MKRTTSCHIAN, Die Paulicianer im byzantinischen Kaiserreich und verwandte ketzerische Erscheinungen in Armenien (Liepzig, 1893);

DOLLINGER, Beitrage zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters, I (Munich, 1890), 1-31;

LOMBARD, Pauliciens, Bulgares et Bonshommes (Geneva, 1879);

HERGENROTHER, Photius, III (Ratisbon, 1869), 143-53:

GIBBON, Decline and Fall, ed. BURY, VI London, 1898), liv, and appendix 6;

ADENEY, The Greek and Eastern Churches (Edinburgh, 1908), v.

Does it do any good to tell folks that Albegensians preferred abortion to childbirth, or that the Paulicans apparently rejected St. Peter’s writings, or that Berengerius not merely disbelieved transubstantiation, but believed consubstantiation (as I understand at least)? Like, that’s not a good guy to claim for a symbolic view of the Lord’s Supper.

Allright, gotta cool down, have a good weekend everyone!


#2

Well the common speel by fundamentilist is that the real Bible beleiving church was underground for the first 1500 years while the big insitutional catholic church was spreading its evil doctrines before the reformation.

Of course that begs the question who was defending the trinity, the bible and orthodoxy in general while everyone was hiding out. Well it was the catholic church. These people hiding out were not defending the diety of Jesus nor the canon of the Bible nor the christian relgion nor spreading the gospel. Do they really want to take such a position.
Some evangelicals have to admit that this is not plausible.
THE CRI Christian Research Institue an evangelical apologetic foundation certainly no friend of the catholic postion has to admit to some obvious facts of history.
In their explanation on how Catholcism is not a cult (gee really?)
They give this fact.
(1) Cults, generally speaking, are small splinter groups with a fairly recent origin. Most American-based cults, for example, have to a greater or lesser degree splintered off from other Christian groups, and emerged in the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. Catholicism, on the other hand, is the largest body within Christendom, having almost a two-thousand-year history (it has historical continuity with apostolic, first century Christianity), and is the ecclesiastical tree from which Protestantism originally splintered.

(8) A frequent characteristic of cults is their emphasis on a “remnant identity” — that is, they claim to be God’s exclusive agent or people who restore “authentic Christianity,” which has been corrupted or lost. Usually this type of restorationism has an accompanying anticreedal and antihistorical mindset. While Catholicism has at times been guilty of an unfortunate exclusivity13 (some Protestant churches have also), they emphatically deny restorationism, and strongly emphasize the continuity of God’s church throughout history.

  1. Those who classify Roman Catholicism as a cult (an inauthentic and invalid expression of Christianity) usually also give the Eastern Orthodox church the same classification. What they do not realize, however, is that if both of these religious bodies are non-Christian, then there was no authentic Christian church during most of the medieval period. Contrary to what some Protestants think, there was no independent, nondenominational, Bible-believing church on the corner (or in the caves) during most of the Middle Ages.14 Additionally, the schismatic groups who were around at the time were grossly heretical.15 So much for the gates of hell not prevailing against the church (Matt. 16:18).
    Some try to sidestep this argument by reasoning that as long as there were even a few individuals who remained biblically orthodox apart from the institutional or organized church, then those select individuals constituted God’s authentic church (a remnant) — thus the church was never truly overcome. This thinking, though containing an element of truth, is not completely correct. It is true that the church has an invisible16 and local dimension to it, but it also has a visible and organizational dimension (John 17:21). While the church is primarily a community of believers, it also functions as an institution through which believers encounter the ministry of the Word and the sacraments (baptism and the Lord’s Supper). Scripture does not allow for the sharp distinction between the spiritual and organizational dimensions of the church that some would like to draw.17

#3

Thanks Maccabees!!

I was thinking today, that since I like techno music, then maybe I should combat the common misconception today that techno music is a relatively new style of music. Like, there’s bound to be some underground techno artists all the way back to when music was first invented. Sure, they wouldn’t have synthesizers and computer programs and turntables, but the basics of the techno style would be there.

Any such attempt on my part would be haphazard and result in a fragile conclusion at best. And I’m sure I would have to ignore all the non-technoey aspects to the musical styles I claimed as early day techno.

Silly comparison, but that’s almost what it seems like to me. Silly! Maybe you don’t consider techno to be “music.” Well, whatever. I don’t consider heretical sects to be churches.

How do heretics grow in number?:hmmm:

Heretical sects!!:D

Do you feel like you’re up against people that won’t listen to anything you have to say? Well, I’ve listened, and if you feel useless, remember the command of the Apostle:

But we urge you, brethren, to excel still more, and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your own hands, just as we commanded you; so that you may behave properly toward outsiders and not be in any need.
I Thessalonians 4:10-12


#4

All of these claims come from the one source: “The Trail of Blood” which would have to be the best piece of religious historical fiction (other than the Da Vinci Code) around.

MaggieOH


#5

[quote=MaggieOH]All of these claims come from the one source: “The Trail of Blood” which would have to be the best piece of religious historical fiction (other than the Da Vinci Code) around.

MaggieOH
[/quote]

Best is not the word I would desrible the book. Nor is it the only one. This is the Baptist theory there are also books for the Church of Christ theory and and the 7th day Adventist theory and the Jehovah’s witness theory and of course our friends the Mormons have several books that support their theory. Many sects have their own theories on how their particular church was the real church. They aren;t very original are they?


#6

I remember talking to a fellow who insisted that the Catholic Church had to wipe out the Albigensians because the Albigensians were really “Bible Christians” who exposed the “errors” of Catholicism.

I hastened to point out to him that it wasn’t the Catholic Church who wiped out the Albigensians, it was a number of secular French nobility, primarily Simon de Montfort (albeit with ecclesiastical approbation from Pope Innocent III and Abbot Arnold-Amuary de Citeaux).

I then showed him a number of Albigensian writings that outlined some of their beliefs, many of which they adopted from other groups such as the Cathars and the Bogomils, such as the idea that Christ entered and exited Mary’s body through her ear, that God didn’t create the world, Satan did; that meat, cheese, and eggs were to be avoided because they were the result of sexual actvity; and, in some Albigensian circles, a progressive reincarnation from animals into human beings.

Then I asked him, “Do these sound like ‘Bible Christian’ beliefs to you?” He had no answer.


#7

[quote=Wolseley]I remember talking to a fellow who insisted that the Catholic Church had to wipe out the Albigensians because the Albigensians were really “Bible Christians” who exposed the “errors” of Catholicism.

I hastened to point out to him that it wasn’t the Catholic Church who wiped out the Albigensians, it was a number of secular French nobility, primarily Simon de Montfort (albeit with ecclesiastical approbation from Pope Innocent III and Abbot Arnold-Amuary de Citeaux).

I then showed him a number of Albigensian writings that outlined some of their beliefs, many of which they adopted from other groups such as the Cathars and the Bogomils, such as the idea that Christ entered and exited Mary’s body through her ear, that God didn’t create the world, Satan did; that meat, cheese, and eggs were to be avoided because they were the result of sexual actvity; and, in some Albigensian circles, a progressive reincarnation from animals into human beings.

Then I asked him, “Do these sound like ‘Bible Christian’ beliefs to you?” He had no answer.
[/quote]

any links available?


#8

A friend of mine has spent a lot of time studying medieval heretics/heresies.

I’m not sure of the main source book he used. It was Catholic, and revealed a lot. It was called “Medieval Heretics” or Medieval Heresies." Here’s 2 amazon links, but the exact book is not there.

Medieval Heretics

Medieval Heresies

I’ll try to get the exact book for ya
There I go, I’m helping Catholics again!!!:banghead:

Rob


#9

[quote=Reformed Rob]A friend of mine has spent a lot of time studying medieval heretics/heresies.

I’m not sure of the main source book he used. It was Catholic, and revealed a lot. It was called “Medieval Heretics” or Medieval Heresies." Here’s 2 amazon links, but the exact book is not there.

Medieval Heretics

Medieval Heresies

I’ll try to get the exact book for ya
There I go, I’m helping Catholics again!!!:banghead:

Rob
[/quote]

Maybe your being called home Bob and and you are trying not to listen:) God Bless


#10

Have you seen this shirt?

catholicposters.com/shop/product.php?prodId=631&cat=32+33+47+


#11

[quote=serendipity]Have you seen this shirt?

catholicposters.com/shop/product.php?prodId=631&cat=32+33+47+
[/quote]

      That is great,I would have been back sooner but I had to look through the whole site.:D God Bless

#12

I found it from a google search before Christmas. Let me know if you know of any similar sites.

I am thinking about buying the t-shirt that says something about how “you should be lucky for my big family because they will be paying your social security” for my father for his birthday.
I also thought, who’se that smooth looking guy on the pope shirt and felt so sheepish to learn it was a young JPII!


#13

[quote=mercygate]any links available?
[/quote]

I’d have to look around, but a good overview can be found in Chas S. Clifton’s Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics (Barnes & Noble, 1992; ISBN 0-7607-0823-1).


#14

ITs funny that since the Davninci Code phenom that several protestant authors are defending the early catholic church against one of its earliest heresies the gnostics and Arians.

Well I have a question if were really suppressing the true Christianity such as the Albigensians why do sects as the gnostics and Arians not also qualify as true Christiantiy as they also opposed official catholic teaching. Its entirely speculative and inconsistent to choose the heretics that are the good guys. To say the catholic church was always suppressing early christianity you would have to do away with official catholic teaching that its rival groups rejected namely the trinity and the canon of the scripture. Its hypocritical to steal away such catholic tradition and reject others. The catholic churc is either the truth or it isn’t it is either corrput or it isn’t.


#15

[quote=Reformed Rob]A friend of mine has spent a lot of time studying medieval heretics/heresies.

I’m not sure of the main source book he used. It was Catholic, and revealed a lot. It was called “Medieval Heretics” or Medieval Heresies." Here’s 2 amazon links, but the exact book is not there.

Medieval Heretics

Medieval Heresies

I’ll try to get the exact book for ya
There I go, I’m helping Catholics again!!!:banghead:

Rob
[/quote]

Rob, these guys are as much a problem for “orthodox” Protestantism as they are for Catholics. The Catharists and Albigensians were nuts! – even when taking into consideration the fact that most of our knowledge of them comes from what Ronald Knox generously acknowledges to be “unfriendly sources.”

BTW – don’t have time to do this now but a great place to look for references is in the Library of Congress Online Catalog. Type it into your browser and it will take you there.


#16

[quote=Maccabees]Best is not the word I would desrible the book. Nor is it the only one. This is the Baptist theory there are also books for the Church of Christ theory and and the 7th day Adventist theory and the Jehovah’s witness theory and of course our friends the Mormons have several books that support their theory. Many sects have their own theories on how their particular church was the real church. They aren;t very original are they?
[/quote]

:slight_smile: Oh dear, someone has taken me the wrong way. I guess I did not put in enough of the sarcasm to get my meaning across :crying: .

I have been doing Apologetics on the Internet for several years now, and when I first got involved, I found that there was a common thread that led back to the “Trail of Blood”. This rather shocking tract, full of mushroom fodder has what can only be described as historical fiction at its “best” (please read worst) since it was an early piece of historical revisionism. The author of the tract appeared to be completely ignorant of the real facts. It was this author who exaggerated the numbers that died in the Inquisition. His work underpins the fictional work of Loraine Boettner. There is a trail in these writings that leads back to the “Trail of blood” :stuck_out_tongue: (tongue in cheek here).

When it comes to the SDA you need to remember that they were also formed out of the Baptists. The sect itself was formed after the Great Disappointment, and is based upon the beliefs of the Seventh Day Baptists. They followed the beliefs of Miller, who had convinced them that the world was about to end in 184? and the date passed … then the date was revised … and that date passed… and then they came up with the notion that Jesus had indeed entered into the world but was in the Sanctuary for the Investigative Judgement. Their claim about the Waldensians is legitimately linked to the Baptist historical fantasy.

To be fair though, there are a few Baptists who do not accept the Trail of Blood and its inaccuracies.

I am not so certain about the beginnings of the Church of Christ, but I suspect that they also have links back to the Baptists (as do most of the heretical cults that are around today :stuck_out_tongue: ). Maybe I should see what I can find out about how they really began :slight_smile: .

Maggie


#17

I know you were being sarcastic I was being sarcastic back I think it is you who have take my post the wrong way.

We are in agreement the Trail of Blood is calumny and not fit to print.
My point is that it is not the lonly book like this out there and many denoms have their own theories and books out there.
The Trail of Blood and the Southern Baptist is not alone.
Your right Baptist outside of the Southern Baptist convention do not subscribe to such non-sense. Many in the SBC do buy into this non-senese though. SInce they are independently run some many not even agree with others in the SBC where this is popular.
I believe other Bpatist have wrote books debunking this tom foolery.


#18

[quote=Maccabees]I know you were being sarcastic I was being sarcastic back I think it is you who have take my post the wrong way.

We are in agreement the Trail of Blood is calumny and not fit to print.
My point is that it is not the lonly book like this out there and many denoms have their own theories and books out there.
The Trail of Blood and the Southern Baptist is not alone.
Your right Baptist outside of the Southern Baptist convention do not subscribe to such non-sense. Many in the SBC do buy into this non-senese though. SInce they are independently run some many not even agree with others in the SBC where this is popular.
I believe other Bpatist have wrote books debunking this tom foolery.
[/quote]

Did you know that the “True Believers” of Trail of Blood fame, were believers in homosexuality?

Several years ago when I set about debunking an article that was based on the Trail of Blood, I discovered some very interesting facts about some of the sects that were mentioned in the original and later works.

I have seen only a few papers that have come from Baptist sources that have debunked J.M. Carroll’s original work. I used to have that material somewhere in hard copy but at the moment it is missing in action (my papers tend to grow legs and walk).

Actually, the most (in)famous statement that came from the publication of the “Trail of Blood” is the following:

Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:

“Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers.” (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.) The “twelve hundred years” were the years preceding the Reformation in which Rome persecuted Baptists with the most cruel persecution thinkable.

To date, I know of no one who has been able to find a copy of this statement from any of the letters of Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius. Also, having just done a more successful search on Cardinal Hosius, and now having at least some biographical detail on him, two errors stand out that point to the statement being a fake:

  1. The date of 1524 is in error. Cardinal Hosius was a boy of 20 years old in 1524.

  2. The claim that Cardinal Hosius was the “president” of the Council of Trent. He was in fact one of the Papal legates at the Council from 1561-1563

Wow, I have not even started reading the original document from Caroll and already I have found errors of fact… good fiction eh :smiley:

Maggie


#19

[quote=Reformed Rob]…with folks wanting to claim that their doctrines and particular church organization are found in certain popular (infamously diabolical) medeival sects!!

Like, Baptists “claim” the Albegensians, Waldensians, and the Paulicans, and more. Now I found out that there are church of Christ people doing the same! Whose next, the Mormons? Why not?? How much more different can you be (Baptist vs. Church of Christ?) which were they?

Ok, I’m not particularly angry, I should say that. But I wonder, what are some good solid, contemporary to the times writings that speak of those groups? There have to be some. I just haven’t looked hard. I don’t want to be terribly misled.

Well, here are some referenced from newadvent’s piece
TER-MKRTTSCHIAN, Die Paulicianer im byzantinischen Kaiserreich und verwandte ketzerische Erscheinungen in Armenien (Liepzig, 1893);

DOLLINGER, Beitrage zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters, I (Munich, 1890), 1-31;

LOMBARD, Pauliciens, Bulgares et Bonshommes (Geneva, 1879);

HERGENROTHER, Photius, III (Ratisbon, 1869), 143-53:

GIBBON, Decline and Fall, ed. BURY, VI London, 1898), liv, and appendix 6;

ADENEY, The Greek and Eastern Churches (Edinburgh, 1908), v.

Does it do any good to tell folks that Albegensians preferred abortion to childbirth, or that the Paulicans apparently rejected St. Peter’s writings, or that Berengerius not merely disbelieved transubstantiation, but believed consubstantiation (as I understand at least)? Like, that’s not a good guy to claim for a symbolic view of the Lord’s Supper.

Allright, gotta cool down, have a good weekend everyone!
[/quote]

For some translated texts in a relatively recent edition, try this: Wakefield, Walter L., and Evans, Austin P.; Heresies of the High Middle Ages: Selected Sources Translated and Annotated. (Columbia University Press, New York & London, 1969).


#20

[quote=Reformed Rob]…with folks wanting to claim that their doctrines and particular church organization are found in certain popular (infamously diabolical) medeival sects!!

Like, Baptists “claim” the Albegensians, Waldensians, and the Paulicans, and more. Now I found out that there are church of Christ people doing the same! Whose next, the Mormons? Why not?? How much more different can you be (Baptist vs. Church of Christ?) which were they?

Ok, I’m not particularly angry, I should say that. But I wonder, what are some good solid, contemporary to the times writings that speak of those groups? There have to be some. I just haven’t looked hard. I don’t want to be terribly misled.

Well, here are some referenced from newadvent’s piece
TER-MKRTTSCHIAN, Die Paulicianer im byzantinischen Kaiserreich und verwandte ketzerische Erscheinungen in Armenien (Liepzig, 1893);

DOLLINGER, Beitrage zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters, I (Munich, 1890), 1-31;

LOMBARD, Pauliciens, Bulgares et Bonshommes (Geneva, 1879);

HERGENROTHER, Photius, III (Ratisbon, 1869), 143-53:

GIBBON, Decline and Fall, ed. BURY, VI London, 1898), liv, and appendix 6;

ADENEY, The Greek and Eastern Churches (Edinburgh, 1908), v.

Does it do any good to tell folks that Albegensians preferred abortion to childbirth, or that the Paulicans apparently rejected St. Peter’s writings, or that Berengerius not merely disbelieved transubstantiation, but believed consubstantiation (as I understand at least)? Like, that’s not a good guy to claim for a symbolic view of the Lord’s Supper.

Allright, gotta cool down, have a good weekend everyone!
[/quote]

Calvary Chapel does the same thing :slight_smile:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.