Is the Papacy a Legitimate Teaching of Scripture?

[Atonement]

Solo, I'm gonna have to ask you to please stop.. I'm sitting here trying to stay on top with the thread, you post something here and you get responses... However, instead of posting back to their response you are cutting and pasting more stuff and it does not answer the question(s) at hand.. Please stop.. Before you cut and paste... Make sure the previous cut and paste has been answered here by you. Or I will have no choice but to delete your post alone... This thread is jumping around and it's making me dizzy.

 

[stray bullet]

Popish immorality

Every day, 10 cases of sexual misconduct are filed against protestant church leaders.

This is just mudslinging that has nothing to do with what you disagree with the Church over.

 

[Veritas]

stay bullet wrote:

Every day, 10 cases of sexual misconduct are filed against protestant church leaders.

This is just mudslinging that has nothing to do with what you disagree with the Church over.

I don't think its right to condemn the Catholic denomination over this either. Condemn the action, yes. But no earthly church is going to be perfect, no christian will either. I grew up in a protestant church. The pastor there sexually abused young boys. At the same time, I know the man was a christian. There were, of course, consequences to his actions, and he knew that. He messed up, as I assume those from other denominations do as well.

Anyways, stray bullet, at least here is one protestant that considers you a brother in Christ.

God Bless

Solo, D46... God Bless you too. I hope Truth is found.

 

[Proximity]

This is an ugly topic...not just in the theology its self but the way you guys are going about this is going nowhere. IMHO it should be restarted, and avoid the use of cut and paste entirely. As atone said, it makes me dizzy trying to follow it. :-?

 

[stray bullet]

nm

 

[Solo]

Solo, I'm gonna have to ask you to please stop.. I'm sitting here trying to stay on top with the thread, you post something here and you get responses... However, instead of posting back to their response you are cutting and pasting more stuff and it does not answer the question(s) at hand.. Please stop.. Before you cut and paste... Make sure the previous cut and paste has been answered here by you. Or I will have no choice but to delete your post alone... This thread is jumping around and it's making me dizzy.

Please show me in the TOS where it is in violation to cut and paste pertinent documentation that has great information to those that are caught up in practices that are not scriptural, and in the articles they provide the scriptural backing. Also show me in the TOS where it is necessary to get into a heated conflict with those who stand by the false teachings of this accord. It is my position that the truth shall be proclaimed from the rooftops to save those that are under bondage.

Also, stray bullet has already posted an answer to previous posts, and his side of the story is there for all to see. I am not going to argue his immature posts calling the author a liar, and the points brought up as lies. You can, but I am not going to. I am only going to present the truth concerning the false teachings of the Church of Rome.

 

[Atonement]

Solo, it has nothing to do with your cut and paste. It's the fact that when you do it, you must give the members a chance to respond to it and have a conversation about it. What is happening here, you are posting yet another cut and paste job with out answering the previous one you you pasted? So everyone and I mean everyone, myself included, can not keep up. So then it turns the topic into a meaningless, usless cut and paste thread. Right when I think your about to answer someones question regarding your post, you yet post another one and are not answering the members. And that is a violation, it is considered trolling. And it interrupts the harmony on the thread. All I'm asking is before you cut and paste another post..... Make sure the previous one you posted was answered. Solo you could have made about two dozen different topics with the different stuff you have posted here. Where or how are we as members, Mods, and Admins suspose to follow this?

 

[Solo]

Solo, it has nothing to do with your cut and paste. It's the fact that when you do it, you must give the members a chance to respond to it and have a conversation about it. What is happening here, you are posting yet another cut and paste job with out answering the previous one you you pasted? So everyone and I mean everyone, myself included, can not keep up. So then it turns the topic into a meaningless, usless cut and paste thread. Right when I think your about to answer someones question regarding your post, you yet post another one and are not answering the members. And that is a violation, it is considered trolling. And it interrupts the harmony on the thread. All I'm asking is before you cut and paste another post..... Make sure the previous one you posted was answered. Solo you could have made about two dozen different topics with the different stuff you have posted here. Where or how are we as members, Mods, and Admins suspose to follow this?

Read fast, the time is short for some under bondage of the Roman Catholic Churches false teachings. I am reading on a Roman Catholic forum, and they are teaching their folks how to argue points against the Roman Catholic dogma. Each argument by the Roman Catholic group here are following this template perfectly.

Now back to the subject, I wait until a response is posted to the previous post, and note the respondents position. If the person ignores the majority of the post and comes up with ad hominem attacks toward the author and myself instead of debating the article, I move on. The information posted thus far shows the papacy as being more pagan in origination than it is scriptural. All of the articles discuss the position of the papacy and its origination as being the "True Church".

I believe that people who dislike reading articles such as these will forego them and continue on, while others will read with interest. No one forces anyone to read these articles. If I can read these articles with one good eye and reading glasses, insuring that the article is inline with forum TOS, make the article readable as originally place on websites with proper tagging, font size, italics, indentions, numbers, bold emphasis, etc., it would appear that reading the articles would be a doable thing.

 

[stray bullet]

[quot=solo]
Read fast, the time is short for some under bondage of the Roman Catholic Churches false teachings. I am reading on a Roman Catholic forum, and they are teaching their folks how to argue points against the Roman Catholic dogma. Each argument by the Roman Catholic group here are following this template perfectly. [/quote]

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you probably pull this same sort of "cut and paste alll my arguments" nonsense elsewhere?

You don't have an argument, we have nothing to counter. You just mudsling.

Just name something wrong with the Church in your own words.

 

[Atonement]

Wow.. I think I'm gonna go crash out. I read that response two times Solo LOL and I just don't get brother, it could be me.. I been up since 6:30am.. Had Sunday School, Church, and then a new member orientation, where I had to greet, and fellowship with new members of the Church. It's been a long day.. Good Night brother.. Remember your God Best!!

 

[Solo]

Wow.. I think I'm gonna go crash out. I read that response two times Solo LOL and I just don't get brother, it could be me.. I been up since 6:30am.. Had Sunday School, Church, and then a new member orientation, where I had to greet, and fellowship with new members of the Church. It's been a long day.. Good Night brother.. Remember your God Best!!

Good Night. Have a great night's sleep and read it again in the am.

God bless you and yours,
Michael

 

[stray bullet]

I am not going to argue his immature posts calling the author a liar, and the points brought up as lies. You can, but I am not going to. I am only going to present the truth concerning the false teachings of the Church of Rome.

That's because the author is a liar, and I proved it. That's not immature, that's calling point out something for what it is.

This is ironic coming from soneone who does nothing but call the Catholic Church a bunch of liars. Are you admitting your arguments are immature as well for accusations of lying? Or is it mature when you do the same thing?

You post one single, rational, well-thought argument against the Chruch, using your own words, and I promise I give you a most polite, thoughtful, mature response to it.

 

[Solo]

Three more more posts concerning the Roman Catholic claims of the papacy being the head of the Church while Jesus is away; even though Jesus is not away, and His Spirit indwells every born again believer.

Forgeries and falsifications

Historically the cause of Romanism, particularly the primacy of the Roman bishop, was thrust forward and aided by false documents, purporting to come from antiquity.

1. The Clementine Recognitions, also known as the Forged Letter from Peter, were shamelessly used to push the papacy to its blasphemous heights. These were brought to Rome telling how Peter had ordained Clement and set him in his own chair as Bishop of Rome. It was to the effect that just as Peter was the chief of the apostles the Pope is the chief of all bishops.
   
   The forgery was shown to be such during the early Renaissance, when the discipline of textual criticism began to be developed. Until then it was accepted and honoured.
   [/*:m:26569]
2. Again The Isidorian Decretals played a good part in establishing the See of Rome, entrenching it in place. Among other things, the Decretals said: "The Church of Rome, by a unique privilege, has the right of opening and shutting the gates of heaven for whom she will."
   
   They represent the Pope as monarch ruling over the entire church. It was on this basis that Nicholas I laid out the strategy for the establishment of the papal monarchy (860).[/*:m:26569]

Roman Catholic scholarship today can do nothing but lay aside these documents as forgeries. All those who research church history cannot deny it.

But the harm has been done, and the sad result is still with us. The Vatican See, with all its pretensions, is exercising its dominion over a good portion of mankind. No longer does it use these forgeries in her defence (rather she misinterprets Scripture, especially Matthew 16; and claims Holy Tradition on its side).

I see no integrity and much less heavenly-mindedness in such strategies. When a whole constituency, and a huge one at that, does not come into the open and confess that her present eminence is due to falseness and lies, no Christian would want to join himself to her.

How can you pose as a teacher of the truth when your whole life-history is a blatant lie? A church, of any denomination, which is afraid of telling the truth and nothing but the truth (as she knows it), is not worth any allegiance. The Roman Catholic church may be enjoying success today, in numbers and influence, but we are duty-bound to judge such success as utterly worldly and even devilish, for in Satan "there is no truth." "He was a liar and murderer from the beginning."

Rome's true character comes into the open by her fruits, both in doctrine and anti-Christian practices.

Church Fathers falsified We will now consider the falsification of Cyprian, Augustine, the Sixth Canon of Nicea (325), along with the writings of the Greek Fathers.

1. Cyprian was a strong advocate of the monarchical bishop, basing the unity of the visible church on him. He understood that through a hierarchical organization the communion between the churches might be easier.
   
   No wonder, then, that his writings became the hunting ground for extrapolations to be inserted. The most notorious among them is that "Primacy is given to Peter." That it does not come from Cyprian is affirmed even by the foremost Romanist scholars, among them Archbishop Benson, who calls it "the grossest forgery in literature."
   [/*:m:26569]
2. Due to his influence during the Middle Ages, Augustine also was appealed to in favour of the papacy. But it is well-known that though in his day the Roman bishop had considerable influence, together with other metropolitan bishops (such as the one at Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Constantinople) in no sense was he considered primate.
   
   His now proverbial sentence, "Roma locuta est; causa finita est," is so tortured and taken out of its historical context that it is made to mean something far different from what Augustine meant (as happened with many of his other sayings, e.g. his stand and arguments against the Donatists were used to approve the physical persecution of all dissidents.)
   
   From Augustine's writings it is clear and indisputable that for all intents and purposes the Sacred Writings of the apostles and prophets were the infallible and final Judge in religious controversies. But having this stand, Augustine, as a bishop in communion with the rest of Christendom, did not hesitate to refer controversies to reputed judges, among them, the bishop of Rome.
   
   But his sentence, quoted above, come only after both the African and the Roman church had condemned Pelagianism. For Augustine the case was closed because there was enough concurrence and catholic unity on the issue.
   
   That he did not regard the Roman bishop and the highest authority in the church is patently evident in his relationship with Zosimus when the latter approved of Pelagianism: he opposed him, seeing that Zosimus was in error. It is totally unfair to take one sentence from such a great teacher and by it put to nought the weight of his voluminous writings.
   [/*:m:26569]
3. In attempting to establish order and pre-eminence within Christendom, the Council of Nicea mentioned several sees, among them Rome.
   
   A later synod convened in Sardica (343), in the interests of the then-budding pretensions of Rome, interpolated the following in the sixth canon of Nicea: "The Roman Church has always enjoyed the primacy." Nicea had said no such thing, as the Roman theologian Aloisious Vincenzi confessed in 1875.
   [/*:m:26569]
4. The Greek Fathers, especially Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria and Cyril of Jerusalem, were also made to say them that never entered their minds while they were living. Roman forgeries were produced to bolster all the more the Vatican jurisdiction, culminating in the writings of Aquinas who, in referring to the mangled writings of the Greek Fathers (without knowing about the interpolations), taught that the Pope is the first infallible teacher of the world, and that he is also absolute rule in the church.[/*:m:26569]

The conclusion is simple and strong: when someone has a poor case to defend, and does not have concrete and solid evidence in his favour, will do whatever comes to his hand to bolster up his position, even though he knows how far short he falls of his assumed authority. To build up and defend its undue authority, Rome resorted to blatant lies presented as the truth to blind its followers.

Her boasted unique authority is not even hinted at in the Scriptures; her only way was to pretend an antiquity and an authority coming down from the apostles themselves. Hence the falsifications.

In addition, in reading the ancient Fathers, we have to be careful and take them with a pinch of salt. If, as is the case, unprincipled scribes attempted to change the text of Scripture in their copying, then how much more the writings of men?

Retrieved from http://www.tecmalta.org/tft312.htm

 

[Solo]

Testimonies of Roman Catholic scholars

Dollinger was a 19th century historian within the Roman Catholic fold. As all historians worth their salt, who do their research and make every attempt to record the facts as they happened (though it is impossible not to interpret them), Dollinger could not resist but make some very significant observations about Romanism.

In his Declarations, p. 131, he said: "It is clear that the building stones with which the Vatican system has been raised were taken from a series of forgeries and fictions."

Lord Acton, a Roman Catholic scholar, wrote: "The passage from the Catholicism of the Fathers to that of the modern popes was accomplished by wilful falsehood; the whole structure of traditions....stand on a basis of fraud."

Cardinal Newman, raised within Anglicanism, later converted to Romanism, left it on record: "Unless one doctored all one's facts one should be thought a bad Catholic."

Such testimonies come from the highest levels of Romanism, from persons who know it as it is, but because of various other factors, have continued to identify themselves with Romanism. The frankness and sincerity (generally speaking) of their writings bear record to the fact that it is virtually impossible to hide history as it developed throughout the centuries. Much as one would like to erase the hideous practices of Romanism, from the rise of the papacy in the fifth century to recent times, with all its false pretentions and forgeries, it is seen to be a difficult task indeed. Someone said, "God cannot change history, but historians do."

Now these are men who have done their best, in the interest of their ecclesiastical affiliation, to re-interpret history to their best advantage, but after all was said and done, they found it unreasonable and perhaps even against their own conscience to "obliterate" the past.

Thus it is evident that the extravagances and abuses of Romanism, much as one desires to hush them down, are way too much to be consigned to silence. The rubble is too obvious to be all swept under the carpet.

Retrieved from http://www.tecmalta.org/tft313.htm

 

[Solo]

Telling arguments against Roman Catholicism
from the Epistle to the Hebrews

The Scripture, God’s truth, stands opposed to the apostasy known today as Roman Catholicism.

1. Romanism teaches that Christ instituted a priesthood within the church, as mediators, and in distinction from the Christian people. “Through that sacrament priests by the anointing of the Holy Spirit are signed with a special character and so are configured to Christ the priest in such a way that they are able to act in the person of Christ the head....They are consecrated in order to preach the Gospel and shepherd the faithful as well as to celebrate divine worship as true priests of the New Testament†(Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 1563,1564, italics in original). The Roman priest is alter Christus, another Christ in a real way, and ministers on his behalf by offering a propitiatory sacrifice (the Mass).
   
   This fable is exploded by the whole tenor of Hebrews, where Christ is presented as the true and eternal priest who by Himself fulfils His task in presenting a propitiatory sacrifice to God, effective and applied to believers. The contrast between the old order of things and the new as inaugurated by the appearance of Christ is very telling: “And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood†(Hebrews 7:23-24). The word ‘unchangeable’ can also be translated ‘intransmissible,’ that is, it need be and cannot be transferred to someone else. While all believers are priests in virtue of their access to God and in offering the sacrifice of praise, thanksgiving and well-doing to God, they are in no sense propitiating priests. Leaders in the church as described by various terms but never by the term ‘priest’.
   [/*:m:965b0]
2. Rome give no assurance of final and complete forgiveness, and indeed in the Mass it is claimed that Christ’s sacrifice is re-enacted and re-presented, to make Calvary relevant and applicable for the faithful. Christ’s sacrifice is carried on and perpetuated on Rome’s altars, as it is blasphemously claimed. Hebrews presents a totally different picture. Christ’s sacrifice is ephapax, once for all, non-repeatable. It accomplished what it meant to accomplish, the redemption of God’s people, and therefore makes no sense to have it re-enacted and perpetuated. "And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin" (Hebrews 10:17,18).
   [/*:m:965b0]
3. Rome introduced a fictitious place in the after-life where departed souls undergo purification for their sins, before they are able to enter heaven. Historically this place is called purgatory, that is, a place of cleansing or purification. Since Rome teaches a system of salvation by faith and works, mixing grace with human merit, purgatory fits in nicely.
   
   But not according to the author of Hebrews! In his epistle we are given a glorious account of Christ’s finished sacrifice, leaving us in no doubt as to the state of believers in so far as their sins are concerned: “When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high†(1:3). The believer is not only justified by also sanctified by Christ’s righteousness: “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified†(10:14). According to Hebrews, we already enjoy forgivenes and are called “holy brethren.â€Â[/*:m:965b0]

Retrieved from http://www.tecmalta.org/tft314.htm

 

[francisdesales]

Telling arguments against Roman Catholicism
from the Epistle to the Hebrews

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Priest:


"This word (etymologically "elder", from presbyteros, presbyter) has taken the meaning of "sacerdos", from which no substantive has been formed in various modern languages (English, French, German). The priest is the minister of Divine worship, and especially of the highest act of worship, sacrifice. In this sense, every religion has its priests, exercising more or less exalted sacerdotal functions as intermediaries between man and the Divinity (cf. Heb., v, 1: "for every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins"). In various ages and countries we find numerous and important differences: the priest properly so called may be assisted by inferior ministers of many kinds; he may belong to a special class or caste, to a clergy, or else may be like other citizens except in what concerns his sacerdotal functions; he may be a member of a hierarchy, or, on the contrary, may exercise an independent priesthood (e.g. Melchisedech, Hebrews 7:1-33); lastly, the methods of recruiting the ministers of worship, the rites by which they receive their powers, the authority that establishes them, may all differ. But, amid all these accidental differences, one fundamental idea is common to all religions: the priest is the person authoritatively appointed to do homage to God in the name of society, even the primitive society of the family (cf. Job 1:5), and to offer Him sacrifice (in the broad, but especially in the strict sense of the word). Omitting further discussion of the general idea of the priesthood, and neglecting all reference to pagan worship, we may call attention to the organization among the people of God of a Divine service with ministers properly so-called: the priests, the inferior clergy, the Levites, and at their head the high-priest. We know the detailed regulations contained in Leviticus as to the different sacrifices offered to God in the Temple at Jerusalem, and the character and duty of the priests and Levites. Their ranks were recruited, in virtue not of the free choice of individuals, but of descent in the tribe of Levi (especially the family of Aaron), which had been called by God to His ritual service to the exclusion of all others. The elders (presbyteroi) formed a kind of council, but had no sacerdotal power; it was they who took counsel with the chief priests to capture Jesus (Matthew 26:3). It is this name presbyter (elder) which has passed into the Christian speech to signify the minister of Divine service, the priest.

The Christian law also has necessarily its priesthood to carry out the Divine service, the principal act of which is the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the figure and renewal of that of Calvary. This priesthood has two degrees: the first, total and complete, the second an incomplete participation of the first. The first belongs to the bishop. The bishop is truly a priest (sacerdos), and even a high-priest; he has chief control of the Divine worship (sacrorum antistes), is the president of liturgical meetings; he has the fullness of the priesthood, and administers all the sacraments. The second degree belongs to the priest (presbyter), who is also a sacerdos, but of the second rank ("secundi sacerdotes" Innocent I ad Eugub.); by his priestly ordination he receives the power to offer sacrifice (i.e. to celebrate the Eucharist), to forgive sins, to bless, to preach, to sanctify, and in a word to fulfil the non-reserved liturgical duties or priestly functions. In the exercise of these functions, however, he is subject to the authority of the bishop to whom he has promised canonical obedience; in certain cases even he requires not only authorization, but real jurisdiction, particularly to forgive sins and to take care of souls. Moreover, certain acts of the sacerdotal power, affecting the society of which the bishop is the head, are reserved to the latter -- e.g. confirmation, the final rite of Christian initiation, ordination, by which the ranks of the clergy are recruited, and the solemn consecration of new temples to God. Sacerdotal powers are conferred on priests by priestly ordination, and it is this ordination which puts them in the highest rank of the hierarchy after the bishop.

As the word sacerdos was applicable to both bishops and priests, and one became a presbyter only by sacerdotal ordination, the word presbyter soon lost its primitive meaning of "ancient" and was applied only to the minister of worship and of the sacrifice (hence our priest). Originally, however, the presbyteri were the members of the high council which, under the presidency of the bishop, administered the affairs of the local church. Doubtless in general these members entered the presbyterate only by the imposition of hands which made them priests; however, that there could be, and actually were presbyteri who were not priests, is seen from canons 43-47 of Hippolytus (cf. Duchesne, "Origines du culte chretien", append.), which show that some of those who had confessed the Faith before the tribunals were admitted into the presbyterium without ordination. These exceptions were, however, merely isolated instances, and from time immemorial ordination has been the sole manner of recruiting the presbyteral order. The documents of antiquity show us the priests as the permanent council, the auxiliaries of the bishop, whom they surround and aid in the solemn functions of Divine Worship. When the bishop is absent, he is replaced by a priest, who presides in his name over the liturgical assembly. The priests replace him especially in the different parts of the diocese, where they are stationed by him; here they provide for the Divine Service, as the bishop does in the episcopal city, except that certain functions are reserved to the latter, and the others are performed with less liturgical solemnity. As the churches multiplied in the country and towns, the priests served them with a permanent title, becoming rectors or titulars. Thus, the bond uniting such priests to the cathedral church gradually became weaker, whereas it grew stronger in the case of those who served in the cathedral with the bishop (i.e. the canons); at the same time the lower clergy tended to decrease in number, inasmuch as the clerics passed through the inferior orders only to arrive at the sacerdotal ordination, which was indispensable for the administration of the churches and the exercise of a useful ministry among the faithful. Hence ordinarily the priest was not isolated, but was regularly attached to a definite church or connected with a cathedral. Accordingly, the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, cap. xvi, renewing canon vi of Chalcedon) desires bishops not to ordain any clerics but those necessary or useful to the church or ecclesiastical establishment to which they are to be attached and which they are to serve.

The nature of this service depends especially on the nature of the benefice, office, or function assigned to the priest; the Council in particular desires (cap. xiv) priests to celebrate Mass at least on Sundays and holydays, while those who are charged with the care of souls are to celebrate as often as their office demands.

Consequently, it is not easy to say in a way applicable to all cases what are the duties and rights of a priest; both vary considerably in individual cases. By his ordination a priest is invested with powers rather than with rights, the exercise of these powers (to celebrate Mass, remit sins, preach, administer the sacraments, direct and minister to the Christian people) being regulated by the common laws of the church, the jurisdiction of the bishop, and the office or charge of each priest. The exercise of the sacerdotal powers is both a duty and a right for priests having the care of souls, either in their own name (e.g. parish priests) or as auxiliaries (e.g. parochial curates). Except in the matter of the care of souls the sacerdotal functions are likewise obligatory in the case of priests having any benefice or office in a church (e.g. canons); otherwise they are optional, and their exercise depends upon the favour of the bishop (e.g. the permission to hear confessions or to preach granted to simple priests or to priests from outside the diocese). As for the case of a priest who is entirely free, moralists limit his obligations, as far as the exercise of his sacerdotal powers is concerned, to the celebration of Mass several times a year (St. Alphonsus Liguori, l. VI, no. 313) and to the administration of the sacraments in case of necessity, in addition to fulfilling certain other obligations not strictly sacerdotal (e.g. the Breviary, celibacy). But canonical writers, not considering such a condition regular, hold that the bishop is obliged in this case to attach such a priest to a church and impose some duty on him, even if it be only an obligatory attendance at solemn functions and processions (Innocent XIII, Constitution "Apostolici ministerii", 23 March, 1723; Benedict XIII, Const. "In supremo", 23 Sept., 1724; Roman Council of 1725, tit. vi, c. ii).

As to the material situation of the priest, his rights are clearly laid down by canon law, which varies considerably with the actual condition of the Church in different countries. As a matter of principle, each cleric ought to have from his ordination to the sub-diaconate a benefice, the revenues of which ensure him a respectable living and, if he is ordained with a title of patrimony (i.e. the possession of independent means sufficient to provide a decent livelihood), he has the right to receive a benefice as soon as possible. Practically the question seldom arises in the case of priests, for clerics are ordinarily ordained with the title of ecclesiastical service, and they cannot usefully fill a remunerated post unless they are priests. Each priest ordained with the title of ecclesiastical service has therefore the right to ask of his bishop, and the bishop is under an obligation to assign him, a benefice or ecclesiastical office which will ensure him a respectable living; in this office the priest has therefore the right to collect the emoluments attached to his ministry, including the offerings which a legitimate custom allows him to receive or even demand on the occasion of certain definite functions (stipends for Masses, curial rights for burial, etc.). Even when old or infirm, a priest who has not rendered himself unworthy and who is unable to fulfil his ministry remains a charge on his bishop, unless other arrangements have been made. It is thus apparent that the rights and duties of a priest are, in the concrete reality, conditioned by his situation"

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm

To anyone reading Solo's cut and paste, here's to equal air time...

To Atonement, I appreciate your efforts to curtail Solo's cut and paste jobs, not giving us really a chance to respond. Basically, I prefer to discuss the issues using our own brains. But as long as he posts as such, I think equal air time is appropriate. I don't see how it is possible to respond to all the issues that he cuts and pastes in a timely manner.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

The Counterfeit Church

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Priesthood:

"III. THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD
In the New Testament bishops and priests are, according to Catholic teaching, the sole bearers of the priesthood, the former enjoying the fullness of the priesthood (summus sacerdos s. primi ordinis), while the presbyters are simple priests (simplex sacerdos s. secundi ordinis). The deacon, on the other hand, is a mere attendant of the priest, with no priestly powers. Omitting all special treatment of the bishop and the deacon, we here confine our attention primarily to the presbyterate, since the term "priest" without qualification is now taken to signify the presbyter.

A. The Divine Institution of the Priesthood

According to the Protestant view, there was in the primitive Christian Church no essential distinction between laity and clergy, no hierarchical differentiation of the orders (bishop, priest, deacon), no recognition of pope and bishops as the possessors of the highest power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church or over its several territorial divisions. On the contrary, the Church had at first a democratic constitution, in virtue of which the local churches selected their own heads and ministers, and imparted to these their inherent spiritual authority, just as in the modern republic the "sovereign people" confers upon its elected president and his officials administrative authority. The deeper foundation for this transmission of power is to be sought in the primitive Christian idea of the universal priesthood, which excludes the recognition of a special priesthood. Christ is the sole high-priest of the New Testament, just as His bloody death on the Cross is the sole sacrifice of Christianity. If all Christians without exception are priests in virtue of their baptism, an official priesthood obtained by special ordination is just as inadmissible as the Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass. Not the material sacrifice of the Eucharist, consisting in the offering of (real) gifts, but only the purely spiritual sacrifice of prayer harmonizes with the spirit of Christianity. One is indeed forced to admit that the gradual corruption of Christianity began very early (end of first century), since it cannot be denied that Clement of Rome (Ep. ad Cor., xliv, 4), the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Didache, xiv), and Tertullian (De bapt., xvii; "De præsc. hær.", xli; "De exhort. cast.", vii) recognize an official priesthood with the objective Sacrifice of the Mass. The corruption quickly spread throughout the whole East and West, and persisted unchecked during the Middle Ages, until the Reformation finally succeeded in restoring to Christianity its original purity. Then "the idea of the universal priesthood was revived; it appeared as the necessary consequence of the very nature of Christianity. . . . Since the whole idea of sacrifice was discarded, all danger of reversion to the beliefs once derived from it was removed" ("Realency cl. für prot. Theol.", XVI, Leipzig, 1905, p. 50).

To these views we may answer briefly as follows. Catholic theologians do not deny that the double "hierarchy of order and jurisdiction" gradually developed from the germ already existing in the primitive Church, just as the primacy of the pope of Rome and especially the distinction of simple priests from the bishops was recognized with increasing clearness as time advanced (see HIERARCHY). But the question whether there was at the beginning a special priesthood in the Church is altogether distinct. If it is true that "the reception of the idea of sacrifice led to the idea of the ecclesiastical priesthood" (loc. cit., p. 48), and that priesthood and sacrifice are reciprocal terms, then the proof of the Divine origin of the Catholic priesthood must be regarded as established, once it is shown that the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass is coeval with the beginnings and the essence of Christianity. In proof of this we may appeal even to the Old Testament. When the Prophet Isaias foresees the entrance of pagans into the Messianic Kingdom, he makes the calling of priests from the heathen (i.e. the non-Jews) a special characteristic of the new Church (Isaiah 66:21): "And I will take of them to be priests and Levites, saith the Lord". Now this non-Jewish (Christian) priesthood in the future Messianic Church presupposes a permanent sacrifice, namely that "clean oblation", which from the rising of the sun even to the going down is to be offered to the Lord of hosts among the Gentiles (Malachi 1:11). The sacrifice of bread and wine offered by Melchisedech (cf. Genesis 14:18 sqq.), the prototype of Christ (cf. Psalm 109:4; Hebrews 5:5 sq.; 7:1 sqq.), also refers prophetically, not only to the Last Supper, but also to its everlasting repetition in commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross (see MASS). Rightly, therefore, does the Council of Trent emphasize the intimate connection between the Sacrifice of the Mass and the priesthood (Sess. XXIII, cap. i, in Denzinger, "Enchiridion", 10th ed., 957): "Sacrifice and priesthood are by Divine ordinance so inseparable that they are found together under all laws. Since therefore in the New Testament the Catholic Church has received from the Lord's institution the holy visible sacrifice of the Eucharist it must also be admitted that in the Church there is a new, visible and external priesthood into which the older priesthood has been changed." Surely this logic admits of no reply. It is, then, all the more extraordinary that Harnack should seek the origin of the hierarchical constitution of the Church, not in Palestine, but in pagan Rome. Of the Catholic Church he writes: "She continues ever to govern the peoples; her popes lord it like Trajan and Marcus Aurelius. To Romulus and Remus succeeded Peter and Paul; to the proconsuls the archbishops and bishops. To the legions correspond the hosts of priests and monks; to the imperial bodyguard the Jesuits. Even to the finest details, even to her judicial organization, nay even to her very vestments, the continued influence of the ancient empire and of its institutions may be traced" ("Das Wesen d. Christentums", Leipzig, 1902, p. 157). With the best of good will, we can recognize in this description only a sample of the writer's ingenuity, for an historical investigation of the cited institutions would undoubtedly lead to sources, beginnings, and motives entirely different from the analogous conditions of the Empire of Rome.

But the Sacrifice of the Mass indicates only one side of the priesthood; the other side is revealed in the power of forgiving sin, for the exercise of which the priesthood is just as necessary as it is for the power of consecrating and sacrificing. Like the general power to bind and to loose (cf. Matthew 16:19; 18:18), the power of remitting and retaining sins was solemnly bestowed on the Church by Christ (cf. John 20:21 sqq.). Accordingly, the Catholic priesthood has the indisputable right to trace its origin in this respect also to the Divine Founder of the Church. Both sides of the priesthood were brought into prominence by the Council of Trent (loc. cit., n. 961): "If any one shall say that in the New Testament there is no visible and external priesthood nor any power of consecrating and offering the Body and Blood of the Lord, as well as of remitting and retaining sins, but merely the office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel, let him be anathema." Far from being an "unjustifiable usurpation of Divine powers", the priesthood forms so indispensable a foundation of Christianity that its removal would entail the destruction of the whole edifice. A Christianity without a priesthood cannot be the Church of Christ. This conviction is strengthened by consideration of the psychological impossibility of the Protestant assumption that from the end of the first century onward, Christendom tolerated without struggle or protest the unprecedented usurpation of the priests, who without credentials or testimony suddenly arrogated Divine powers with respect to the Eucharist, and, on the strength of a fictitious appeal to Christ, laid on baptized sinners the grievous burden of public penance as an indispensable condition of the forgiveness of sin.

As for the "universal priesthood", on which Protestantism relies in its denial of the special priesthood, it may be said that Catholics also believe in a universal priesthood; this, however, by no means excludes a special priesthood but rather presupposes its existence, since the two are related as the general and the particular, the abstract and the concrete, the figurative and the real. The ordinary Christian cannot be a priest in the strict sense, for he can offer, not a real sacrifice, but only the figurative sacrifice of prayer. For this reason the historical dogmatic development did not and could not follow the course it would have followed if in the primitive Church two opposing trains of thought (i.e. the universal versus the special priesthood) had contended for supremacy until one was vanquished. The history of dogma attests, on the contrary, that both ideas advanced harmoniously through the centuries, and have never disappeared from the Catholic mind. As a matter of fact the profound and beautiful idea of the universal priesthood may be traced from Justin Martyr (Dial. cum Tryph., cxvi), Irenæus, (Adv. hær., IV, viii, 3), and Origen ("De orat.", xxviii, 9; "In Levit.", hom. ix, 1), to Augustine (De civit. Dei, XX, x) and Leo the Great (Sermo, iv, 1), and thence to St. Thomas (Summa, III, Q. lxxxii, a. 1) and the Roman Catechism. And yet all these writers recognized, along with the Sacrifice of the Mass, the special priesthood in the Church. The origin of the universal priesthood extends back, as is known, to St. Peter, who declares the faithful, in their character of Christians, "a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices", and "a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood" (1 Peter 2:5, 9). But the very text shows that the Apostle meant only a figurative priesthood, since the "spiritual sacrifices" signify prayer and the term "royal" (regale, basileion) could have had but a metaphorical sense for the Christians. The Gnostics, Montanists, and Catharists, who, in their attacks on the special priesthood, had misapplied the metaphor, were just as illogical as the Reformers, since the two ideas, real and figurative priesthood, are quite compatible. It is clear from the foregoing that the Catholic clergy alone are entitled to the designation "priest", since they alone have a true and real sacrifice to offer, the Holy Mass. Consequently, Anglicans who reject the Sacrifice of the Mass are inconsistent, when they refer to their clergy as "priests". The preachers in Germany quite logically disclaim the title with a certain indignation."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12409a.htm

Now Solo, I expect a full refutation in the next 3 minutes before I post again...

 

[francisdesales]

the counterfeit church

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Priesthood:


C. The Sacramentality of the Presbyterate

The Council of Trent decreed (Sess. XXIII, can. iii, in Denzinger, n. 963): "If any one shall say that order or sacred ordination is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ our Lord. . .let him be anathema." While the synod defined only the existence of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, without deciding whether all the orders or only some fall within the definition, it is admitted that the priestly ordination possesses with even greater certainty than the episcopal and the diaconal ordination the dignity of a sacrament (cf. Benedict XIV, "De syn. dioces.", VIII, ix, 2). The three essentials of a sacrament--outward sign, interior grace, and institution by Christ--are found in the priestly ordination.

As regards the outward sign, there has been a long-protracted controversy among theologians concerning the matter and form, not alone of the priestly ordination, but of the Sacrament of Holy Orders in general. Is the imposition of hands alone (Bonaventure, Morin, and most modern theologians), or the presentation of the instruments (Gregory of Valencia, the Thomists), or are both together (Bellarmine, De Lugo, Billot etc.) to be regarded as the essential matter of the sacrament? As to the priestly ordination in particular, which alone concerns us here, the difference of views is explained by the fact that, in addition to three impositions of hands, the rite includes a presentation to the candidate of the chalice filled with wine, and of the paten with the host. Concerning the latter Eugenius IV says expressly in his "Decretum pro Armenis" (1439; in Denzinger, n. 701): "The priesthood is conferred by the handing of the chalice containing wine and of the paten with bread." However, in view of the fact that in the Bible (Acts 13:3; 14:22; 1 Timothy 4:14; 5:22; 2 Timothy 1:6), in all patristic literature, and in the whole East the imposition of hands alone is found, while even in the West the presentation of the sacred vessels does not extend back beyond the tenth century, we are forced to recognize theoretically that the latter ceremony is unessential, like the solemn anointing of the priest's hands, which is evidently borrowed from the Old Testament and was introduced from the Gallican into the Roman Rite (cf. "Statuta ecclesiæ antiquæ" in P.L., LVI, 879 sqq.). In defence of the anointing, the Council of Trent condemned those who declared it "despicable and pernicious" (Sess. XXXIII, can. v). As regards the sacramental form, it may be accepted as probable that the prayer accompanying the second extension of hands (cheirotonia) is the essential form, although it is not impossible that the words spoken by the bishop during the third imposition of hands (cheirothesia): "Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall remit, they are remitted, etc.", constitute a partial form. The first imposition of hands by the bishop (and the priests) cannot be regarded as the form, since it is performed in silence, but it also may have an essential importance in so far as the second extension of hands is simply the moral continuation of the first touching of the head of the ordinandus (cf. Gregory IX, "Decret.", I, tit. xvi, cap. III). The oldest formularies--e.g. the "Euchologium" of Serapion of Thmuis (cf. Funk, "Didascalia", II, Tübingen, 1905, 189), the "Pseudo-Apostolic Constitutions" (Funk, loc. cit., I, 520), the lately discovered "Testament of the Lord" (ed. Rahmani, Mainz, 1899, p. 68), and the Canons of Hippolytus (ed. Achelis, Leipzig, 1891, p. 61)--contain only one imposition of hands with a short accompanying prayer. In the eleventh century the Mozarabic Rite is still quite simple (cf. "Monum. liturg.", V, Paris, 1904, pp. 54 sq.), while, on the contrary, the Armenian Rite of the Middle Ages shows great complexity (cf. Conybeare-Maclean, "Rituale Armenorum", Oxford, 1905, pp. 231 sqq.). In the Greek-Byzantine Rite, the bishop, after making three signs of the cross, places his right hand on the head of the ordinandus, meanwhile reciting a prayer, and then, praying in secret, holds the same hand extended above the candidate, and invokes upon him the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost (cf. Goar, "Euchol. Græc.", Paris, 1647, pp. 292 sqq.). For other formularies of ordination see Denzinger, "Ritus Orientalium", II (Würzburg, 1864); Manser in Buchberger, "Kirchliches Handlexikon", s.v. Priesterweihe.

As a sacrament of the living, ordination presupposes the possession of sanctifying grace, and therefore confers, besides the right to the actual graces of the priestly office, an increase of sanctifying grace (cf. "Decret. pro Armenis" in Denzinger, n. 701). But in all cases, whether the candidate is in the state of sanctifying grace or not, the sacrament imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual mark (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. VII, can. ix, in Denzinger, n. 852), i.e. the priestly character, to which are permanently attached the powers of consecrating and absolving--the latter, however, with the reservation that for the valid administration of the Sacrament of Penance the power of jurisdiction is also required (see CHARACTER). As the priestly character, like that imparted by baptism and confirmation, is indelible, ordination can never be repeated, and a return to the lay state is absolutely impossible (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, can. iv, in Denzinger, n. 964). That priestly ordination was instituted by Christ is proved not alone by the Divine institution of the priesthood (see above, A), but also by the testimony of Holy Writ and Tradition, which unanimously testify that the Apostles transmitted their powers to their successors, who in turn transmitted them to the succeeding generation (cf. 1 Timothy 5:22). Since the charismatic gifts of the "apostles and prophets" mentioned in the "Didache" had nothing to do with the priesthood as such, these itinerant missionaries still needed the imposition of hands to empower them to discharge the specifically priestly functions (see CHARISMATA).

For the valid reception of the Sacrament of Orders, it is necessary that the minister be a bishop and the recipient a baptized person of the male sex. The first requisite is based on the episcopal prerogative of ordaining; the second on the conviction that baptism opens the door to all the other sacraments and that women are definitively barred from the service of the altar (cf. Epiphanius, "De hær.", lxxix, 2). St. Paul is a resolute champion of an exclusively male priesthood (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:34). In this respect there is an essential difference between Christianity and Paganism, since the latter recognizes priestesses as well as priests--e.g. the hierodules of Ancient Greece, the vestal virgins of Rome, the bajaders of India, the wu of China, and the female bonzes of Japan. The early Church condemned as an absurdity the female priesthood of Montanism and of the Collyridiani, and it never regarded the Apostolic institute of deaconesses as a branch of Holy orders. For the licit reception of priestly ordination, canon law demands: freedom from every irregularity, completion of the twenty-fourth year, the reception of the earlier orders (including the diaconate), the observation of the regular interstices, and the possession of a title to ordination.

In addition to the requisites for the valid and lawful reception of the priesthood the question arises as to the personal worthiness of the candidate. According to earlier canon law this question was settled by three ballots (scrutinia); it is now decided by official examination and certification. One of the most important means of securing worthy candidates for the priesthood is careful inquiry regarding vocations. Intruders in the sanctuary have at all times been the occasion of the greatest injury to the Church, and of scandal to the people. For this reason, Pope Pius X, with even greater strictness than was shown in previous ecclesiastical regulations, insists upon the exclusion of all candidates who do not give the highest promise of a life conspicuous for firmness of faith and moral rectitude. In this connection the importance and necessity of colleges and ecclesiastical seminaries for the training of the clergy cannot be too strongly emphasized.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12409a.htm

 

[francisdesales]

Telling arguments against Roman Catholicism

IV. WHAT THE CATHOLIC PRIESTHOOD HAS DONE FOR CIVILIZATION
Passing entirely over the supernatural blessings derived by mankind from the prayers of the priesthood, the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice, and the administration of the sacraments, we shall confine ourselves to the secular civilization, which, through the Catholic priesthood, has spread to all nations and brought into full bloom religion, morality, science, art, and industry. If religion in general is the mother of all culture, Christianity must be acknowledged as the source, measure, and nursery of all true civilization. The Church, the oldest and most successful teacher of mankind, has in each century done pioneer service in all departments of culture. Through her organs, the priests and especially the members of the religious orders, she carried the light of Faith to all lands, banished the darkness of paganism, and with the Gospel brought the blessings of Christian morality and education. What would have become of the countries about the Mediterranean during the epoch of the migration of the nations (from 375) if the popes, bishops, and clergy had not tamed the German hordes, converted them from Arianism to Catholicism, and out of barbarism evolved order? What Ireland owes to St. Patrick, England owes to St. Augustine, who, sent by Pope Gregory the Great, brought not only the Gospel, but also a higher morality and culture. While the light of Christianity thus burned brightly in Ireland and Britain, part of Germany was still shrouded in the darkness of paganism. Bands of missionaries from the Island of Saints now brought to the continent the message of salvation and established new centres of culture. Charlemagne's great work of uniting all the German tribes into an empire was only the glorious fruit of the seed sown by St. Boniface of Certon (d. 755) on German soil and watered with the blood of martyrs. The Church of the Middle Ages, having now attained to power, continued through her priests to propagate the Gospel in pagan lands. It was missionaries who first brought to Europe news of the existence of China. In 1246 three Franciscans, commissioned by the pope, appeared in audience before the emperor of the Mongols; in 1306 the first Christian church was built in Peking. From the Volga to the Desert of Gobi, the Franciscans and Dominicans covered the land with their missionary stations. In the sixteenth century the zeal of the older orders was rivalled by the Jesuits, among whom St. Francis Xavier must be accorded a place of honour; their achievements in the Reductions of Paraguay are as incontestable as their great services in the United States. As for the French colonies in America, the American historian Bancroft declares that no notable city was founded, no river explored, no cape circumnavigated, without a Jesuit showing the way. Even if Buckle's one-sided statement were true, viz. that culture is not the result of religion, but vice versa, we could point to the work of Catholic missionaries, who are striving to lift the savages in pagan lands to a higher state of morality and civilization, and thence to transform them into decent Christians.

In the wake of religion follows her inseparable companion, morality; the combination of the two forms is the indispensable preliminary condition for the continuation and vitality of all higher civilization. The decadence of culture has always been heralded by a reign of unbelief and immorality, the fall of the Roman Empire and the French Revolution furnishing conspicuous examples. What the Church accomplished in the course of the centuries for the raising of the standard of morality, in the widest sense, by the inculcation of the Decalogue, that pillar of human society, by promulgating the commandment of love of God and one's neighbour, by preaching purity in single, married, and family life, by waging war upon superstition and evil customs, by the practice of the three counsels of voluntary poverty, obedience, and perfect purity, by holding out the "imitation of Christ" as the ideal of Christian perfection, the records of twenty centuries plainly declare. The history of the Church is at once the history of her charitable activity exercised through the priesthood. There have indeed been waves of degeneracy and immorality sweeping at times even to the papal throne, and resulting in the general corruption of the people, and in apostasy from the Church. The heroic struggle of Gregory VII (d. 1085) against the simony and incontinence of the clergy stands forth as a fact which restored to the stale-grown salt of the earth its earlier strength and flavour.

The most wretched and oppressed classes of humanity are the slaves, the poor, and the sick. Nothing is in such harsh contrast to the ideas of human personality and of Christian freedom as the slavery found in pagan lands. The efforts of the Church were at first directed towards depriving slavery of its most repulsive feature by emphasizing the equality and freedom of all children of God (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:21 sqq.; Philemon 16 sqq.), then towards ameliorating as far as possible the condition of slaves, and finally towards effecting the abolition of this unworthy bondage. The slowness of the movement for the abolition of slavery, which owed its final triumph over the African slave-traders to a crusade of Cardinal Lavigerie (d. 1892), is explained by the necessary consideration of the economic rights of the owners and the personal welfare of the slaves themselves, since a bold "proclamation of the rights of man" would simply have thrown millions of helpless slaves breadless into the streets. Emancipation carried with it the obligation of caring for the bodily needs of the freedmen, and, whenever the experiment was made, it was the clergy who undertook this burden. Special congregations, such as the Trinitarians and the Mercedarians, devoted themselves exculsively to the liberation and ransom of prisoners and slaves in pagan, and especially in Mohammedan lands. It was Christian compassion for the weakly and languishing Indians which suggested to the Spanish monk, Las Casas, the unfortunate idea of importing the strong negroes from Africa to work in the American mines. That his idea would develop into the scandalous traffic in the black race, which the history of the three succeeding centuries reveals, the noble monk never suspected (see SLAVERY).

As to the relief of the poor and sick, a single priest, St. Vincent de Paul (d. 1660), achieved more in all the branches of this work than many cities and states combined. The services of the clergy in general in the exercise of charity cannot here be touched upon (see CHARITY AND CHARITIES). It may however be noted that the famous School of Salerno, the first and most renowned, and for many centuries the only medical faculty in Europe, was founded by the Benedictines, who here laboured partly as practitioners of medicine, and partly to furnish a supply of skilled physicians for all Europe. Of recent pioneers in the domain of charity and social work may be mentioned the Irish "Apostle of Temperance", Father Theobald Matthew and the German "Father of Journeymen" (Gesellenvater), Kolping.

Intimately related with the morally good is the idea of the true and the beautiful, the object of science and art. At all times the Catholic clergy have shown themselves patrons of science and the arts, partly by their own achievements in these fields and partly by their encouragement and support of the work of others. That theology as a science should have found its home among the clergy was but to be expected. However, the whole range of education lay so exclusively in the hands of the priesthood during the Middle Ages, that the ecclesiastical distinction of clericus (cleric) and laicus (layman) developed into the social distinction of educated and ignorant. But for the monks and clerics the ancient classical literature would have been lost. A medieval proverb ran: "A monastery without a library is a castle without an armory." Hume, the philosopher and historian, says: "It is rare that the annals of so uncultivated a people as were the English as well as the other European nations, after the decline of Roman learning, have been transmitted to posterity so complete and with so little mixture of falsehood and fable. This advantage we owe entirely to the clergy of the Church of Rome, who, founding their authority on their superior knowledge, preserved the precious literature of antiquity from a total extinction" (Hume, "Hist. of England", ch. xxiii, Richard III). Among English historians Gildas the Wise, Venerable Bede, and Lingard form an illustrious triumvirate. The idea of scientific progress, first used by Vincent of Lerins with reference to theology and later transferred to the other sciences, is of purely Catholic origin. The modern maxim, "Education for all", is a saying first uttered by Innocent III. Before the foundation of the first universities, which also owed their existence to the popes, renowned cathedral schools and other scientific institutions laboured for the extension of secular knowldge. The father of German public education is Rhabanus Maurus. Of old centres of civilization we may mention among those of the first rank Canterbury, the Island of Iona, Malmesbury, and York in Great Britain; Paris, Orléans, Corbie, Cluny, Chartres, Toul, and Bec in France; Fulda, Reichenau, St. Gall, and Corvey in Germany. The attendance at these universities conducted by clergymen during the Middle Ages awakens one's astonishment: in 1340 the University of Oxford had no less than 30,000 students, and in 1538, when the German universities were almost deserted, about 20,000 students, according to Luther, flocked to Paris.

The elementary schools also, wherever they existed, were conducted by priests. Charlemagne had already issued the capitulary "Presbyteri per villas et vicos scholas habeant et cum summa charitate parvulos doceant", i.e. The priests shall have schools in the towns and hamlets and shall teach the children with the utmost devotion. The art of printing was received by the whole Church, from the lowest clergy to the pope, as a "holy art". Almost the whole book production of the fifteenth century aimed at satisfying the taste of the clergy for reading, which thus furthered the development of the book trade. Erasmus complained: "The booksellers declare that before the outbreak of the Reform they disposed of 3000 volumes more quickly than they now sell 600" (see Döllinger, "Die Reformation, ihre innere Entwickelung u. ihre Wirkungen", I, Ratisbon, 1851, p. 348. Early Humanism, strongly encouraged by Popes Nicholas V and Leo X, numbered among its enthusiastic supporters many Catholic clerics, such as Petrarch and Erasmus; the later Humanistic school, steeped in paganism, found among the Catholic priesthood, not encouragement, but to a great extent determined opposition. Spain's greatest writers in the seventeenth century were priests: Cervantes, Lope de Vega, Calderon, etc. At Oxford in the thirteenth century, by their skill in the natural sciences the Franciscans acquired celebrity and the Bishop Grosseteste exercised great influence. The friar, Roger Bacon (d. 1249), was famous for his scientific knowledge, as were also Gerbert of Rheims, afterwards Pope Silvester II, Albertus Magnus, Raymond Lully, and Vincent of Beauvais. Copernicus, canon of Thorn, is the founder of modern astronomy, in which even to the present day the Jesuits especially (e.g. Scheiner, Clavius, Secchi, Perry) have rendered important services. For the first geographical chart or map we are indebted to Fra Mauro of Venice (d. 1459). The Spanish Jesuit, Hervas y Panduro (d. 1809), is the father of comparative philology; the Carmelite, Paolino di san Bartolomeo, was the author of the first Sanskrit grammar (Rome, 1790). The foundation of historical criticism was laid by Cardinal Baronius (d. 1607), the monks of St. Maur, and the Bollandists. A study of the history of art would reveal a proportionately great number of the apostles of the beautiful in art among the Catholic clergy of all centuries. From the paintings in the catacombs to Fra Angelico and thence to the Beuron school we meet numerous priest, less indeed as practicing artists than as Mæcenases of art. The clergy have done much to justify what the celebrated sculptor Canova wrote to Napoleon I: "Art is under infinite obligations to religion, but to none so much as the Catholic religion."

The basis on which higher culture finds its secure foundation is material or economic culture, which, in spite of modern technics and machinery, rests utimately on labour. Without the labourer's energy, which consists in the power and the will to work, no culture whatever can prosper. But the Catholic priesthood more than any other professional body has praised in word and proved by deed the value and blessing of the labour required in agriculture, mining, and the handicrafts. The curse and disdain, which paganism poured on manual labour, were removed by Christianity. Even an Aristotle (Polit., III, iii) could anathematize manual labour as "philistine", the humbler occupations as "unworthy of a free man". To whom are we primarily indebted in Europe for the clearing away of the primitive forests, for schemes of drainage and irrigation, for the cultivation of new fruits and crops, for the building of roads and bridges, if not to the Catholic monks? In Eastern Europe the Basilians, in Western the Benedictines, and later the Cistercians and Trappists, laboured to bring the land under cultivation, and rendered vast districts free from fever and habitable. Mining and foundries also owe their development, and to some extent their origin, to the keen economic sense of the monasteries. To place the whole economic life of the nations on a scientific foundation, Catholic bishops and priests early laid the basis of the science of national economy--e.g. Duns Scotus (d. 1308), Nicholas Oresme, Bishop of Lisieux (d. 1382), St. Antoninus of Florence (d. 1459), and Gabriel Biel (d. 1495). The Church and clergy have therefore truly endeavoured to carry out in every sphere and in all centuries the programme which Leo XIII in his famous Encyclical "Immortale Dei" of 1 Nov., 1885, declared the ideal of the Catholic Church: "Imo inertiæ desidiæque inimica [Ecclesia] magnopere vult, ut hominum ingenia uberes ferant exercitatione et cultura fructus". The "flight from the world", with which they are so constantly reproached, or the "hostility to civilization", which we hear so often echoed by the ignorant, have never prevented the Church or her clergy from fulfilling their calling as a civilizing agency of the first order, and thus refuting all slanders with the logic of facts.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12409a.htm

Solo,

Can you see that this is truly an unfair way of conversing? By posting long clips of other works, how do you expect someone to respond? If you are truly interested in conversation, please type your own words to us rather than cutting and pasting books. I certainly am quite capable of posting tons of books and personal conversion stories to the internet - but this is a FORUM, not your own personal website...

Moderators,

I have made my point. I do not intend on filling this forum with numerous cut and pastes that basically duplicates the Catholic Encyclopedia. I ask that such posts by Solo be stopped. I have no qualms against using a cut and paste as a reference, but not for the sole purpose of taking up space as if amount of content meant correctness. Very soon, this will become "Solo's anti-Catholic site" rather than "Christian forums"

I have made my point and will stop copying the Catholic Encylopedia.

Regards

 

[Solo]

The Catholic Encyclopedia shows the inadequacy of the Roman Catholic False teachings. The articles that I have posted show the lacking of scriptural proofs in the dogma of the RCC teachings, and are written by one that has been in the RCC for many years.

I understand why you do not want the articles that I post presented to this forum; it is because the truth reveals the darkness that prevails in the Roman Catholic Church.