Due to Catholicism's false doctrine, moral declension and use the sword of men, it not only became as the gates of Hell for vast multitudes using the name of Christ, but it also served to provide Islam with converts and to justify itself. In contrast, it is the vibrant faith of evangelicals that Islam and Catholicism sees as their greatest faith opponent.
Shoebat's modus operandi is to employ misrepresentations and specious arguments while ignoring that evangelicals are the most conservative, pro-Israel, anti-Islam Christian group in the West (as if one could be a Christian otherwise). Yet Shoebat's target is evangelicals, and resorts to invoking liberal Protestants in attacking them for things Catholicism herself examples, while he offers no documentation for his imbalanced view of history.
Of
course, Shoebat himself is a speaker for hire against Islam, who
claims to be a Palestinian Liberation Organization terrorist who
firebombed an Israeli bank, and whom even the BBC, Fox News and CNN
at one time presented as a "terrorist turned peacemaker," yet a
subsequent CNN investigative effort found no evidence to support his
claims of PLO affiliations or being an "ex-terrorist."
His cousin, interviewed in the report, stated that he had never known Shoebat to have ties to any movement, and that his claims of being a former terrorist were "for his own personal reasons". According to CNN, their reporters in the United States, Israel and the Palestinian territories found no evidence to support Shoebat's claims and "neither Shoebat nor his business partner provided any proof of Shoebat's involvement in terrorism."
His cousin, interviewed in the report, stated that he had never known Shoebat to have ties to any movement, and that his claims of being a former terrorist were "for his own personal reasons". According to CNN, their reporters in the United States, Israel and the Palestinian territories found no evidence to support Shoebat's claims and "neither Shoebat nor his business partner provided any proof of Shoebat's involvement in terrorism."
A
2008 Jerusalem Post article raised questions regarding the
authenticity of Shoebat's account, and reported that Bank Leumi had
no record of an attack on its Bethlehem branch between 1977 and 1979.
In addition, Shoebat's uncle also denied that such an attack took
place. Such an incident was also not reported by Israeli news outlets
according to Omar Sacirbey's 2010 Washington Post article.
The
Jerusalem Post article also reported a contradiction in Shoebat's
response to the question whether word of the bombing made the news at
the time. He replied, "I don't know. I didn't read the papers
because I was in hiding for the next three days." However,
according the same article, he had told Britain's Sunday Telegraph in
2004 that "I was terribly relieved when I heard on the news
later that evening that no one had been hurt or killed by my bomb."
During his telephone interview, Shoebat was unable to recall the date
or time of year of the attack. He told the Sunday Telegraph in 2004
that he was pressured by teachers to adopt an extreme Islamic
philosophy. His uncle, who still lives in Beit Sahour, said religion
did not play a major role in Walid's education, which he described as
ideologically mild, and that there was no attack on Bank Leumi.
A two-week term in an
Israeli jail, another of Shoebat's claims, was also unsubstantiated,
with Israel having no record he was ever jailed. Regarding CNN's
inability to confirm his jail time, Shoebat wrote, “he was
searching the wrong name.” The Jerusalem Post also stated that
Shoebat has profited from his story that he was formerly a Muslim
terrorist who has rejected Islam for Christianity. When the Post
asked Shoebat whether the Walid Shoebat Foundation is a registered
charity, he said that it was registered in Pennsylvania. The
Pennsylvania Attorney General's Charitable Trusts and Organizations
Section said it had no record of such a charity. When asked again,
Shoebat claimed it was registered under a different name, but that he
was not aware of the Foundation's registered name, nor any other
details, which were known only to his manager.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walid_Shoebat)
Thus
while Shoebat's own claims about himself may be true, they seem to be
basically based simply on his word. These are not the days of a
socially close and conscionable society (and with limited travel) in
which a person's personal truth claims are easily verified by those
who knew the person, but one in which fraud and misrepresentation can
easily more often be the case, Ergun Caner (who likewise claimed to
be a radical Muslim convert) being a clear example, and it is also an
age in which multitudes believe unsubstantiated claims.
It is mandated in Scripture that “in “the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” (Mt. 18:16; 2Cor. 13:1) Thus the apostles and others gave witness of the words and deeds of the Lord Jesus, and Luke carefully complies his record from eyewitnesses, “That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.” (Luke 1:4)
It is mandated in Scripture that “in “the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” (Mt. 18:16; 2Cor. 13:1) Thus the apostles and others gave witness of the words and deeds of the Lord Jesus, and Luke carefully complies his record from eyewitnesses, “That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.” (Luke 1:4)
While
Shoebat has helped the case against Islam, his adulation of
Catholicism and railing accusations against evangelicals, along with
his own unsubstantiated claims, makes him akin to passionate Muslims who also
engage in such in attacking true Christians.
Below
is the text of Shoebat's railing accusations, with my response within
[italicized
brackets].
Them ‘Damned’ Catholics
By By
Walid Shoebat, Shoebat
Foundation on June 12, 2013 in General (http://shoebat.com/2013/06/12/them-damned-catholics)
Throughout
the Church’s history, it has warred with Islam. Yet, it has nothing
to offer us today. This is the typical answer I get when I discuss
Christian history with many Evangelicals. They tell me that beyond
the Bible, there is nothing else we need
[this
is an absurd straw man, likely due to reading Roman Catholic
propaganda: Sola Scriptura (SS) means Scripture alone is the
sufficient and supreme authority for faith and morals as the wholly
inspired word of God, but its sufficiency is not wholly formal (so
that a soul can read Acts 10:36-43 for instance and understand how to
be saved), but its sufficiency is significantly material, providing
for such things as reason, teachers, etc. to aid in understanding,
even recognition of a canon. If SS meant only the Bible can be used,
than evangelicalism would not abound with study helps.]
So
next time you have a fire in the house, read the Bible, don’t
forget to pray while you forget dialing 911 and enjoy the smoke and
fire billowing inside the house.
[As
Shoebat's premise is false, so is his conclusion. Such
misapprehension or misconstruance of SS casts doubt on either his
education or honesty and credibility. Or both.]
I
find it difficult to even ask questions: What was Christian history
like, that withstood Islam’s evil and defeated it in Europe? Why
and how did Christendom lose Egypt and Asia Minor to Islam?
[Because
Islam fed off the dead carcass of Romanized institutionalized
religion. As detailed at the supplementary
section, the NT church underwent a progressive deformation, which,
while not so extensive or comprehensive that souls could not find
Christ amidst the accrued error and institutionalization, and present
a form of Godliness and the visible church, but while it fought
heresies it also perpetuated errors of tradition and to effectively
elevate it and the teachings of the church magisterium above
Scripture as the supreme authority, while (therefore) increasingly
becoming like the empire it began in. Which helped to provide
justification for the Islamic premise of reform, as well as its use
of the sword of men.]
And
what are we doing in our days to emulate or not emulate from that
history?
[Seek
to preach and practice NT evangelical Christianity, in critical
contrast
to the Catholic revision.]
The
one million dollar question that no one can answer – although I
will get many remarks from people damning me as a heretic – is
this: Why did God choose Catholics to stop Islam in its tracks in all
the major battles intended to destroy Christendom? Anyone who has the
answer, please step forward.
[Because
God can accomplish His means however it pleases Him consistent with
His word. Thus God could preserve Truth and faith through a nation
that at times went after idols and under leaders who killed prophets
sent to them, and which largely would reject the Messiah sent to
them. But the fatal error of the RC apologetic that Shoebat seems
deceived by is that which imagines that being a historical instrument
of God means that they must be followed in all its official
judgments, and that its supremacy cannot be annulled. But as God
often raised up “prophets, and wise men,” and scribes (Mt. 23:34)
from without the magisterium to reprove it and preserve faith, thus
the church began following such, even if itinerant preachers whom the
magisterium rejected. And thus after much longsuffering the Lord
raised up men to preserve faith and the body of Christ, and correct
Rome in her arrogance, whom she characteristically went about to
kill.
Moreover,
since Rome chose to live by the sword, becoming a theocracy waging
“war after the flesh,” (2Cor. 10:3) contrary to the NT church,
then multitudes of her subjects died by the sword in religious holy
wars, while killing multitude others due to mere theological dissent.
Wars
against Islam by the civil government in defense of its country, or
delivering a besieged people, and based on Biblical morality are not
wrong, but such are not holy wars engaged in by the church raising
armies, marching under the cross and giving “indulgences” for
killing lost souls. And to gain territory that was lost as a judgment
against the institutionalized form of Christianity it had become.]
What
do most spirit-filled evangelicals know about the Battle of Lepanto,
Battle of Tours, The Battle of Vienna, and The Battle of Malta?
[They
should know that Catholicism was not that of spirit-filled
evangelicals.]
Had
the ‘damned’ Catholics not fought the Battle of Tours, all of
Europe would have been Muslim today, like in Asia Minor. It would
have been the end of Christianity, as we know it. Today, Turkey
(Byzantium) is 99% Muslim and looks very likely to produce the
Antichrist while Evangelicals still think that Antichrist and the
Harlot is the Roman Catholic Church.
[Rather,
had not Christianity become as Rome knows it, Christianity would not
be so widely replaced by Islam, and God would raise up legitimate
powers to defeat Islam. Meanwhile Shoebat ignores the sordid history
of Rome, especially at the time of the Reformation and centuries
before it (see at end),
that supplied warrant for speculation that she was the Anti-Christ
(alter-Christus), and even today Rome is an alter-Christus. Shoebat
is wearing roman-colored glasses given to him by RC propagandists.]
Why
is it so rare to find holy spirit-filled evangelicals that speak of
such history, except paint it as Crusader, dark, warring and
bloodthirsty? [If the shoe fits...] What difference then is
there between the die-hard liberal and the spirit-filled evangelical?
Both criticize this history. Even further, like many evangelicals
and liberals, the Muslims also condemn this history.
[Fallacious logic. Similarities in some things does not equality make. The shared condemnation here is due to differing reasons.] So why do we echo their interpretation as we damn the Catholic? [Because Rome is an aberrant church which used the sword of men to fight her battles, even against Bible believers, not just Islam.]
[Fallacious logic. Similarities in some things does not equality make. The shared condemnation here is due to differing reasons.] So why do we echo their interpretation as we damn the Catholic? [Because Rome is an aberrant church which used the sword of men to fight her battles, even against Bible believers, not just Islam.]
Why?
Is it because of them ‘damned’ Catholics who defended Christendom
and saved the Protestants from utter annihilation? Could it be
perhaps the Catholics did something right, like fight them damned
Muslims and thwart them from annihilating Christendom?
[Rather, Catholicism herself would have gladly allowed Islam to annihilate Protestantism, which she herself sought to do, if politically pragmatic, while damning souls due to her largely lifeless aberrant form and gospel, which theologically was largely doing to the church what Islam physically did.]
[Rather, Catholicism herself would have gladly allowed Islam to annihilate Protestantism, which she herself sought to do, if politically pragmatic, while damning souls due to her largely lifeless aberrant form and gospel, which theologically was largely doing to the church what Islam physically did.]
In
all these battles there were no Protestants coming to help save
Europe and Protestant states refrained from helping or even lifting a
finger. They were too busy doing Bible studies on how them ‘damned’
Catholics were the Antichrist.
[Amazing,
since the the Battle of Tours was in October 732, and the Battle of
Malta took place in 1283, both before the Reformation, in which
Catholics also fought against Protestants, it hardly seems reasonable
to expect the few Protestant countries would or could fight with
Catholic counties in the sea Battle of Lepanto in 1571 or the Battle
of Vienna in 1683. The Thirty Years' War itself was between
1618–1648.
And
history, which Shoebat thinks evangelicals must ignore, teaches that
the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire was known for his tolerance of the
Christian and Jewish faiths within his dominions, whereas the King of
Spain did not tolerate the Protestant faith. Various religious
refugees, such as the Huguenots, some Anglicans, Quakers, Anabaptists
or even Jesuits or Capuchins were able to find refuge at Istanbul and
in the Ottoman Empire.
Overall,
the military activism of the Ottoman Empire on the southern European
front probably was the reason why Lutheranism was able to survive in
spite of the opposition of Charles V and reach recognition at the
Peace of Augsburg in September 1555 —
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism_and_Islam#Mutual_tolerance
The
idolatry of increasingly institutionalized Romanized religion helped to justify the claims of Islam early on. Such things as kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, and as having Divine powers and
glory, and making offerings and beseeching such for Heavenly help,
directly accessed by mental prayer, could hardly be explained as
“hyper dulia” in Bible times or in the time of Muhammad. In the light of such, it seems understandable that at one point apparently Muhammad thought
the Trinity consisted of God, Jesus and Mary: Surah 5:116 and 6:101
and 5:72-7).
Such things, and the use of the sword of men by Catholicism, worked to blaspheme the name of
Christ among the heathen.
Meanwhile,
Protestants gained some respect, and strategic reliances of sorts
against a common carnal foe. Just as Pope Callixtus III, 1455
asserted, “I vow to…extirpate the diabolical sect of the
reprobate and faithless Mahomet [Islam] in the East,”104, so Rome
sought to do to Protestantism. Whenever man presumes supremacy over
Scripture,as both Islam and Catholicism does, both the souls and the
bodies of men are in danger, as they have both exampled (and early
Protestants had such to unlearn). Shoebat is silent about the
Inquisitions and Catholic hindrance of literacy in Scripture, and is
ignorant or in denial of how great a foe Rome was to Christianity in
need of the Reformation, imperfect as it was.
Moreover,
as an objective source states, “military victories like that
[the Battle of Lepanto] remained rare. The Muslim threat was
neutralized economically. As Europe grew in wealth and power, the
once awesome and sophisticated Turks began to seem backward and
pathetic—no longer worth a Crusade. The "Sick Man of Europe"
limped along until the 20th century, when he finally expired, leaving
behind the present mess of the modern Middle East.” —
http://www.thearma.org/essays/Crusades.htm
And
which prosperity is much the result of Protestantism, while a country
founded by Protestants enabled multitudes of Catholics and others
like Shoebat to dwell in safety due to the outworking and maturity
of its decidedly Protestant ethos, while Catholicism in power
punishes those without her and compels submission.]
Perhaps
I need to exercise the typical American habit before speaking about
such matters and prequalify my statements. I am not saying that all
Protestants are evil, heavens no. Yet, every time I say the word
“Catholic” and the whole church jumps up and down pin-pointing
the leaven of the Catholics without even looking into the piles of
dung worth of heretical books produced by so-called evangelicals.
[So
his argument seems to rely on defining “evangelical” to include
Joel Osteen or Paul Crouch as the norm, while Rome counts and
treats Ted Kennedy RCs as members in life and in death, and being
ignorant of the fact that the modern evangelical movement began as a
reaction against denial of core Truths, being synonymous with
fundamentalism which Rome denounces, and against such liberal
revisionism as RC scholarship teaches in its own NAB notes.]
Is
the rich Catholic history such an evil subject that the Bible warned
us not to touch and even beat down on the Catholic wars with Islam?
[His
hatred of Islam prevents him from seeing that Rome, which likewise
subjects the Bible to herself, can do as Islam did, and has to
varying degrees. And while he warred against Islam after the flesh,
she likewise used the sword of men against theological dissidents,
including conscientious Christians.]
Even
during Nazism, there were many more of these ‘damned’ Catholics
that chose to die in Hitler’s ovens than there were evangelicals
and Protestants put together.
[Another
specious argument, since there were far more Catholics in conquered
countries like Poland than evangelicals and Protestants (percentage
would be a valid comparison), while it was men of evangelical
conscience who reluctantly sought to slay Hitler.]
Are
these Catholics damned to hell despite making a choice to enter
Hitler’s furnace?
[He has only a bare assertion that these multitudes choose to be killed in Hitler’s furnace, rather than being unwilling participants in Hitlers racial extermination plan, which called for all Poles to be killed as well as Jews.]
[He has only a bare assertion that these multitudes choose to be killed in Hitler’s furnace, rather than being unwilling participants in Hitlers racial extermination plan, which called for all Poles to be killed as well as Jews.]
Which
of the two is more pleasing to God, the sodomite loving pastor or the
Jew loving Catholic who died in the infernos of Hitler’s
crematoria?
[More
specious argumentation, that of another “false dilemma.”
Sodomite-loving pastors do not represent the evangelicals Shoebat
attacks, nor even the Protestant pastors at that time, while the
unmentioned viable alternative is to be more like men of the
Confessing church in Germany which resisted Hitler. Rome has a
history to persecuting Jews, as do Protestants, while evangelicals
are Israel's strongest religious ally, while Vatican much supports
the Palestinians.]
So
who will answer my questions? Will it be some unlearned, half-cocked,
spikey-haired, tattooed, nose-pierced, ear ringed, mocking, useless,
teenage brained heretic from The
Free Grace Movement who will instantly obtain from his own
authority to anathematize and excommunicate me since such homosexual
sodomite sinners must be welcomed into the fold as Christians without
repentance? Will such mutants be the future soldiers who will outdo
the Knights of Saint John and fight to thwart the forces of darkness
and the devil? What will they use to fight, the earrings of their
noses and the spikes of their stupid looking hair? Or perhaps these
are the very sons of the devil?
[More
specious argumentation using false representations. It is not the
The Free Grace Movement that attacks Catholics, but evangelicals whom
Rome and liberal count as their greatest threat, while being more
strongly opposed to Islam and and contending for Israel than
Catholics.]
Must
I denounce the Pope as a heretic while I remain silent on America’s
pastor, this self-appointed son-of-the-devil-pope named Rick Warren
who signs a treaty with Islam saying we “worship the same God”?
Dare I say anything on that fattened whore who pussyfoots with
homosexuality while he condemns the Crusaders in that very treaty?
[More
sophistry: Again, it is not men like Warren or more liberal
Protestants who attack Catholicism, but evangelicals who make up the
most conservative religious group in America, outside of cults.]
Perhaps
these things can aid in answering my question, which I’ve asked
more than once and no one seems to have answered [like a thief who
cannot find a police station]: During my two-decade walk in my
Holy Spirit filled evangelical faith; Jesus said: “I will build my
church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. Well,
in two thousand years, who was this church? Was the church lost from
the time the authors of the New Testament departed until the time the
holy Martin Luther showed up?
[More
ignorance or dishonesty. Just like his strawman of SS that Shoebat
claims evangelicals hold to, so it is hard to believe that in 20
years shoebat has not heart anyone answer this question, which is
simple. Just as salvific faith and the Israel of God was preserved
even though the magisterium of the stewards of Scripture (Mt. 23:2;
Mk. 11:27-33; Rm. 3:2; 9:4) were in salvific error, so enough Truth
was held by an aberrant Rome and Catholicism that contrite souls
could see and find the Lord Jesus despite the trappings of the
institutionalized church, which deformation was progressive (again,
see below). Thus the
church as the body of Christ — which alone is the One True Church
since it alone is made of up only the regenerate — could continue,
while its visible manifestation overall was and in need of
reformation. At no time was the visible church wholly the body and
bride of Christ.]
Hitler
used
Martin Luther’s demonic writ, On
The Jews and Their Lies, to help him rid Europe of six million
Jews.
[Shoebat
ignores the more extensive record of the popes against the Jews, but
Shoebat, having rejected one false faith that exalts itself above
Scripture, defends another.
In The
Popes Against the Jews : The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern
Anti-Semitism, historian David
Kertzer notes,
“the
legislation enacted in the 1930s by the Nazis in their Nuremberg Laws
and by the Italian Fascists with their racial laws—which stripped
the Jews of their rights as citizens—was modeled on measures that
the [Roman Catholic] Church itself had enforced for as long as it was
in a position to do so” (9).
Evangelicals
answer this dilemma by saying that the true Church was always there
but it was persecuted by them ‘damned’ Catholics. Yet, such
answers are impossible to prove. Perhaps some Jesus-style questions
will help clarify this issue. So which Christian movement was it that
them ‘damned’ Catholics persecuted? Was it the Montanists,
Novationists, Donatists, Docetists, Cathars, Albigensians, Waldenses,
Hussites, and the followers of Wycliff? Were these “The Church”
that Jesus spoke about? Were these the true Bible-believing,
evangelical-type, spirit-filled believers?
[All
these groups were aberrant to varying degrees, at least based on the
info we have, which sometimes is suspect, but as some true Christians
are in Rome, so also in these groups. Note that even the church of
the Laodiceans was still addressed as a church, a proper term Rome
refuses Protestant churches as being unworthy of!]
There
is no historian who will tell you that these movements even fit into
the definition of evangelical “spirit-filled” model. Such
movements, which the Catholics squashed (thank God), were radically
non-Christian, heretical, and gnostic. Only the Waldenses and the
Hussites were somewhat Christian but even these were closer to
Catholicism than they were evangelical.
[But
none of which examples define what a sound NT church is, and
Catholicism is fundamentally contrary to it, as the basis for the
veracity of its claims, including to be the One True Church®, is not
the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but the very premise of her
assured infallibility. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare
she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in
accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based)
formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be
infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. Shoebat
seems to have been brainwashed by the RC propaganda at “Catholic
Answers.” ]
How
would a common Holy Spirit-filled evangelical even know what these
movements are all about? After all, we only need the Bible and the
hell with history, right? To ignore history is to also ignore the
Bible.
[As
Shoebats premise is wrong, that SS means we ignore history, so is his
conclusion. Again.]
Even
Martin Luther and the Protestant movement, which came up with the
Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) that is adhered to by
protestant denominations, in fact, aided the Ottoman Muslims and
provided them with tin to build canons to destroy catholic states
because in their view, the Catholic Church was the Harlot of Babylon
and the Antichrist.
[As
for the expressed above, the most immediate foe Christianity in need
of Reformation was Rome, and Protestantism gained some respect and
established some mutually beneficial trade and strategic alliances
with the Ottomans. And indeed Rome made herself worthy of being seen
as the Harlot of Babylon and the, or a, Antichrist.
As
Scripture states that the wicked are God's sword, (Ps. 17:13) Luther
did see Islam as sent by God in judgment against apostate
Christianity. Yet Martin Luther, in
his 1528 pamphlet, On War against the Turk, calls for the Germans to
resist the Ottoman invasion
of Europe, as the catastrophic Siege of Vienna was lurking... On the
one hand, Luther extensively criticized the principles of Islam; on
the other hand, he also expressed tolerance for the Islamic faith:
"Let the Turk believe and live as he will, just as one lets the
papacy and other false Christians live." —Excerpt from On
war against the Turk, 1529. —
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism_and_Islam#Mutual_tolerance
And
in a sermon on 2 Timothy 1:3, Calvin explained: "The Turks at
this day, can allege and say for themselves: ‘We serve God from our
ancestors!’ … It is a good while ago since Mahomet gave them the
cup of his devilish dreams to drink, and they got drunk with them. It
is about a thousand years since those cursed hellhounds were made
drunk with their follies … Let us be wise and discreet! … For
otherwise, we shall be like the Turks and Heathen!" (Sermons on
Timothy and Titus – John Calvin).
So important was this WCF that it was an essential doctrine of the faith and was non-negotiable. If the Trinity was essential, so was this belief regarding Catholics. Despite Islam’s overt denial of the Trinity, it was never even mentioned in the WCF while the Catholics who prevented the annihilation of Christendom, took precedence over Islam when it came to that document, despite Islam being the religion of Antichrist.
[Shoebat relies on one specious argument after another. The Westminster Confession of Faith was actually drawn up in 1646, 100 years after Luther died, and its focus is on Christian doctrine in contrast to Rome, and thus Hinduism etc. is not mentioned either. Likewise Islam is also not mentioned in Trent, which is far more extensive! Yet the 1643 Westminster Assembly’s "Larger Catechism" calls on Christians to “pray for the propagation of the gospel and kingdom of Christ to all nations; for the conversion of the Jews, the fulness of the Gentiles, the fall of Antichrist, and the hastening of the second coming of our Lord; for the deliverance of the distressed churches abroad from the tyranny of the antichristian faction, and from the cruel oppressions and blasphemies of the Turk.” (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_standards/index.html)
[Shoebat relies on one specious argument after another. The Westminster Confession of Faith was actually drawn up in 1646, 100 years after Luther died, and its focus is on Christian doctrine in contrast to Rome, and thus Hinduism etc. is not mentioned either. Likewise Islam is also not mentioned in Trent, which is far more extensive! Yet the 1643 Westminster Assembly’s "Larger Catechism" calls on Christians to “pray for the propagation of the gospel and kingdom of Christ to all nations; for the conversion of the Jews, the fulness of the Gentiles, the fall of Antichrist, and the hastening of the second coming of our Lord; for the deliverance of the distressed churches abroad from the tyranny of the antichristian faction, and from the cruel oppressions and blasphemies of the Turk.” (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_standards/index.html)
Meanwhile,
it was Catholicism that was much engaged in the progressive
annihilation of Christendom through its doctrinal and moral
deformation. Besides her foundational premise for assurance of Truth
being contrary to how the church began, and teaching man is justified
in conversion by his own holiness through baptism, and thus usually
enters Heaven by gaining the same (through purgatory), and the many
other things
that set her in contrast to the NT church, the Catholic historian
Paul Johnson described the existing social situation among the clergy
at the time of the Reformation,:
“Probably
as many as half the men in orders
had ‘wives’ and families. Behind all the New Learning and the
theological debates, clerical celibacy was, in its own way, the
biggest single issue at the Reformation. It was a great social
problem and, other factors being equal, it tended to tip the balance
in favour of reform. As a rule, the only hope for a child of a priest
was to go into the Church himself, thus unwillingly or with no great
enthusiasm, taking vows which he might subsequently regret: the evil
tended to perpetuate itself.” (History of Christianity, pgs
269-270) More below]
Even
Martin Luther himself came around on this issue to confess after
reading the writing of the Catholic Riccaldo Di Montecroce in his
wonderful work, Refutation
of The Quran. As a result, Luther changed his views and even
according to him Islam was the system of Antichrist, yet the WCF
never even included it.
[The
work of Montecroce was translated into German by Martin Luther in
1542 (4 years before his death) while Luther wrote in 1530, that “in
our days, the hordes of the Turk, the pope, and others are great and
powerful causes of offense,” and “How completely the Turk holds
our Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom for a mere nothing, compared
with himself and his Mohammed!” “The Turk...names the true God in
His worship..Nevertheless, it is all sheer idolatry.” “So, in our
days, the hordes of the Turk, the pope, and others are great and
powerful causes of offence.”
(http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/NEW1luther_f8.htm_
And
in his Table Talks (informal teachings related by a student or
students), “Antichrist is the pope and the Turk together; a beast
full of life must have a body and soul; the spirit or soul of
antichrist is the pope, his flesh or body the Turk.” “ As to the
forms of religion under the pope and Turk, there is no difference but
in a few ceremonies; the Turk observes the Mosaical, the pope the
Christian ceremonies - both sophisticate and falsify them; for as the
Turk corrupts the Mosaic bathings and washings, so the pope corrupts
the sacrament of baptism and of the Lord’s supper. “
(http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_standards/index.html)
Yet
Shoebat again demands the WCF includes Islam, but not Trent, which
testifies to his desperation in trying to attack Protestantism and
defend Catholicism which is more foundationally akin to Islam, with
the pope effectively exalting himself above Scripture as Muhammad
did, and revealing “truths” not found in Scripture, and amorphous
oral “tradition” taking the place of Muhammad's visions.]
And
lest I get into grace versus works theology… One thing is certain;
Jesus gave the example about the good worker and the gung-ho
church-goers of His day when He chose the Samaritan over the Pharisee
who walked by the persecuted beaten naked man and did nothing,
claiming he was doing the Lord’s business. If we take that example,
the Samaritan in that time would be viewed as the way we view a
Catholic; ‘he was all screwed up and got it all wrong’. The
Samaritan didn’t even follow Sola Scriptura and his canon of
Scripture was missing many books. He even believed such madness that
the Temple was on mount Gerizim and not Jerusalem. Yet, Jesus honored
the Samaritan over the Pharisee who got both the Bible and Temple
correct – but helped not, the persecuted.
[As
if Catholics manifested more commitment to both the gospel and
helping the poor, apart from such government supported works as
Catholic Charities, than evangelicals, which they do not. Yet
believing that one is formally justified by his own holiness, via
baptism, and that his good works merit him eternal life, sends one to
eternal punishment, thus Rome has tragically become as the gates of
Hell for her multitudes!]
When
Jesus comes, He will throw in hell many ‘damned’ Catholics and
them ‘damned’ Evangelicals for not helping persecuted un-damned
Jews, un-damned Catholics and un-damned Evangelicals and other
un-damned others (Matthew 25).
[After
20 years Shoebat's ignorance or blatant misrepresentation of
evangelicalism while trumpeting Catholicism is inexcusable. The
former of such were hunted by Rome in the past and in modern times
they have been the most pro-Israel and anti-Islamic major Christian
group in America, if not universally.
Even among irregular attenders, 48 percent favored Israel over the
Arabs, compared to only 28 and 31 percent of their mainline and white
Catholic counterparts. Both mainline Protestant and Roman Catholic
churches are seen to have adopted institutional stances that are
often much more pro-Arab than those held by Jews and evangelicals.
(http://www2.furman.edu/academics/politicalscience/meet-our-faculty/Documents/Guth-Papers/New%20Orleans%20Paper.pdf)
Pope Benedict even XVI called for the establishment of an independent
Palestinian homeland in the land God gave to Israel, and revoked the
excommunication of an ultraconservative bishop who denied the
Holocaust.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/archive/Pope-Arrives-in-Israel.html]
Today,
neither Catholic nor Protestant is doing much to save Christians
slaughtered in Muslim countries. Name me the organization that
rescues Christians today? There are NONE.
[Here
Shoebat resorts to “moving the goalposts” by restricting
“helping” to physically rescuing believers from persecution. Yet
Barnabas Fund for one, delivered more than 5,000 Christians from
Sudan by August 23, 2013, two months after Shoebat wrote this, and
aimed to fly another 3,400 soon after. (CBN.com, August 23, 2013)
Rescuechristians.org, which uses some material from Shoebat, also
engages in delivering the persecuted.]
We
try and our supporters are predominately Armenian, Copts and
Assyrians. Where is America’s pastor? Where are the American
Evangelicals and Catholics? Perhaps I should follow the Copt,
Assyrian or even Armenian and dump this modernized homosexual-loving,
Americanized version of Christianity.
[While
Americans give only about 3% of their money to charity, but once
again Shoebat resorts to the use of a irrational comparison and false
dilemma, that of presenting only 2 possible conclusions when there
are more. Being an evangelical is to not be part of the
modernized homosexual-loving, Americanized version of Christianity,
in which Catholics are overall more
liberal than even the general public, in far contrast to
evangelicals, which (2004) also gave four times as much money, per
person, to churches as did all other church donors, while Catholics
were the lowest at giving (see link above).
In
addition, it is safe to say that it is evangelicals who are the most
supportive of the persecuted church, and of Israel.]
While
we accuse these ancient churches of holding to deuterocanonical books
like The Wisdom of Solomon, which Evangelicals reject, in less than
fifty words, sums up the entire purpose of the Incarnation of the Son
of God and why God became man:
“While all things were in quiet silence, and the night was in the midst of her swift course, Thine almighty Word leaped out of Heaven out of Thy royal throne, as a fierce man of war, into the midst of a land of destruction.” (Wisdom of Solomon, 18:14-15)
[If
any apocryphal book could be considered Scripture it would be Wisdom,
with its apparent Messianic prophecy (2:10-20) similar to what is
written in Is 52:13-53:12 and Ps 22:8. However, it claims to be
written by Solomon but the consensus is that it was not, but that was
written around the 2nd
to 1st
century B.C. or even later.]
Who is this “Thine almighty Word”? Who was “The Word”? When will He leap from out of Heaven and out of “Thy Royal throne”? When will He be this “man of war”? Is this not a prophecy about Christ coming to battle in the end of days? Who is He battling with? The Catholics, who preserved the Bible – including The Wisdom of Solomon?
Who is this “Thine almighty Word”? Who was “The Word”? When will He leap from out of Heaven and out of “Thy Royal throne”? When will He be this “man of war”? Is this not a prophecy about Christ coming to battle in the end of days? Who is He battling with? The Catholics, who preserved the Bible – including The Wisdom of Solomon?
[Who
is He battling with? The Catholics? Indirectly, as they hindered
literacy in Scripture, requiring ecclesiastical permission for
laymen to read it or publish it and overall keeping it out of the
common tongue, and in some places at times outlawing laymen to read
it.
They
also presumed to add to Scripture books which remain obscure, that
were the subject of debate down through the centuries and right
into Trent.
Meanwhile
the stewardship=infallible authority argument Shoebat must be
appealing to would require the NT church to submit to the Jews,
“because that unto them were committed the oracles of God, “Who
are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and
the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and
the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the
flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.”
(Romans 3:2; 9:4-5)]
Has
wisdom departed from earth that no man can point it out?
[Another
example of Shoebat's perverse reasoning. Rejecting a book called
“Wisdom of Solomon” because it was not by him does not mean
wisdom has departed from earth, nor that Catholicism is to be looked
to as Wisdom.]
Isn’t
the Holy Spirit leading me to re-discover such prophecies struck out
of the American evangelical Bibles?
[Along
with many others who claim so? These were struck out of Bibles as
Scripture proper long before Protestants did so, while not excluding
them from being read, as Rome effectively did of the Bible for
multitudes. ]
Is
Polycarp who was the student of John unnecessary for study?
[Not
really, as a student is not greater than his master, not necessarily
teaching everything as he was taught, and this pious student was not
an inspired writer of Scripture, which is what is determinative of
doctrine. And from the relative little of the writings available of
those Catholicism calls “church “fathers” (they were not
fathers of the NT church) progressively deviated from Scripture.
John
says nothing about Peter being an infallible exalted leader to whom
all the church looked to as its supreme head in Rome, nor baptismal
regeneration as per Catholicism, the Immaculate conception and her
assumption, or perpetual Marian virginity, praying
to departed saints, or NT pastors
titled "priests.” And even the Eastern Orthodox reject
papal infallibility, the Immaculate conception and
other things.
In
addition, the central idea that the Lord's supper is that of
literally consuming Christ to gain spiritual and eternal life is
contrary
to what Scripture in its totality teaches, in which literally
physically consuming anything never gives spiritual and eternal life,
while only the figurative sense is what is consistent with
Scripture.]
Was
Irenaeus his student so unimportant?
[He
is unimportant as far as being determinative of doctrine, for as he
himself stated, "They gather their views from other sources
than the Scriptures," referring to heretics, and upholds that
"proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures
cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves."
(http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103312.htm) And that, "..the
entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly,
unambiguously, although all do not believe them."
And,
“Nor does she [the church] perform anything by means of angelic
invocations, or by incantations, or by any other wicked curious art;
but, directing her prayers to the Lord, who made all things, in a
pure, sincere, and straightforward spirit, and calling upon the name
of our Lord Jesus Christ..(Against Heresies, 2:32:5, 4:18:60)
And
he (and Tertullian) omit Christmas from their lists of feasts,
while yet succumbing to erroneous traditions and interpretations as
that of the Eucharistic endo-cannibalism, even that the “Eucharist
is the flesh of our Savior.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans) and
exaltation of Mary “above that which is written,” (1Cor. 4:6) and
much relied on the historical succession=veracity-of-tradition
fallacy with its emphasis upon claims apostolic succession.
Regarding
the latter, as John F. O'Grady, priest of the Diocese of Albany New
York and professor of biblical theology at Barry University in Miami,
and author of seventeen books, states, “The
study of the New Testament demonstrates that the apostles, in fact,
had no successors, nor did the twelve...The earliest fathers of the
Church cited to support these views, Clement of Rome, Ignatius and
Irenaeus, do not offer undisputed evidence and therefore their
arguments cannot be used without some reservation.” pp. 119
,125
”
More
on this at the end.]
Was
the Coptic Church that was founded by Saint Mark of the Bible
unimportant? Was it not Christ who built that Church in Egypt? Even
when the Portuguese first entered India they found native Christians
who, to their surprise, declared their apostolic succession to St.
Thomas.
[Shoebat
here is resorting to the typical premise that historical descent
establishes authenticity, but the church actually began in dissent
from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the
historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of
promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11;
Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34) “Think
not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I
say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children
unto Abraham.” (Matthew 3:9)
And
instead 1st century souls followed a holy man in the
desert who ate insects who was not popular with the authorities, and
itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium also rejected, and whom the
Messiah reproved by Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and
established His own Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in
word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this
basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33;
5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)]
For
the fact is that it is abundantly
evidenced that Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard
for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the
wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
And
which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being
recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their
unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus
they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for
reason, the church, etc.)
When
I first became Christian, I entered an Evangelical Church that taught
me that in Daniel chapter II, the two legs were the Eastern and
Western churches (Orthodox and Catholic) and that these were the
spirit of Antichrist. Yet, I never believed them because I examined
the Word of God and discovered that Bible prophecies were speaking of
Islam. Was I not following the Bible or were these Evangelicals
misinterpreting the Bible? It was the Evangelicals who also
misinterpreted many things in the Bible.
[So
saith Shoebat, while following the Bible as supreme is contrary to
Catholicism, and which does not officially teach Shoebat's conclusion
(primary RC commentaries seem to see the two legs as Ptolemies in
Egypt and the Seleucids in Syria). Meanwhile, the standard
evangelical view seems to be that the iron legs were the Roman Empire
and the feet of iron and clay represent the new revitalized Roman
empire that is to come. But it is argued that at its height the
Roman Empire did not contain all the areas of the three previous
empires, while the borders of all Islamic Caliphates (empires) when
put together cover all the of regions occupied by the previous three
kingdoms. —
http://therightscoop.com/why-the-iron-legs-on-the-statue-in-daniel-2-cannot-be-the-roman-empire/
In
addition, Jonathan Edwards, the first President of Princeton
University, wrote in his "A History of the Work of Redemption."
"The two great works of the devil which he … wrought against
the Kingdom of Christ are … his Anti-Christian (Romish or Papal)
and Mahometan (Muslim or Islamic) kingdoms … which have been, and
still are, two kingdoms of great extent and strength. Both together
swallow … up the Ancient Roman Empire; the (Papal) kingdom of
Antichrist swallowing up the Western Empire, and Satan’s Mahometan
kingdom the Eastern Empire … In the Book of Revelation (chapters 16
– 20) … it is in the destruction of these that the glorious
victory of Christ at the introduction of the glorious times of the
Church, will mainly consist…"
But
in any case, as is typical of Shoebat, he invokes one negative
example of an evangelical or Protestant church as characterizing the
whole, in order to present an either-or choice in which
evangelicalism must be rejected, while the fact is that his sole
alternative choice, ultimately Catholicism, or his own enlightened
eschatology, is not the only choice or the right one.
Catholicism
itself is weak on the very thing Shoebat makes an issue, eschatology,
and rejects the 1,000 year reign of the Lord Jesus as literal.]
I
reject all doctrines that differ with the Bible but for centuries,
Holy Protestants have pointed to several Popes as Antichrist, which
have all turned out to be false. Is this not unholy slander? Did
Jesus not warn about such damned slanderers?
[Again,
if the shoe fits, wear it. What entity since the Roman Empire fit the
description of the anti-Christ more than popes such as commanded
civil authorities to torture suspected “heretics” and even
possible witnesses to them, and for Catholic rules to exterminate the
heretics — which was a profitable enterprise as the state got a
portion of the property to be confiscated from convicted heretics,
and if they did not comply then the pope would declare the ruler’s
people absolved from their allegiance to him so an obedient
Catholic ruler would replace him.
Sounds
more like Islam than the the evangelicals he rails against.]
We
trumpet: “my people perish for the lack of knowledge” when we,
the ones who trumpet such verses are perishing. There is a difference
between knowing
the Bible and doing
the Bible.
But
there is also a difference between emotionally loving Jesus and doing
what Jesus says. We preach something. Yet, we follow the opposite; we
continue in lacking knowledge.
As a
result, we see things from a certain prism we think is holy and is
not.
[It
is true that the church today come far short in apostolic purity,
power, probity and passion, for which we need repentance and revival.
Yet it is abundantly substantiated that evangelicals are yet the
most conservative and committed Christian group, and even now in
declension are more
unified in core beliefs than those Rome counts and treats as
members in life and in death. And the same shared contention for
core Truths the resulted in the modern evangelical movement also
brings them to oppose the inventions of Rome as well as Islam, and
far more than Catholics, at least in the West.
And
thus by attacking evangelicals and exalting Catholicism, which both
distorts New Testament Christianity and provides more converts to
others, Shoebat is actually aiding the very foreign enemy his
ministry contends against! To favor Rome over evangelicals is to send
more souls on the broad road of destruction which Islam travels on.]
Being
presided over by a pope whom the whole church looked to as its supreme
infallible head in Rome, and was being taught that he was the "rock"
of Mt. 16:18.
Or
that even had a successor for the martyred apostle James (Acts
12:1,2) being chosen like Matthias was and after that manner (Acts 1,
in order to keep the original number of apostles).
With
a separate sacerdotal class of believers titled "priests
," as they uniquely changed
bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the masses to receive
life in them and eternal life (RCs keep quoting Jn. 6:53,54 to us).
With
a hierarchical order of priests, bishops, Cardinals, etc., with
ostentatious religious dress and titles, including "Most
Reverend."
That
required (with rare exceptions) clerical celibacy, which presumes all
such have that gift.
With
incognizant (usually) souls being formally justified by interior
holiness via sprinkling of water in recognition of proxy faith, and
(usually) ending up becoming good enough to enter Heaven in
purgatory.
With
a separate class of believers called “saints,
That
was praying to the departed, or angels, and before images.
With
apostles teaching Mary was born and kept sinless.
That
conformed to this world in using papal sanctioned
physical oppression torture, burning and death to deal with
theological dissent.
Or
that, having lost that power, treats even notorious manifestly
impenitent public sinners as members in life and in death, in
contrast to the NT means of disfellowship and spiritual discipline.
Whose
members overall would come
in near last in things such as evangelism, commitment, and
personal Bible reading, the latter which it hindered for a long time,
and later sanctions teaching millions such things as that OT
miraculous stories are fables or folktales, etc.
That
teaches that the deity Muslims worship (not as unknown) is the same
as theirs.
That
boasts of unity while discouraging objectively searching the
Scriptures in order to ascertain the veracity of RC doctrine.
More
can be said, but while i do not see any body of apostles today, esp
in Catholicism, with the degree of power, purity, piety and
performance like that of the early church, and that could effectually
function as a universal magisterium, (which Rome is not even a form
of), and although the church overall is in negative contrast with the
early church, yet among churches that hold Scripture as supreme as
the wholly inspired and basically literal word of God i see,
men
ordained according to the Biblical requirements, (1Tim. 3:1-7)
with
with simple titles of pastor as elders/bishops, that being one
office, (Titus 1:5-7)
and
clothed with humility as well the clothes of common men, (Mt.
23:5-12)
and
taking part in the communal Lord's supper as the memorial that it is,
showing the Lord's death till He comes, (1Cor.
11 ) and praying
not to the departed or images,
and
preaching the
gospel of repentant faith in the Lord Jesus to save contrite
damned + destitute sinners on His expense and credit, (Eph. 2:8,9)
that being counted for righteousness, (Rm. 3 - 4:7ff)
which
heart faith confesses the Lord Jesus, (Rm. 10:9,10) justifying them
as souls having saving faith, (Heb. 6:9,10).
and
thus baptizing them as believers who can fulfill the stated
requirements of repentance and wholehearted faith, (Acts 2:38;
8:36,37)
and
thus overall on the practical level they foster the most
unified and committed group of born again believers in core
Christian truths,
realizing
a basic unity of the Spirit as a result of a common personal
conversion of heart faith in Christ, and resultant Scripture-based
relationship with Him, which transcends external tribalism,
thus
being treated by both Rome and liberals alike as their greatest
threat to their rule.
But
who, as predicted in the latter days, have been and increasingly are
a remnant. To God be the glory.
We
can see the deformation from the NT church in substance early on,
progressively taking on things which were not seen in the NT and in
contrast to it. Even if such was done with seemingly right motive,
but as with the Jewish magisterium, progressively thinking of itself
above that which is written. (1Cor. 4:6)
Catholic
Paul Johnson, author of over 40 books and a conservative popular
historian, writes,
..the
Church, operating on the principle of collective commonsense, was a
haven for a very wide spectrum of opinion. In the West, diversity was
disappearing fast; in the East, orthodoxy was becoming the largest
single tradition by the early decades of the third century. The
Church was now a great and numerous force in the empire, attracting
men of wealth and high education, inevitably, then, there occurred a
change of emphasis from purely practical development in response to
need, to the deliberate thinking out of policy.
This
expressed itself in two ways: the attempt to turn Christianity into a
philosophical and political system, and the development of
controlling devices to prevent this intellectualization of the faith
from destroying it. The twin process began to operate in the early
and middle decades of the third century, with Origen epitomizing the
first element and Cyprian the second. If Paul brought to the first
generation of Christians the useful skills of a trained theologian,
Origen was the first great philosopher to rethink the new religion
from first principles.
He
[Origen] slept on the floor, ate no meat, drank no wine, had only one
coat and no shoes. He almost certainly castrated himself,..
The
effect of Origen’s work was to create a new
science, biblical theology, whereby
every sentence in the scriptures was systematically explored for
hidden [much prone to metaphorical]
meanings, different layers of meanings, allegory and so forth.....
Cyprian
came from a wealthy family with a tradition of public service to the
empire; within two years of his conversion he was made a bishop. He
had to face the practical problems of persecution, survival and
defence against attack. His solution was to gather
together the developing threads of ecclesiastical order and authority
and weave them into a tight system of absolute control...the
confession of faith, even the Bible itself lost their meaning if used
outside the Church.
Without
the office of bishop there could be no Church: and without the
Church, no salvation. The man who
determined who was or was not a member of the Church and therefore
eligible tor salvation was the bishop.
He interpreted the scriptures in the light of the Church’s needs in
any given situation; the only unambiguous instruction they contained
being, to remain faithful to the Church and obey its rules.
With
Cyprian, then, the freedom preached by Paul and based on
the power of Christian truth was removed from the ordinary members of
the Church, it was retained only by the bishops, through whom the
Holy Spirit still worked, who were collectively delegated to
represent the totality of Church members...With Bishop Cyprian, the
analogy with secular government came to seem very close. But of
course it lacked one element: the ‘emperor figure’ or supreme
priest...
[Peter
according to Cyprian was] the beneficiary of the famous ‘rock and
keys’ text in Matthew. There is no
evidence that Rome exploited this text to assert its primacy before
about 250 - and then, interestingly
enough, in conflict with the aggressive episcopalian Cyprian - but
what is clear is that in the second half of the second century, and
no doubt in response to Marcion’s Pauline heresy - the first heresy
Rome itself had experienced - Paul
was eliminated from any connection with the Rome episcopate and the
office was firmly attached to Peter alone...
The
Church survived, and steadily penetrated all ranks of society over a
huge area, by avoiding or absorbing extremes, by compromise, by
developing an urbane temperament and erecting secular-type structures
to preserve its unity and conduct its business. There
was in consequence a loss of spirituality or, as Paul would have put
it, of freedom...
-
A History of
Christianity, by Paul Johnson, pp. 51-61,63.
transcribed using OCR software)
Next,
consider the election of Pope Damasus 1, who is officially a Roman
Catholic Church "saint."
On
Pope Liberius's death September 24 A.D. 366, violent disorders broke
out over the choice of a successor. A group who had remained
consistently loyal to Liberius immediately elected his deacon Ursinus
in the Julian basilica and had him consecrated Bishop, but the rival
faction of Felix's adherence elected Damasus, who did not hesitate to
consolidate his claim by hiring a gang of thugs, storming the Julian
Basilica in carrying out a three-day massacre of the Ursinians.
On
Sunday, October 1 his partisans seized the Lateran Basilica, and he
was there consecrated. He then sought the help of the city prefect
(the first occasion of a Pope in enlisting the civil power against
his adversaries), and he promptly expelled Ursinus and his followers
from Rome. Mob violence continued until October 26, when Damasus's
men attacked the Liberian Basilica, where the Ursinians had sought
refuge; the pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus reports that they
left 137 dead on the field. Damasus was now secure on his throne; but
the bishops of Italy were shocked by the reports they received, and
his moral authority was weakened for several years....
Damasus
was indefatigable in promoting the Roman primacy, frequently
referring to Rome as 'the apostolic see' and ruling that the test of
a creed's orthodoxy was its endorsement by the Pope.... This [false
claim to] succession gave him a unique [presumptuous claim to]
judicial power to bind and loose, and the assurance of this infused
all his rulings on church discipline....
In
378, he persuaded the government to recognize the holy see as a court
of first instance and also of appeal for the Western episcopate... In
tune with his ideas, Theodosius 1 (379-95) declared (February 27,
380) Christianity the state religion in that form from which the
Romans had once [imagined they] received from St. Peter.. , This
[false claim to] succession gave him a unique [presumptuous claim to]
judicial power to bind and loose, and the assurance of this infused
all his rulings on church discipline. -Kelly, J. N.
D. (1989). The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. USA: Oxford University
Press. pp. 32,34;
http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Dictionary-Popes-J-Kelly/dp/0192139649/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid=#reader_0192139649
Self-consciously,
the popes
began to model their actions and their style as Christian leaders on
the procedures of the Roman state”. -
Eamon Duffy ( (FBA, FSA, Pontifical Historical Commission, Professor
of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge, and
former President of Magdalene College), notes (“Saints and
Sinners”, ©2001 edition)
Since
the mid third century there had been a growing assimilation of
Christian and secular culture. It is already in evidence long before
Constantine with the art of the Christian burial sites round the
city, the catacombs. With the imperial adoption of Christianity, this
process accelerated. In Damasus’ Rome, wealthy Christians gave each
other gifts in which Christian symbols went alongside images of
Venus, nereids and sea-monsters, and representations of pagan-style
wedding-processions. -
Eamon
Duffy , author of "10 Popes Who Shook the World," etc.
A
secular work notes,
In
380 Christianity became the imperial state religion, a recognition
granted it by the Emperor Theodosius. By the fifth century the secure
position Christianity had achieved tended to supplement and increase
imperial authority, as emperors, now resident in Constantinople, were
supported by an increasingly institutionalized and powerful
Christianity.
In
the fourth century, as emperors became Christian, the bureaucracy
served as both a support and a model for Christianity. The Christian
emperors were no less divinely sanctioned theocrats then their pre-
Christian predecessors, such as Diocletian (r. 284-305), but their
sanction came from the Christian God. After 380, emperors ruled as
"vicars of God" with religious authority equal to that of
the Apostles. Caesaropapism, the absolute control of all aspects of
society - religious as well as social, economic, and political -
characterized the "Second Rome" for a millennium.”
In the Balance: Themes in World History (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1998),
cp. 5, “Religion and State: Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam.”
Regarding
the claims of Rome for her perpetuated Petrine papacy,
Catholic
theologian and Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his
work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines
possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries,
and concludes from that study that “the
episcopate [development of bishops] is a the fruit of a post New
Testament development,” and cannot concur with those
(interacting with Jones) who see little reason to doubt the notion
that there was a single bishop in Rome through the middle of the
second century:
Hence I
stand with the majority of scholars who agree that one does not find
evidence in the New Testament to support the theory that the apostles
or their coworkers left [just] one person as “bishop” in charge
of each local church...
As the reader will recall, I have expressed agreement with the consensus of scholars that available evidence indicates that the church of Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century...
Hence I cannot agree with Jones's judgment that there seems little reason to doubt the presence of a bishop in Rome already in the first century.
“...the evidence both from the New Testament and from such writings as I Clement, the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians and The Shepherd of Hennas favors the view that initially the presbyters in each church, as a college, possessed all the powers needed for effective ministry. This would mean that the apostles handed on what was transmissible of their mandate as an undifferentiated whole, in which the powers that would eventually be seen as episcopal were not yet distinguished from the rest. Hence, the development of the episcopate would have meant the differentiation of ministerial powers that had previously existed in an undifferentiated state and the consequent reservation to the bishop of certain of the powers previously held collegially by the presbyters. — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221,22,24Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4 :
“New Testament scholars agree..., The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative.
That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.”
“....that does not mean that the figure and the commission of the Peter of the New Testament did not encompass the possibility, if it is projected into a Church enduring for centuries and concerned in some way to to secure its ties to its apostolic origins and to Jesus himself.
If we ask in addition whether the primitive church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer.” (page 1-2)
[Schatz goes on to express that he does not doubt Peter was martyred in Rome, and that Christians in the 2nd century were convinced that Vatican Hill had something to do with Peter's grave.]
"Nevertheless, concrete claims of a primacy over the whole church cannot be inferred from this conviction. If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (page 3, top)
[Lacking such support for the modern concept of the primacy of the church of Rome with its papal jurisdiction, Schatz concludes that, “Therefore we must set aside from the outset any question such as 'was there a primacy in our sense of the word at that time?” Schatz therefore goes on to seek support for that as a development.]
“We probably cannot say for certain that there was a bishop of Rome [in 95 AD]. It is likely that the Roman church was governed by a group of presbyters from whom there very quickly emerged a presider or ‘first among equals’ whose name was remembered and who was subsequently described as ‘bishop’ after the mid-second century.” (Schatz 4).
Schatiz additionally states,
Cyprian regarded every bishop as the successor of Peter, holder of the keys to the kingdom of heaven and possessor of the power to bind and loose. For him, Peter embodied the original unity of the Church and the episcopal office, but in principle these were also present in every bishop. For Cyprian, responsibility for the whole Church and the solidarity of all bishops could also, if necessary, be turned against Rome." — Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], p. 20)
Roman Catholic scholar William La Due (taught canon law at St. Francis Seminary and the Catholic University of America) on Cyprian:
....those who see in The Unity of the Catholic Church, in the light of his entire episcopal life, an articulation of the Roman primacy - as we have come to know it, or even as it has evolved especially from the latter fourth century on - are reading a meaning into Cyprian which is not there." — The Chair of Saint Peter: A History of the Papacy [Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999], p. 39
American
Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar Raymond Brown
(twice appointed to Pontifical Biblical Commission):
“The claims of various sees to descend from particular members of the Twelve are highly dubious. It is interesting that the most serious of these is the claim of the bishops of Rome to descend from Peter, the one member of the Twelve who was almost a missionary apostle in the Pauline sense – a confirmation of our contention that whatever succession there was from apostleship to episcopate, it was primarily in reference to the Puauline tyupe of apostleship, not that of the Twelve.” (“Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections,” Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, 1970, pg 72.)
Raymond Brown [being criticized here], in “Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections,” could not prove on historical grounds, he said, that Christ instituted the priesthood or episcopacy as such; that those who presided at the Eucharist were really priests; that a separate priesthood began with Christ; that the early Christians looked upon the Eucharist as a sacrifice; that presbyter-bishops are traceable in any way to the Apostles; that Peter in his lifetime would be looked upon as the Bishop of Rome; that bishops were successors of the Apostles, even though Vatican II made the same claim.. (from, "A Wayward Turn in Biblical Theory" by Msr. George A. Kelly can be read on the internet at http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/Jan-Feb00/Article5.html)
“The claims of various sees to descend from particular members of the Twelve are highly dubious. It is interesting that the most serious of these is the claim of the bishops of Rome to descend from Peter, the one member of the Twelve who was almost a missionary apostle in the Pauline sense – a confirmation of our contention that whatever succession there was from apostleship to episcopate, it was primarily in reference to the Puauline tyupe of apostleship, not that of the Twelve.” (“Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections,” Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, 1970, pg 72.)
Raymond Brown [being criticized here], in “Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections,” could not prove on historical grounds, he said, that Christ instituted the priesthood or episcopacy as such; that those who presided at the Eucharist were really priests; that a separate priesthood began with Christ; that the early Christians looked upon the Eucharist as a sacrifice; that presbyter-bishops are traceable in any way to the Apostles; that Peter in his lifetime would be looked upon as the Bishop of Rome; that bishops were successors of the Apostles, even though Vatican II made the same claim.. (from, "A Wayward Turn in Biblical Theory" by Msr. George A. Kelly can be read on the internet at http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/Jan-Feb00/Article5.html)
Moving
along,
The
sixth century found Rome sunk too low by war and pestilence for many
churches to be built; but at this time took place the transformation
of ancient buildings into Christian shrines. Instead of despising the
relics of paganism, the Roman priesthood prudently gathered to
themselves all that could be adopted from the old world. Gregorovius
remarks that the Christian religion had grown up side by side with
the empire, which this new power was ready to replace when the
Emperor withdrew to the East.
The
Bishop of Rome assumed the position of Ponlifex Maximus, priest and
temporal ruler in one, and the workings of this so-called spiritual
kingdom, with bishops as senators, and priests as leaders of the
army, followed on much the same lines as the empire. The analogy was
more complete when monasteries were founded and provinces were won
and governed by the Church. -
Welbore St. Clair Baddeley, Lina Duff Gordon, “Rome and its story”
p. 176
Then
you had those times it seems so many FR RCs seem to long for.
in
the 1180s, the Church began to panic at the spread of heresy, and
thereafter it took the lead from the State, though it maintained the
legal fiction that convicted and unrepentant heretics were merely
'deprived of the protection of the Church', which was (as they termed
it) 'relaxed', the civil power then being free to burn them without
committing mortal sin. Relaxation was accompanied by a formal plea
for mercy; in fact this was meaningless, and the individual civil
officer (sheriffs and so forth) had no choice but to burn, since
otherwise he was denounced as a 'defender of heretics', and plunged
into the perils of the system himself. —
Paul Johnson, History of Christianity, © 1976 Athenium, p. 253
Canons
of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council, 1215:Secular authorities,
whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if
necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to
be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of
the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive
in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the
territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by
the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority,
whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this
decree by oath.
But
if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by
the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical
foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other
bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a
year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he
may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and
may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the
extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and
preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief
ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this
matter and permits freedom of action. -
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp
Finally
we come to the time of the Reformation, which prior history and what
follows provides context for, which while far from perfect for sure,
was necessary and set multitudes of captives free to know the Lord
and greatly expand the kingdom of God thru the centuries, including
thru America, and thus was a blessing for Catholics as well.
And
not that the church has ceased before that, as it still professed the
truths by which faith comes, (Rm. 10:17) but which souls had to see
thru the trapping of institutionalized religion. Yet souls were yet
save in it, as is the case today, with the one true church being the
body of Christ, as was the case in Scripture, not just the church at
Ephesus, and none looked to an infallible pope in Rome as its supreme
exalted head.
But
Rome increasingly ceased to be the viable visible manifestation of
that body, as is the case today, and while not totally apostate, it
overall has become as the gates of Hell for her multitudes, myself
having been one of them, but later born again. Thanks be to God.
Cardinal
Bellarmine: "Some years before the rise of
the Lutheran and Calvinistic heresy, according to the testimony of
those who were then alive, there was almost an entire abandonment of
equity in ecclesiastical judgments; in morals, no discipline; in
sacred literature, no erudition; in divine things, no reverence;
religion was almost extinct. — Concio XXVIII. Opp. Vi. 296- Colon
1617, in “A History of the Articles of Religion,” by Charles
Hardwick, Cp. 1, p. 10,
• Erasmus,
in his new edition of the “Enchiridion,” “What man of real
piety does not perceive with sighs that this is far the most corrupt
of all ages? When did iniquity abound with more licentiousness? When
was charity so cold?” — “The Evolution of the English Bible: A
Historical Sketch of the Successive,” p. 132 by Henry William
Hamilton-Hoare
“Probably
as many as half the men in orders had ‘wives’ and families.
Behind all the New Learning and the theological debates, clerical
celibacy was, in its own way, the biggest single issue at the
Reformation. It was a great social problem and, other factors being
equal, it tended to tip the balance in favour of reform. As a rule,
the only hope for a child of a priest was to go into the Church
himself, thus unwillingly or with no great enthusiasm, taking vows
which he might subsequently regret: the evil tended to perpetuate
itself.” (Johnson, History of Christianity, pgs 269-270)
"For
nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three
obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic
lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last
analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had
right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of
salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective
form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought
outside the institution.
It
is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial
consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict
between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church,
ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but
as the adversary of salvation. — Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of
the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church
of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary
Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196
).
..."one
pope (Gregory XII) had voluntarily abdicated; another (John XXIII)
had been suspended and then deposed, but had submitted in canonical
form; the third claimant (Benedict XIII) was cut off from the body of
the Church, "a pope without a Church, a shepherd without a
flock" (Hergenröther-Kirsch). It had come about that, whichever
of the three claimants of the papacy was the legitimate successor of
Peter, there reigned throughout the Church a universal uncertainty
and an intolerable confusion, so that saints and scholars and upright
souls were to be found in all three obediences. On the principle that
a doubtful pope is no pope, the Apostolic See appeared really vacant,
and under the circumstances could not possibly be otherwise filled
than by the action of a general council." -
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04288a.htm
