"Devotion" to Mary...

i have a better suggestion, why not read the Apostolic Church fathers (before Constantine)...how about Eusebius' "The Church History"? Why not these primary sources...why do people run to biased sources with an agenda?

In XC
-

 

I agree that well published Catholic scholars as are Catholic Historians such as Bokenkotter "are biased" in favor of the RCC.

No question about it.

It is for that reason that I find their reviews and summaries of the RCC to be that much more instructive - whenever they point to the fact that history does not always gush with compliments over the actions of the Church of Rome.

Scholars from Catholic University of Washington, St. Louis Univ, St. Bernard's Seminary and Mount St. Mary's Seminary all collaborated on the book. It is hardly the view of "a Catholic" I met one day, as I am sure all agree.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I'm not here to defend the RCC, but just how many of your RC "quotes" Bob are skewed, taken out of context, or pieced together to further an agenda?

I can take quotes from anyone and paint them in any light I want...the media does it with no problem...

In XC
-

 

As an Orthodox Christian I would agree, the Orthodox and Catholics, don't see eye to eye and even some Orthodox Monks on Mt. Athos, even believe the Pope to be the Anti-Christ. The Orthodox SEE of Constantinople was sacked more than once by the Crusaders sent out from Rome.

So no, the history of the Roman Catholic Church that's post 1054 isn't very pretty.

But still, we have to be careful of these "quotes" and ensure of there integrity...

In XC
-

 

Bokenkotter does not view the Pope as AntiChrist nor the Catholic church as anything but the one true church and all others as false (being the loyal Catholic that he is).

However he freely points to "inconvenient details" such as the fact that before Martin Luther called the Pope "antichrist" the Popes were already calling each other "Antichrhist". (Not a fact that is going to come from one of the church fathers as it turns out).

The 4th century detail of "not pretty" from this post link shown below - is well before 1054 AD - which may account for some objection to this fact by Eastern Orthodox readers of Bokenkotter's book.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1444243&postcount=118

in Christ,

Bob

 

It is a published author. But like I said there is a wide range of Catholics from extremely liberal to very conservative. It depends on who you're speaking with. Plus I haven't read your book so I don't know. But I agree with Agnus Dei about sources and have read Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaus, Sheperd of Hermas, Letter of Barnabas, the fragments of Papias, Didache, Justin Martyr, Hyppolytus, Eusibius, Athenasius, Augustine, Ambrose, I have even read non christians such as Pliny the Younger, and Josephus. I expect these men to know more about their time period than people today. Which I believe are actual history rather than a modern Catholic who has taken a modernistic view. As I said before History is a passion of mine and most sources do indicate Constantine did make some significant changes to the Christian Churches. Yet, he is not responsible for the Papacy, nor is he responsible for the creeds and beliefs of the Catholic Church.

 

Certainly it is very true that the RCC church historians read the ECFs. I am not disputing that. It is also true that the RCC's own historians cover time periods outside the lives of the ECFs.

They obviously do not define doctrine - but they do show the "change over time" as doctrines, traditions and customs crept into the church over century after century of time.

It is just a fact we all live with.

My purpose in pointing to the 'historic fact' of the pagan influx into the church of Rome in the 4th century -- was really just pointing out the already-obvious about the well established fact of history admitted to by both Catholic and non-Catholic historians.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I can live with that in context. There were some pagan symbols adapted by christians at that time etc... but again context.

 

Are you Antiochian Orthodox?

 

Yes, Antiochian Orthodox.

In XC
-

 

And where would that admonition be in the said Scriptures? And whose interpretation of them are we follow? Yours? Pastor Larry's? DHK's?

 

Leaving out the ECF's, the RCC, the Orthodox and even the Anglican, I am sure that on this topic: "Devotion to Mary," that Pastor Larry, Alive in Christ, and myself will have no disagreement on the interpretation of Scripture. So what would be your problem?

 

Fine - you may begin. If you can show them taken out of context - feel free -- have at it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I would agree that there is no shortage of Catholic revisionist histories attempting to "put a nice face" on some of their atrocities of the past.

All that more "instructive" to find a Catholic historian who will freely admit to some flaw in that history.

Just stating the obvious.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Oh, but that's an easy topic for evangelicals to agree on; you might as well pose the question, "is the Catholic Church the One True Church?" and you'll get a uniform 'no' from evos.

But here's a more difficult one for y'all as your 'starter for ten': did Christ die for the elect only or for all?

 

Good point that Calvinism vs Arminian teaching of scripture is a "closer debate" among evangelicals than is the topic "are the RCC teachings on prayers to the dead and mariolotry really all that bad". No question about it.

But should we stop the C vs A debate by suggesting that they talk about "worship of Mary -- is it a good thing"?

Should we stop the "worship of Mary, prayers to the dead -- is that a good thing" discussion by insisting that the group only discuss C vs A?

Surely each topic should have its own place and its own space.

But if you are saying that "by definition" we are not going to get a very compelling defense of any RC doctrine on this board - as long as RC posters are not allowed to participate - I would agree with you.

I know I am not in any way helping to put a "good face" on RC doctrine even when I quote RC sources - because I select the very place where they admit to some defect in their historic practice and evolution of doctrine over time.

I am willing to state my own inconvenient detail in that regard.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I was challenging Alive in Christ's general ie: not limited to Marianism and Mariolatry statement that we should all stick to the Scriptures alone.

 

The title of this thread is "Devotion to Mary." We all agree "that is an easy topic for evangelicals to agree on." Calvinism has nothing to do with it.
In fact any difference on Christ dying for the elect, per se, would not affect even our presentation of the gospel to a lost and dying world. In that we all would agree.

 

But Alive in Christ made a general point, not specific to the title of this thread.