The Lord's Day

And without the Catholic Church there would be no Christianity, no New Testament. It is the Catholic church with all its faults that has been the steward of the life of Christ all down the ages, until Luther and the printing press.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:18
We know that
https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/18778/
https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19892/#post-352250
We're talking about the same church that arrested and executed people who had their own copies of the New Testament. Nowhere did Jesus tell Peter to start the Catholic church and pass that churches teachings through "earlthly" kings and rulers. He was not a fan of earthly a.k.a. rulers and teachings.

Yes, yes,... I have studied the Inquisition. Two of my family members were given a "fair" trial by the Nazis. One was put in "protective custody" for his own good. They spoke up against the Nazis. That's all they did. One was beat to death. The other was executed by firing squad. They had their "fair trials". Trying to make the Inquisition look like a phase is just like denying the Holocaust.
 
We're talking about the same church that arrested and executed people who had their own copies of the New Testament. Nowhere did Jesus tell Peter to start the Catholic church and pass that churches teachings through "earlthly" kings and rulers. He was not a fan of earthly a.k.a. rulers and teachings.
Christ told Peter His church would survive in spite of all that hell would do to try to destroy it. From without and within. I repeat that except for the Catholic church there would be no Christianity and no New Testament -- for all its faults and failings.
Yes, yes,... I have studied the Inquisition. Two of my family members were given a "fair" trial by the Nazis. One was put in "protective custody" for his own good. They spoke up against the Nazis. That's all they did. One was beat to death. The other was executed by firing squad. They had their "fair trials". Trying to make the Inquisition look like a phase is just like denying the Holocaust.
I am sorry for what Nazis did to your family. But the Nazis were not the Catholic church. In the history of the Catholic church, the inquisition was a phase*, and not defending it, although it was not what popular imagination makes it to be. But are you equating finding out the truth about the inquisition with being a holocaust denier?

I will not post the inquisition discussion links again, from post #159

*it came and went
(edited)
 
Last edited:
@moralorel
I understand at times there was a disgraceful submission of certain Catholic authorities to the Nazis, for whatever reason. Disgraceful. I'm not defending faults or mistakes by the Catholic church -- past or present. By human members. But the Catholic church was not responsible for the holocaust. That is a disgraceful allegation. I know you are angry, but please try to be just.
 
Last edited:
Catholic Church and Nazi Germany

"Popes Pius XI (1922–1939) and Pius XII (1939–1958) led the Catholic Church during the rise and fall of Nazi Germany. Around a third of Germans were Catholic in the 1930s, most of them lived in Southern Germany; Protestants dominated the north. The Catholic Church in Germany opposed the Nazi Party, and in the 1933 elections, the proportion of Catholics who voted for the Nazi Party was lower than the national average.

Nevertheless, the Catholic-aligned Centre Party voted for the Enabling Act of 1933, which gave Adolf Hitler additional domestic powers to suppress political opponents as Chancellor of Germany. President Paul Von Hindenburg continued to serve as Commander and Chief and he also continued to be responsible for the negotiation of international treaties until his death on 2 August 1934.

Hitler and several other key Nazis had been raised as Catholics but they became hostile to the Church in their adulthoods; Article 24 of the National Socialist Program called for conditional toleration of Christian denominations and the 1933 Reichskonkordat treaty with the Vatican guaranteed religious freedom for Catholics, but the Nazis sought to suppress the power of the Catholic Church in Germany. Catholic press, schools, and youth organizations were closed, property was confiscated, and about one-third of its clergy faced reprisals from authorities; Catholic lay leaders were among those murdered during the Night of the Long Knives.

During the rule of the regime, the Church frequently found itself in a difficult position. The Church hierarchy (in Germany) tried to work with the new government, but Pius XI's 1937 encyclical, Mit brennender Sorge, accused the government of hostility to the church. Catholics fought on both sides during the Second World War, and Hitler's invasion of predominantly-Catholic Poland ignited the conflict in 1939. In the Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany, as in the annexed regions of Slovenia and Austria, Nazi persecution of the church was intense; many Polish clergy were targeted for extermination.

Through his links to the German Resistance, Pope Pius XII warned the Allies about the planned Nazi invasion of the Low Countries in 1940. The Nazis gathered dissident priests that year in a dedicated barracks at Dachau, where 95 percent of its 2,720 inmates were Catholic (mostly Poles, with 411 Germans); over 1,000 priests died there. The expropriation of church properties surged after 1941. Although the Vatican (surrounded by Fascist Italy) was officially neutral during the war, it used diplomacy to aid victims and lobby for peace; Vatican Radio and other Catholic media spoke out against the atrocities.

Particular clerics stridently opposed Nazi crimes, as in Bishop Clemens August Graf von Galen's 1941 sermons in which he expressed his opposition to the regime and its euthanasia programs. Even so, Hitler biographer Alan Bullock wrote: "Neither the Catholic Church, nor the Evangelical Church ... as institutions, felt it possible to take up an attitude of open opposition to the regime". Mary Fulbrook wrote that when politics encroached on the church, Catholics were prepared to resist; the record was patchy and uneven, though, and (with notable exceptions) "it seems that, for many Germans, adherence to the Christian faith proved compatible with at least passive acquiescence in, if not active support for, the Nazi dictatorship".

However, even as the Church hierarchy attempted to tread delicately lest the Church itself be destroyed, actively resisting priests such as Heinrich Maier sometimes acted against the express instructions of his church superiors to found groups that, unlike others, sought actively to influence the course of the war in favor of the Allies.

According to Robert A. Krieg, "Catholic bishops, priests, and lay leaders had criticized National Socialism since its inception in the early 1920s", while The Sewanee Review remarked in 1934 that even "when the Hitler movement was still small and apparently insignificant, German Catholic ecclesiastics recognized its inherent threat to certain beliefs and principles of their Church".

Catholic sermons and newspapers vigorously denounced Nazism and accused it of espousing neopaganism, and Catholic priests forbade believers from joining the NSDAP. Waldemar Gurian noted that the upper Catholic bishops issued several condemnations of the NSDAP starting in 1930 and 1931, and describing the relations between the National Socialism and the Catholic Church, concluded that "though there has been no legal declaration of war, a war is nevertheless going on." Ludwig Maria Hugo was the first Catholic bishop to condemn membership in the Nazi party, and in 1931 Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber wrote that "the bishops as guardians of the true teachings of faith and morals must issue a warning about National Socialism, so long as and insofar as it maintains cultural-political views that are not reconcilable with Catholic doctrine."

Cardinal Faulhaber's outspoken criticism of National Socialism gained widespread attention and support from German Catholic churches, and Cardinal Adolf Bertram called German Catholics to oppose National Socialism in its entirety because it "stands in the most pointed contradiction to the fundamental truths of Christianity". According to the Sewanee Review, "Catholics were expressly forbidden to become registered members of the National Socialist party; disobedient Catholics were refused admission to the sacraments; groups in Nazi uniform and with Nazi banners were not admitted to church services". The condemnations of Nazism by Bertram and von Faulhaber reflected the views of most German Catholics, but many of them were also disillusioned with the institutions of the Weimar Republic.

Nazi anti-Semitism embraced pseudoscientific racial principles, but ancient antipathies between Christianity and Judaism also contributed to European antisemitism. Anti-Semitism was present in both German Protestantism and Catholicism, but "anti-Semitic acts and attitudes became relatively more frequent in Protestant areas relative to Catholic areas".

Even so, in every country under German occupation, priests played a major role in rescuing Jews. The church rescued thousands of Jews by issuing false documents to them, lobbying Axis officials, and hiding Jews in monasteries, convents, schools, the Vatican and the papal residence at Castel Gandolfo. Although Pius XII's role during this period was later contested, the Reich Security Main Office called him a "mouthpiece" for the Jews and in his first encyclical (Summi Pontificatus), he called the invasion of Poland an "hour of darkness". In his 1942 Christmas address, he denounced race murders, and in his 1943 encyclical Mystici corporis Christi, he denounced the murder of disabled people.

In the post-war period, false identification documents were given to many German war criminals by Catholic priests such as Alois Hudal, frequently facilitating their escape to South America. Both Protestant and Catholic clergy routinely provided Persilschein or "soap certificates" to former Nazis in order to remove the "Nazi taint"; but at no time was such aid an institutional effort. According to a Catholic historian Michael Hesemann, Vatican itself was outraged by such efforts, and Pope Pius XII demanded removal of involved clergy such as Hudal …"

Read full article from Wikipedia as reference for possible further study:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany
 
Last edited:
@moralorel
I understand at times there was a disgraceful submission of certain Catholic authorities to the Nazis, for whatever reason. Disgraceful. I'm not defending faults or mistakes by the Catholic church -- past or present. By human members. But the Catholic church was not responsible for the holocaust. That is a disgraceful allegation. I know you are angry, but please try to be just.
I'm not angry. I'm responding to the links you gave me showing how the Inquisition was inflated. In the shared threads, one of the points was that the Catholic church wanted fair trials for these accused. Well the church failed miserably. The Nazi party said the same thing about my family. They were getting a fair trial. I'm pointing out that excusing the evil committed by the Catholic church for their inquisitions is really not a good idea. I don't even want to get into the Catholic church's connections with the Nazis. We can leave that alone. Please. As much as I could point fingers at the church, I could defend it during that war. So let's not go there.

Hundreds of years of torture, theft, and murder. Try to tame that all you want. But call it what it is. It's awful.
 
Are you seriously trying to excuse the Catholic church for persecuting people of the awful crime of owning a Bible?
 
Are you seriously trying to excuse the Catholic church for persecuting people of the awful crime of owning a Bible?
No. I'm just saying that if not for the Catholic church FOR ALL ITS HUMAN FAULTS AND MISTAKES there would be no Christianity, no New Testament. It's not just to focus only on the faults of the Catholic church and ignore all the good
 
Are you seriously trying to excuse the Catholic church for persecuting people of the awful crime of owning a Bible?
Can you provide a reference? I'm not doubting you, but would like to see the details of how widespread and where this was
one of the points was that the Catholic church wanted fair trials for these accused.
The secular courts tried heretics for their own reasons. It was a civil offence, at the time. The Catholic courts were there to try to provide proper representation about heresy. I've repeatedly said that I am not defending the church role in historical events, but I am asking for a fair study of the facts.

Only Christians (Catholics) were subject to the inquisition because only Catholics could be heretical. Jews and Muslims were outside the scope of Christian heresy
 
Last edited:
3. Saying "The Bible says so" is just being lazy.
The way I see it, relying on 'unless the Bible says so' is is lazy.

I would argue the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25).

I corrected my error, but you haven't addressed the point. According to the Bible, executing offends, and be self-harming left, right and centre, because the Bible says so.

+++

As I have said, and shown, Jews, Christians and Muslims adhere to Scripture and Tradition, the two proceed hand-in-hand. Scripture holds the prior place, but then the Scripture was produced by the Tradition, so it can become quite an involved discussion.

I mean, the Hebrew Scriptures are just that – Scripture, but they are the product of the Tradition. Likewise, there was Christian Tradition before Paul or the earliest scribe sat down to write.

One could argue that only Islam is a Tradition where the Scripture came first – but they too observe the role of Tradition in the development of doctrine.
 
Last edited:
From another perspective, 'The Inquisition' was a much-needed innovation, a shaft of light in a dark world, which often challenged monarchs or the aristocracy who were acting in their own interests and using any and every means at their disposal – the inquisition was welcomed as a means of fair trial (in theological matters) in an age of everyday brutality, where the theological knowledge and insight of the judge was largely non-existent. The use of torture was actually forbidden.

The abuses that occurred in the infamous tribunals do not really merit the name – the 'Spanish Inquisition' was instituted by the monarchy because the inquisition per se relied too much on established legal practice and was not getting the results wanted.

There is a commonplace assumption that 'the inquisition' was altogether a hideous thing, happening in an otherwise wonderful world. Such is not the case, and far from the actuality. As long as the broader picture is ignored, abuses will be over-played, benefits will be ignored.
 
The way I see it, relying on 'unless the Bible says so' is is lazy.

I would argue the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25).

I corrected my error, but you haven't addressed the point. According to the Bible, executing offends, and be self-harming left, right and centre, because the Bible says so.

+++

As I have said, and shown, Jews, Christians and Muslims adhere to Scripture and Tradition, the two proceed hand-in-hand. Scripture holds the prior place, but then the Scripture was produced by the Tradition, so it can become quite an involved discussion.

I mean, the Hebrew Scriptures are just that – Scripture, but they are the product of the Tradition. Likewise, there was Christian Tradition before Paul or the earliest scribe sat down to write.

One could argue that only Islam is a Tradition where the Scripture came first – but they too observe the role of Tradition in the development of doctrine.
"Tradition" is a moving target though. My favorite...ask 6 Rabbis and get 7 answers.

In practice...we get traditions based on traditions based on traditions, certainly in Christianity. Once again, it comes back to politics.

Judaism is unique in that after the diaspora, they have always been subject to greater authority (until 1948). Whether under Islam or Orthodox Christianity, Judaism had to toe the line somewhat depending who they had to answer to politically.

Christianity hasn't really had that problem. I suppose one could point to a few minor exceptions, but overall since Justinian Christianity has been the overlord, not the subjugated. I don't agree Scriptures are the product of Tradition. I can understand you saying that, but it disregards the salient point that Christians already had Scripture...even before Paul. Jesus taught from the Old Testament - Scripture.

From where I sit, I see a LOT of Tradition that doesn't have sound basis (by my understanding, which tends to be simplistic and unadorned, "cut to the heart of the matter") in Scripture. Some have tenuous connections that I can understand why someone might believe the argument, but some like Indulgences have no basis in Scripture whatsoever.

🧐
 
Last edited:
The use of torture was actually forbidden.
Torture was a common practice at the time.

Torture was in fact allowed in Catholic church trials -- after every other resort had been tried and it was allowed for no more than 15 minutes, was allowed only once, and could not cause loss of life or limb. It was not permitted for certain groups -- including pregnant women, mentally handicapped and the aged. It was performed by a secular agent, not by a churchman, and was done before witnesses, while questions and answers and methods were officially recorded.

The records of all the inquisition trials are available for study at the various libraries involved, including the Vatican libraries.

Was it a good thing to do to someone? Of course not. It was a disgraceful thing to do. But to repeat: it was common practice at the time by secular authorities, with none of the conditions ruled on by the church. In the context of the time, it was far better to be tried by the Catholic church, than by the secular authorities.

But none of this will make any difference to those unwilling even to consider the true facts ...
 
Last edited:
"Tradition" is a moving target though. My favorite...ask 6 Rabbis and get 7 answers.
There's some distinction between that and the traditional commentaries.

In practice...we get traditions based on traditions based on traditions, certainly in Christianity. Once again, it comes back to politics.
Christianity isn founded on Jewish tradition, sure. As for politics, there are instances of political interference being rebuffed or ignored, but I'm not sure if you accept that, though.

but overall since Justinian Christianity has been the overlord, not the subjugated.
But the Christianity Justinian defended was not his, so I don't see why he gets to put his name to it.

Whist he certainly had an impact on church life, in matters of theology he failed. He inherited Chalcedonian Orthodoxy (which I think makes more sense than Justinian Christianity) and the monophystie dispute. He sought to resolve that and failed. He sought to unite the empire, and failed, the theological disputes that were there before his accession continued after him.

It seems he might have shifted to the monophysite position before his death ... but if he did, he had no time in which to enact his 'defection'.

+++

I know we'll never see eye-to-eye on this, but I think sometimes balance is required as if you look round the web, it becomes clear large numbers are happy to believe Constantine invented Christianity, wrote the creed, ordered the canon of the New Testament ... etc.

I don't agree Scriptures are the product of Tradition.
Well the Jewish Tradition preserved and sifted pre-existing Jewish and perhaps even encompassed non-Jewish sources?

The Pentateuch was written well after the times it covered, so I would argue the Tradition preserved that knowledge until it was codified.

I can understand you saying that, but it disregards the salient point that Christians already had Scripture...even before Paul. Jesus taught from the Old Testament - Scripture.
Indeed, but by 50AD the Christian liturgy had enshrined writings which we infer from Paul, so in that sense the hymns of Colossians and Philippians, for example, were most likely authored very early, founded on oral tradition, and preserved in Paul's writings.

From where I sit, I see a LOT of Tradition that doesn't have sound basis (by my understanding, which tends to be simplistic and unadorned) in Scripture.
🧐
OK, but that's an opinion. As for indulgences, I tend to see it as universal – it's there in Judaism, in Islam, in Buddhism ...
 
Most heretics repented and were given some sort of penance. The Church did not execute unrepentant heretics. The church excommunicated them and handed them back to the secular authority, knowing they would be executed but washing its hands of them. This shows that heresy was a secular offence at the time. It was considered damaging to the whole of a society that centred around the church and various holy days and observances. Today, when the church is peripheral to most lives we don't understand how central it was in earlier times.
 
Most heretics repented and were given some sort of penance. The Church did not execute unrepentant heretics. The church excommunicated them and handed them back to the secular authority, knowing they would be executed but washing its hands of them. This shows that heresy was a secular offence at the time. It was considered damaging to the whole of a society that centred around the church and various holy days and observances. Today, when the church is peripheral to most lives we don't understand how central it was in earlier times.
And it was matters like these that set the American Founding Fathers to institute separation of Church and State, which was a novel idea at the time. Until then, Church and State were joined at the hip, and had been throughout recorded history.
 
There's some distinction between that and the traditional commentaries.
Only in form, not function
Christianity isn founded on Jewish tradition, sure. As for politics, there are instances of political interference being rebuffed or ignored, but I'm not sure if you accept that, though.
Is, or is not? Sorry, it's a bit unclear. Political interference being rebuffed does not refute how religion and politics are entwined

iu

Coronation of Charlemagne by Pope Leo III
But the Christianity Justinian defended was not his, so I don't see why he gets to put his name to it.
???

Let's try this: but overall since Justinian, Christianity has been the overlord, not the subjugated.
It seems he might have shifted to the monophysite position before his death ... but if he did, he had no time in which to enact his 'defection'.
I wasn't referencing Justinian's effect on the Church or any change of affiliation, I was referencing his tendency to support the Church with his military...a very political thing to do.
I know we'll never see eye-to-eye on this, but I think sometimes balance is required as if you look round the web, it becomes clear large numbers are happy to believe Constantine invented Christianity, wrote the creed, ordered the canon of the New Testament ... etc.
And I've conceded this to you LONG ago, but that does not negate the underlying fact. So yes, balance is required because it also is not one-sided in favor of "only" the Church, because without political support the Constantine era Church would have likely fractured into a lot more "denominations" than we have even today after the Protestant Reformation. The only way something like excommunication even has any teeth is if political power is brought to bear...otherwise it is a toothless tiger.
Well the Jewish Tradition preserved and sifted pre-existing Jewish and perhaps even encompassed non-Jewish sources?
Perhaps, but is this not grasping for straws? We are focused on Christianity, and the comment that drew yours was focused on Jesus' teachings
Indeed, but by 50AD the Christian liturgy had enshrined writings which we infer from Paul, so in that sense the hymns of Colossians and Philippians, for example, were most likely authored very early, founded on oral tradition, and preserved in Paul's writings.
So prior to the razing of the Temple?

If the Gospels were written no earlier than 20 odd years after the fact, yes, it was committing oral tradition to writing...I get what you're saying. That does not negate that the Old Testament formed the basis for all of the teaching that went on back then. If the oral traditions had not lined up with the Old Testament Scriptures, the New Testament (particularly the Gospels) would not have been committed to writing, and certainly not used as a foundation of a new religion.
OK, but that's an opinion. As for indulgences, I tend to see it as universal – it's there in Judaism, in Islam, in Buddhism ...
Agreed, just as you have your opinion. My opinion is formed by my personal reading of the Scriptures, yours perhaps less so and more influenced by later commentators. As for indulgences...I don't understand how you can draw that conclusion, but then there is much in Catholic Tradition that never made sense to me *Scripturally.* Culturally a lot is beginning to make sense, especially in combination with Politics, but not Scripturally.

comme ci, comme ça
 
Last edited:
Only in form, not function
Yeah, but I think it's worth clarifying. An opinion is not quite a tradition!

Political interference being rebuffed does not refute how religion and politics are entwined
Agreed. As ever, clarifying for other readers that although they are intertwined, they both have their jurisdictions, as it were. Emperors did not dictate doctrine. Emperors championed doctrines, for sure ... and changed their minds from time to time ...

Let's try this: but overall since Justinian, Christianity has been the overlord, not the subjugated.
Yeah, I can go with that.

I wasn't referencing Justinian's effect on the Church or any change of affiliation, I was referencing his tendency to support the Church with his military...a very political thing to do.
Oh, sure. Like Constantine, hoping to use the church to unify the empire, or at least to preserve a unified church against fragmentation – in that aspects emperors failed.

... "only" the Church, because without political support the Constantine era Church would have likely fractured into a lot more "denominations" than we have even today after the Protestant Reformation.
Well, we can only speculate

The only way something like excommunication even has any teeth is if political power is brought to bear...
Not if you believe excommunication actually means something.

But I agree, at the level we're talking, West v East, it's more to do with politics.

Perhaps, but is this not grasping for straws?
No, it's context?

So prior to the razing of the Temple?
The hymns, probably, if not certainly.

If the Gospels were written no earlier than 20 odd years after the fact, yes, it was committing oral tradition to writing...I get what you're saying.
Exactly. Luke near enough says so. Matthew we're pretty sure. Mark might be from Peter, might not. John might be the disciple.

That does not negate that the Old Testament formed the basis for all of the teaching that went on back then.
Well there were those original to Christ and unique to Christianity, else there wouldn't be Christianity ... ?

Christology was there very early – the Christology of the hymns are profound, they stand on their own terms, supported by the Hebrew Scriptures, sure, but then the reference to the Scriptures is always in support of the Message and Mission of Christ.

If the oral traditions had not lined up with the Old Testament Scriptures, the New Testament (particularly the Gospels) would not have been committed to writing, and certainly not used as a foundation of a new religion.
Well that depends how one lines it up. John 6 lines up with the OT, but still incensed quite a few people ...

but then there is much in Catholic Tradition that never made sense to me *Scripturally.*
OK. I suppose coming to the Tradition I went to greater lengths to understand it ...
 
Well there were those original to Christ and unique to Christianity, else there wouldn't be Christianity ... ?

Christology was there very early – the Christology of the hymns are profound, they stand on their own terms, supported by the Hebrew Scriptures, sure, but then the reference to the Scriptures is always in support of the Message and Mission of Christ.
I don't think we are all that far apart...nice to see you coming around to the impact of politics... ;)

I don't really want to pick apart point by point, we both know by now that what is, simply is.

But I'm really not sure I agree with this above. Bear in mind, Paul was duly trained as a Pharisee, I personally think he was essentially a Rabbi without the title, though perhaps that could be challenged on a number of points, but in practice that is how it seems to me.

So while testimony (what may or may not at this point become oral tradition) would have comprised a portion of any teaching, demonstrating Jesus as Messiah and any moral teachings would have to be grounded in the Jewish Scriptures...for a variety of reasons, no less the availability of the Septuagint in Greek for a Greek speaking audience. I don't think testimony comprised the greater part of Paul's teachings, and what testimony there was focused on Jesus fulfilling the role of Messiah. Add in that Paul never knew Jesus "in the flesh," so he had no intimate knowledge of Jesus' ministry, therefor would not have any anecdotal stories to tell (or certainly not from an experiential perspective).

I don't know when Luke wrote Paul's travels, but I seem to recall it was after Paul was put to death. I can see how, maybe, Luke wanted to write it all down so Paul's exploits would not be forgotten. I don't know that he had any intention on two thousand years, he was probably aiming for a generation or maybe two. Paul's letters tended to be personally "aimed" or "tailored" for specific congregations...not that the lessons aren't transferable, but that each had its own issues it was dealing with and specific instructions needed.
 
Last edited:
Paul's letters tended to be personally "aimed" or "tailored" for specific congregations...not that the lessons aren't transferable, but that each had its own issues it was dealing with and specific instructions needed.
17 For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, and he will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, just as I teach everywhere in every church.

New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), 1 Co 4:17.

His letters deal with church problems, but the message of Christ remains the same.
 
Back
Top