Apocrypha and Scripture

[francisdesales]

Thanks, but I knew that's what you were refering to but I wanted you to back up that assumption. I just now noticed you said "suspect". I wouldn't just assume "Oh, a Pope would never say that" if I were you. Pope Leo X also instituted penance to pay for sins (which is a useless sacrament) as a way to extort money from the people. Other Popes weren't as bad as him but he sure is no innocent Pope (from what I've read of him anyway).

Josh,

May I suggest that you read a book on the history of the development of Christian doctrines? There are a number of secular and even Protestant historians (if you think Catholics will be biased) that are pretty good that describe how the various beliefs that we hold came to be.

May I suggest JND Kelly. Christianbooks.com sells his book on the development of Church doctrines for less than $10 and is an outstanding book. He is highly regarded by both Catholics and Protestants (he was an Anglican). I think you will learn a lot about how the Church developed in time on what it believed - its roots going back to the Apostlic Church.

The sacrament of reconciliation was instituted by Christ. Penance does not pay for forgiveness - God gives it for free to those who ask. Penance is our way of saying we are sorry and that sin is a serious affair. It doesn't earn forgiveness. Penance was part of the Church's discipline from the very beginning. I suspect you have heard of sack clothes and ashes on the head from Scriptures? If you read the history on the development of the sacrament, you will find that even in the days of public reconciliation, people partook in relatively stiff acts of penance. Historians relate that these acts of penance long preceded Leo the X.

Not sure where you get your info, but you might want to consider a less biased source.

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

Not sure where you get your info, but you might want to consider a less biased source.

Well I certainly don't want to be unfair and I will try to show you my source and explain why I trust(ed) him and try to give a straight forward answer to you in the debate thread when I reply to your relevant post in which you addressed more of this.

But nonetheless if the Leo X quote is misapplied I would sure like to know about it (please look up on it). Else it would seem to point to corruption. I don't suppose though you subscribe to the theory that the Church started the crusades to gain wealth (which I've heard before) to fund the building of St. Peter's Bassilica in Rome?

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

Well I certainly don't want to be unfair and I will try to show you my source and explain why I trust(ed) him and try to give a straight forward answer to you in the debate thread when I reply to your relevant post in which you addressed more of this.

But nonetheless if the Leo X quote is misapplied I would sure like to know about it (please look up on it). Else it would seem to point to corruption. I don't suppose though you subscribe to the theory that the Church started the crusades to gain wealth (which I've heard before) to fund the building of St. Peter's Bassilica in Rome?

~Josh

Josh,

I have heard a lot of funny things, and that one about the Crusades is totally incredible! Like I said, I was a military historian before becoming Christian, and believe me, the simple explanation is better than the conspiracy theory cooked up by the anti-catholics looking to twist anything they can and give it as fact to unsuspecting people of good faith.

What sort of money would the Pope expect to get from the Crusades??? The Kings of France, England, and what we now call Germany were truly men who believed that they were trying to stop an invasion of Christendom. The call raised by the various Popes were directed at their duty to protect the special sites of worship for Christian and to keep the Saracen out of Europe. People wouldn't have gone across the continent to fight in an unknown land just to build a cathedral!!!

Some common sense will come in handy when reading such things!

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

Josh,

I have heard a lot of funny things, and that one about the Crusades is totally incredible! Like I said, I was a military historian before becoming Christian, and believe me, the simple explanation is better than the conspiracy theory cooked up by the anti-catholics looking to twist anything they can and give it as fact to unsuspecting people of good faith.

What sort of money would the Pope expect to get from the Crusades??? The Kings of France, England, and what we now call Germany were truly men who believed that they were trying to stop an invasion of Christendom. The call raised by the various Popes were directed at their duty to protect the special sites of worship for Christian and to keep the Saracen out of Europe. People wouldn't have gone across the continent to fight in an unknown land just to build a cathedral!!!

Some common sense will come in handy when reading such things!

Regards

Oops. I sincerely appologize. I botched that one and butchered that to pieces. : I pieced together two things from my memory which weren't related. I was watching a history documentary on the Catholic Church and it talked about the Church going to war during the crusades and later on near the end mentioned the method of raising funds for the Bassilica but they were unconnected. I think I somehow mixed up the crazy idea of connecting those two from what I've heard about the Templars finding treasure in Jerusalem and carrying back the spoils.

Nonetheless, I realizeD that I screwed up my reference when I double-checked myself in Craig Lampe's book and found what I had tried to refer to. I'll quote it so I don't botch it this time. You'll find its quite different then what I said. :

Quote:

Early in the sixteeenth century, on the Continent, Bishop Tetzel, the special envoy to both Julius and Leo, extracted enourmous sums of money from the parishes for the construction of St. Peter's Basilica by granting pardon for penances in Purgatory.

Tetzel was also an enemy of one of the reformers, perhaps Luther himself, if I remember correctly. This is another thing I have against penances. I know you said that they were given out of gratitude but what did the Church do with the money? And there actually is documentation which Craig Lampe has found which gives a penance price list which must be payed for certain transgressions. I can supply you with it if you are curious to see what he refers to.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

I sincerely appologize. I botched that one and butchered that to pieces. I pieced together two things from my memory which weren't related. I was watching a history documentary on the Catholic Church and it talked about the Church going to war during the crusades and later on near the end mentioned the method of raising funds for the Bassilica but they were unconnected.

No problem.

Tetzel was also an enemy of one of the reformers, perhaps Luther himself, if I remember correctly. This is another thing I have against penances. I know you said that they were given out of gratitude but what did the Church do with the money? And there actually is documentation which Craig Lampe has found which gives a penance price list which must be payed for certain transgressions. I can supply you with it if you are curious to see what he refers to.

I do not know if Luther and Tetzel personally were enemies, but I believe that Luther didn't care for Tetzel, who was a bishop of Mainz, I believe, because Luther perceived that Tetzel was abusing the practice of indulgences. I do not know if he actually was or not, but I know that the Church reformed itself as a result of this bishop... I remind you that one bad bishop does not determine the Church's teachings. And certainly, we shouldn't judge something based on the abuses of the teaching.

Penance is something that has been part of the People of God since before the Incarnation. For some people, that penance would include personal wealth. Giving money to the poor as alms is an indication that one is sorry and is trying to make amends. Remember the Gospel story of Zaccheus in Luke 19. He gave his wealth to SHOW he was sorry, not to earn it. It is very important to remember the order of things - God forgives us freely. We offer our sorrow and try to make amends for it proves we are really sorry.

Thus, the idea of penance is certainly within the realm of Scriptures and has been practiced for thousands of years.

Unfortanetly, this can be twisted, abused, and misunderstood.

Joe

By the way, thanks again for your attempt to defend a fellow Christian.

 

[cyberjosh]

I do not know if Luther and Tetzel personally were enemies, but I believe that Luther didn't care for Tetzel, who was a bishop of Mainz, I believe, because Luther perceived that Tetzel was abusing the practice of indulgences. I do not know if he actually was or not, but I know that the Church reformed itself as a result of this bishop... I remind you that one bad bishop does not determine the Church's teachings. And certainly, we shouldn't judge something based on the abuses of the teaching.

Penance is something that has been part of the People of God since before the Incarnation. For some people, that penance would include personal wealth. Giving money to the poor as alms is an indication that one is sorry and is trying to make amends. Remember the Gospel story of Zaccheus in Luke 19. He gave his wealth to SHOW he was sorry, not to earn it. It is very important to remember the order of things - God forgives us freely. We offer our sorrow and try to make amends for it proves we are really sorry.

Thus, the idea of penance is certainly within the realm of Scriptures and has been practiced for thousands of years.

Unfortanetly, this can be twisted, abused, and misunderstood.

Joe

Ah, interesting perspective. The articles I have read on penance were always refering to a more limited definition of what they called "paying for absolvtion of sins" (which I've heard of evidence for such a document calling for this existing), but you expand it to include alms and giving like was done at the temple, an offering of sorts. Perhaps the people who wrote what I've heard about penance were doing what you were talking about: focusing on a few people's perversion when they narrowed solely on the "paying for sins" aspect. The rest of the differences might have been terminology confusion. Has the Catholic Church ever called a collected offering (like protestant Churches before/after service) just "an offering" or has it always fallen under the term "penance"?

By the way, thanks again for your attempt to defend a fellow Christian.

No prob. Life is too short and too precious to hold grudges. Plus I am well aware of what the Bible says about useless and vain disputes.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

Perhaps the people who wrote what I've heard about penance were doing what you were talking about: focusing on a few people's perversion when they narrowed solely on the "paying for sins" aspect. The rest of the differences might have been terminology confusion. Has the Catholic Church ever called a collected offering (like protestant Churches before/after service) just "an offering" or has it always fallen under the term "penance"?

~Josh

I do not know the motives of those writers on penance and whether they were actively focusing on the perversion of a few people or if they were just ignorant of why Catholics do "x".

The offering that we make in Church is for the maintenance of the facilities or intermittent collections for various charities. They are given freely as part of our responsibility to look after our brethern who are less fortunate. They certainly do not earn heaven! Nor are they penance, per sec.

However, almsgiving CAN be penitential for the one who finds that he is overly attached to material things and his spiritual advisor/priest suggests that he give alms. Where the misunderstanding comes from is when the Confession and the Penance of giving money are interlaced so that the Penance seems to buy the forgiveness to the non-Catholic. This has never been a true teaching of the Church - but it certainly could be made to appear that way, and it certainly can be abused by a clergy man trying to build capital projects on the backs of ignorant laity. Again, this sort of thing is an abuse. That is why the Church has moved away from suggesting giving money as a penance and has moved to more spiritual penances, such as prayers and good works towards the person offended.

For example, if I go to Confession and confess that I have a problem with my boss, that I can't get along with him, the priest might suggest that for my penance, I would make an effort to be kind to my boss, even if the boss did something that offended me. The penance does not bring about forgiveness, that is done by God in the "booth" through the visible priest. However, as you might imagine, the penance is a means to grow spiritually by becoming more humble and obedient to others. This is an expression of sorrow and a desire to make amends, something that is displayed in the Bible, both OT and NT.

While the priest could suggest that I make some financial penance, it would have to be in context of my sinfulness - like if I confessed being greedy with my daughter. He might then suggest that I be looser with the pocket book. But again, the Church does this with the thought of conversion, not of buying forgiveness.

Unfortunately, penance can be abused. Thus, with the Counter-Reformation, the practice of indulgences and penances were refined and the abuses were curtailed as the Church made an effort to educate both the priests and the laity. MOST Catholic priests that I know give prayers to be said as the act of penance. I do not prefer it, I think action towards the offended would be more effective and humiliating. But it takes a special priest to be able to give this sort of penance to people based on the little knowledge he knows through the confession of that person.

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

Thanks Joe,

That does for me. You have given IMO a very fair look at it. I'll leave it at that.

P.S. I am working on replying to your other post in the debate thead. I also hope to be wrapping that up soon, so we can move on to our continued discussion of transsubstantiation. Would you be so kind as to PM me your e-mail address so I may send you the word document I spoke of?

 

[francisdesales]

Thanks Joe,

That does for me. You have given IMO a very fair look at it. I'll leave it at that.

P.S. I am working on replying to your other post in the debate thead. I also hope to be wrapping that up soon, so we can move on to our continued discussion of transsubstantiation. Would you be so kind as to PM me your e-mail address so I may send you the word document I spoke of?

Well, I prefer to debate theological issues rather than historical. History is in the eye of the beholder...It is very difficult to get "unbiased" history, so all one could do is present a logical case for one's point of view on the sequence and cause of events. Cause and effect in history are not always easily discernible.

Did Luther leave the Church or was he forced out? We will take two different views, no doubt. Thus, historical cause and effect are not the best things to debate. Just my past experience speaking.

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

Did Luther leave the Church or was he forced out? We will take two different views, no doubt.

Um, he left of his own will? I kind of sense you would agree here. Wait... is that a trick question? :P

Nonetheless, like I said I'm satisfied with how we've ended things so far.

P.S. Any response on whether you will PM me your e-mail?

 

[cyberjosh]

Oh, for some random comic relief I just reminded myself when I said "his own will" of a joke I heard from my pastor when we talked after service. He said a man who was in a theology class had to choose a group to be in for a debate. The class devided up into two groups: Calvinists and Arminians. The man was the only one who wasn't really sure which group he fit in so he finally just decides to go sit with the Calvinists. The Calvinist group looks at him and asks him, "How did you get over here in this group?" and the man goes, "Uh...I guess I just came of my own freewill." That got the Calvinists into an outrage and they said "There is no free will, get out of here and go to the other group!" So the poor confused man goes over to the Arminians side and they ask him the same question the Calvinists asked him, "How did you get over here in this group?" He goes, "I was sent." That got their goat and they said "You can't be sent, we believe in free will! So the poorman got kicked out of both groups.


LOL! That kills me everytime I think about it.

My Pastor said, "This is how I feel sometimes. I don't really fit in either group and neither group agrees with me." :D I feel his pain.

Hope you liked the joke.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

Um, he left of his own will? I kind of sense you would agree here. Wait... is that a trick question? :P

Nonetheless, like I said I'm satisfied with how we've ended things so far.

P.S. Any response on whether you will PM me your e-mail?

I have PM'ed you on my email address at work.

Joe