Trail of Blood

RSR and others...

Part of the problem with learning about the distant spiritual past may be application of reason to a spiritual path.

Jim (I think) and I (and maybe others) prefer the terms "weave of the fabric", "aroma," and "shadows" -- particularly in the absence of documents, records, and such.

And I have learned enough about history and life to know better than to put 100% validity in orthodox or formal histories prepared by -- who else -- but orthodox and formal groups and conventions.

The writing of history does not guarantee what went on -- there has been much written in and much written out.

The writing of spiritual history -- particularly the writing of small groups of people huddled in highlands and mountains to preserve something of a spiritual path -- is difficult to do.

All this is offered with humility and respect to others.

...Bob

 

I agree. Good post.

David

 

Re: supposed "gross lies" in Trail of Blood:

The Trail of Blood introduction quotes Cardinal Hosius, president of the Council of Trent:

Dr. Bob, the reason you could not find a "writting" entitled "Apud Opera" is because you fail to understand that Apud is a bibliographic citation word like Ibid, not part of a title.

I did find stikingly similar words in an English translation of Hosius published in 1565:

So much for the "nowhere to be found" charge.

Well, lo and behold, Dr. Bob, look what I read on the title page of the other English translation of Hosius published in the 1500s:

So much for the "it's a gross lie that Hosius was president at Trent" charge too.

 

I concur with Bobinky.

Cheers,

Jim

 

absolutely!..

 

I've taken Latin and apud means "with in". In a sense it can be a citation yet attempting to cite the work seems a very poor attempt since it lacks a more full title. I tried finding the quote as well and the closet work to "Apud Opera" is "Opera Omnia" to which the entire text of the title is read

All of Hosius letters in this work are in the section

There are 12 letters in this work that list the term Anabaptist and non of them match the quote found in the pamphlet. Note Nowhere does Hosius refer to the reformers as reformers but breaks them down by their varing relations thus he calls them "Lutherani”, “Calvinisti”, “Zuingliani” and "Haeretici". Also note when speaking regarding Anabaptist he seems to list a group into the same catagory because of their re-baptizing practices not because they have the same beliefs note he says.

which is to say

So its not proof of a singlular group of independent churches but a collage of different denominational types very different from the baptist of today. look at his list.

Which he included by the simple practice very differing systems of beliefs than have no relation other than "again baptizing" So of course in this group the donatist were added except unlike baptist it was for apostate christians who succumb to their fear and "sold out" christ. Also note Hosius also said

or

so its clear he is not tracing the same group back to augustine. And in the end we must conclude that Hosius never made that comment.

 

Thinkingstuff and others...

At some point, I will open a new thread and focus my discussion on pre-600 A.D. Wales and Scotland. So this discussion on the quote (or no quote) of Cardinal Hosius and the Council of Trent really does not interest me. My interests are 1000 years prior to the quote and the council under discussion.

. . .

However, it appears that this quote (or no quote) does interest others participating in the discussion.

Please allow me to make the following comment.

I caution everyone in the use of logic toward posting conclusions about historical matters. The absence of a record (or records) does not prove or disprove anything with certainty except the absence of the record (to date). The person may have said or written this or that, however, the record of what the person actually said has not been discovered, was not recorded accurately, or was destroyed or changed in the course of events.

As in conducting an audit trail of some business activity, the absence of records in the audit trail says nothing more than the absence of records--the human behavior surrounding such records (or absence of records) is the realm of speculation, and not conclusion.

Therefore, I favor the use of observations rather than conclusions. Such observations can take many forms, and should be tested (as we are doing in this current discussion). Conclusions, like speculations, are best left to the reader.

As historians, our aim should be to publish observations.

If we feel we must do some kind of wrap-up of our observations, then I suggest we use the convention of summary rather than conclusion.

I offer the above out of respect for the flow of information in this thread, and with all respect to those participating in the discussion.

...Bob

 

Just a note about your comment. It works both ways. However, I am interested in your research of the Welsh.

 

Thank you. I think the research and publishing of observations, and the important questioning and testing of those observations, is a sound approach. But please do not hold your breath waiting for my observations. It may take quite some time. :type:

...Bob

 

Thinkingstuff was unable to locate the quote in one collection of Hosius's Works (btw many collections were published).

I was able to locate essentially the same quote in an English translation of Hosius published in 1565:

compare that to the Trail of Blood intro quoting Hosius:

 

First giving the pamphlet the benefit of the doubt I looked for the text it cited for that quote. It does not exist. Then I thought well if cited imporperly a text similar to that title which is Opera Omnia the shorter title to what I listed. Which displays 122 letters writen by Hosius. Of which only 12 mention anabaptist. Non of the quotes are what was recorded in the pamphlet. Therefore it must be from another text yet I found the very quote you make from this source document. Theognis. "Sufferings of the Dutch Baptists in the Sixteenth Century." The Baptist Magazine. Vol. 18. London: Wightman and Cramp, 1826. p. 278. which does not list the document it got it from. So then I searched the documents claimed to be the source of the quote. The closest we can come to this quote is

Which translated is

Which means that the Pamphlet not only got the document wrong, the quote wrong, but the context as well. Note Hosius did combine all groups that differed greately theologically into one catagory if they baptized again. So in Augustines day Donatist would have been catagorized as again baptizers but there was no singular denomination as such.
So, the pamphlet is flawed and the author of it probably took it from someone else sermon who had misquoted it to begin with and given a faulty referrence. Or another theory is that Carrol used multiple catholic sources taken phrases out of context engineered this quote and incorrectly referrenced the whole thing back to Cardnal Hosius who was a papal legate. Either way its a fabrication.

 

Brother those Blues & Greens are difficult to read on my screen...FYI

 

Trail of Blood Hosius quote:

1565 English translation of Hosius:

I really don't understand this continued insistence that it is a fabrication.
Here is the bibliographic listing for the 1565 book.

 

One little problem with the supposed Hosius quote is that no Catholic Bishop would make a statement suggesting that the Catholic Church started in 300 AD as is suggested by saying the past 1,200 years at the time of the mid 1500's

Catholics date the church to the time of Christ.

The Hosius quote appears to be false on it's face.

 

You didn't read my post very well this is the quote from the letter you refer. The latin translation I get is

Which author you quote is having old english translation as

and the Pamphlet says

However, the letter that is here quoted is not Apud Opera nor is it Opera Omnia referrence is false. The quote does not go

Because first of all Cardnal Hosious would not refer to the reformers as reformers. Fabrication. Grievioiusly tormented and cut off with the knife is not used in the contect of the 1200 years but from a different section. Note though you shown a letter he wrote you do not place in it the referrence or the context of the passage but are reliant on another quotation of it.
So in comparison my quote

compared to Richard Schacklock

are similar and are only similar to this part of the pamphlet

Note in your quotation

indicates more passages or another selection all together outside this material. Certainly put together is out of context. Note this text about swarm together in not cut with a knife refers to several again all those reformers to include again baptizers. So the Pamphlet misquoted, used words out of context and referrenced the wrong material. How is that not a fabrication? Note Richard Shacklock was hired by Queen Elizabeth the I to contest heresy which Bunyan was caught up in. Which questions the validity of the quote to begin with. So it can be seen even this attempt was a misquote probably heard from some one elses sermon.

 

He didn't say nor suggest that.
He was referring to the 1200 years that the Catholic Church had controlled the the sword of the state (since Constantine).

 

Anyone been to Mars Hill lately?

Do we need a re-assessment of source documents regarding Church History? I just read a curious comment which says we need to stick to "True Church History which comes from orthodox sources". If I quoted this out of context, please forgive me. That was my interpretation of what I read. Men/women make mistakes--especially in religious matters. We live in a world of Narcissists-- at every level powered by the god of this world--through the religions of the world. They are on every branch of my family tree.

Following the trail of The Lord's Assembly is easy if one separates the history in the Word of God and the secular history which is found in the hallowed halls of "orthodox" religion. "Orthodox" needs some more definition perhaps.

One major paradigm: all the writings of man, regardless of how holy, are subject to the errors of man's depravity. The Bible was not written by man--God breathed it, the original autographs, to the authors who were moved to prophesy the Truth without error--kind of like the ten commandments--in tablets.

Mt. 16:18; 28:20; Eph.3:21, along with many others, are historical--they outline the trail of The Assembly; the Book of Acts describes Her; The Book of Revelation draws it all together. This is all history--some yet to be fulfilled.

The fulfillment of these scriptures is written all over the pages of secular history(including The Holy See Encyclopedia and Wikipedia); in spite of a concerted effort to burn the records at various places in the past 2,000 years. Jesus promised to never leave nor forsake His Bride(assembly). She is without spot or blemish. She has been in every generation. Where is She today? Jesus is faithful--even when we are not. Why do we seem so befuddled in the identification of His Bride? She is waiting for Him--His betrothed.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Actually, Trail of Blood is an excellant book, and is a great documentation that there has in fact been evangelical style christianity...outside of the exceedingly error ridden Catholic Church and Othodox false groups...from the beginning of Gods one "Church" 2000 years ago.

The only probem I have is with my fellow Baptists who insert the name "Baptist" in there rather than the better option of "Evangelical"

 

Inserting the name Baptist

Baptist is a word filled with ambiguity. So is Evangelical. Christian is in there too. These are complicated words that need more definition--scriptural that is.

There are dozens of groups called Baptist. True Baptists are not of the Protestant Reformation. This is probably why some Baptists have a problem with the Tof B. Bro. Carroll points out that True Baptists did not come from Rome nor Wittenburg nor Canterbury.(Nauvoo too!!)

Does anyone want to go to Fort Worth, Tx. and look at Carroll's history library? Will they let us in the library at the seminary?

Selah,

Bro. James